Ranking the Bowlers

[adharcric]

Akram

 

[Perm]

12. Wilfred Rhodes

 

[Dasa]

Wasim Akram.

 

[Johnners]

Mick Le.... oh wait...

Wasim Akram

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, Wasim is fair enough. I think he's fairly equivalent to Alan Davidson, but I can't see Davidson getting the votes yet.

 

[shortpitched713]

Wasim.

 

[oz_fan]

Alan Davidson

 

[Mister Wright]

Akram

 

[Matt79]

Bill O'Reilly

 

[Magrat Garlick]

O'Reilly

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Quote:Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson
The fact is that Wisden has Allan Border at 5 and Ken Barrington at 7 .... with Gavaskar, Greg Chappel and Lara at 8,9, and 10.
If that makes Wisden the most credible source of ranking players then the vote had better be re-started.
In fact I think I'll start a new thread with the Wisden lists instead of distracting away from the voting on this thread.

Originally posted by shortpitched713
Okay, so your opinions are right because Wisden doesn't agree with you?
I don't see what you're trying to get at here.

Originally posted by adharcric
You know, people might actually consider what you're saying if it made any sense.

It's quite simple. I offerered the opinion that most serious cricket circles wouldn't dismiss Lillee as a contender for the top 10 bowlers of all time whilst at the same time picking Imran Khan. Someone then quoted Wisden as having Imran at in their top 10. So I just offered up for debate the fact that the Wisden batting list ranked Border at 5 and Barrington at 7 ahead of genuine greats Gavaskar, Chappell and Lara. Such an order of merit could be seen to cast doubt on the credibility of those choosing the Wisden lists.

 

[Beleg]

Hmm, this is a tough one.


Garner

 

[adharcric]

It's quite simple. I offerered the opinion that most serious cricket circles wouldn't dismiss Lillee as a contender for the top 10 bowlers of all time whilst at the same time picking Imran Khan. Someone then quoted Wisden as having Imran at in their top 10. So I just offered up for debate the fact that the Wisden batting list ranked Border at 5 and Barrington at 7 ahead of genuine greats Gavaskar, Chappell and Lara. Such an order of merit could be seen to cast doubt on the credibility of those choosing the Wisden lists.

Fair enough. Wisden rankings are a joke IMO. Which "serious cricket circles" are you talking about?
Personally, I would put Lillee and Imran both in the top 10 and Lillee just ahead for his reputation.
Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee would definitely come before them.

 

[marc71178]

Why was it necessary? So that Warne could get in earlier?

It gives a far more accurate feeling of where people rank the best of the remaining players.

And bear in mind I actually posted something along those lines before any of the voting took place...

 

[nightprowler10]

Akram

 

[silentstriker]

It gives a far more accurate feeling of where people rank the best of the remaining players.

And bear in mind I actually posted something along those lines before any of the voting took place...

But it rewards a vocal minority doesn't it? Say out of 12 people, 3 want Warne to be #1. The other 9 want Marshall, Ambrose and McGrath to go first and Warne as #4. The 3 people will win out and Warne becomes #2 because the 9 can only vote for one person at a time. Basically, if they could, they would have voted for Ambrose and McGrath too, ahead of Warne.

Unless you are suggesting each player vote for three players at a time or something like that?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, 3 at a time for each position in the list.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, 3 at a time for each position in the list.

That might work, but would Warne have come in any higher?

 

[marc71178]

I don't know who would've come where, but I do know that by including top 3 we get a much better view of people's opinions!

 

[aussie tragic]

Joel Garner