• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

John Woodcock's 100 Greatest Cricketers

capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Coronis said:
I wonder - if we did do an actual say, “CW 100” what would be a good way to go about it. Whether just voting on the 100 cricketers, or how Geoff Armstrong did his book (9 XIs and a 100th man).

Then of course we’d have to determine the criteria. Is it Test + FC, Test + ODI, Test + ODI + T20 or just everything?
Click to expand...
Souds kinda interesting. As we already had batsman/bowler polls recently for Tests, I think all forms of the game works best.
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Debutant
Coronis said:
I wonder - if we did do an actual say, “CW 100” what would be a good way to go about it. Whether just voting on the 100 cricketers, or how Geoff Armstrong did his book (9 XIs and a 100th man).

Then of course we’d have to determine the criteria. Is it Test + FC, Test + ODI, Test + ODI + T20 or just everything?
Click to expand...
That would be great. Maybe everything should be considered while giving test the most importance (and FC for the way older players)
 
P

peterhrt

U19 Vice-Captain
Coronis said:
I wonder - if we did do an actual say, “CW 100” what would be a good way to go about it. Whether just voting on the 100 cricketers, or how Geoff Armstrong did his book (9 XIs and a 100th man).

Then of course we’d have to determine the criteria. Is it Test + FC, Test + ODI, Test + ODI + T20 or just everything?
Click to expand...
Might get more voters by letting each choose their own criteria. No need to introduce all-time teams into it.

Up to the individual to include/exclude/weight white ball, non-Test, old players, secondary skills, etc. Also allow each voter to name as many, or as few, players as they want - up to 100.

Only allow comments on other people's choices from those who have posted their own list.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
sayon basak said:
Should older folks like Alfred Mynn be included ?
Click to expand...
Depends on each individual as what they consider greatness. I consider impact on the game to be a very big factor, as is to be ahead of your peers and definitely don't think how they would perform in "modern times" should get much importance. So yes, I believe definitely, as we are basically judging the history of cricket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top