Maximus0723
State Regular
Can I email top 10? or does it have to be 25?
-
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.
The CW 50 - CricketWeb's view of the top 50 cricketers of all time
- Thread starter The Sean
- Start date
Michaelf7777777
International Debutant
Sent via PM
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Thanks Michael, got it - I replied to you with a clarification.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
For consistency it would be good if you could do 25.
JBMAC
State Captain
Been thinking Sean.....will you apply some type of "weighting" to players who are listed who played prior to say 1939, prior to 1920, prior to 1900, as I feel the majority ofposters here may not consider going back that far in their assessments..the likes of myself, SJS, Days of Grace ,Yourself and maybe archie mac may take these into consideration but younger members tend to be a bit more emotive and dismiss, no pun intended, the earlier years...just a thought
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't really think there's a fair way to do that. You could just as well argue that a weighting should be given to players from Sri Lanka, because hardly any posters are from there and the rest of us might be a little too dismissive of Sri Lankan players.
This is a list of who most people here think are the best 25 players, warts and all. You might disagree with it in the end (I know I will
) but I guess that's the list.
This is a list of who most people here think are the best 25 players, warts and all. You might disagree with it in the end (I know I will
) but I guess that's the list.
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
There's a difference between "best" and "greatest."Been thinking Sean.....will you apply some type of "weighting" to players who are listed who played prior to say 1939, prior to 1920, prior to 1900, as I feel the majority ofposters here may not consider going back that far in their assessments..the likes of myself, SJS, Days of Grace ,Yourself and maybe archie mac may take these into consideration but younger members tend to be a bit more emotive and dismiss, no pun intended, the earlier years...just a thought
If it was CW's 50 "best", then my list would have looked a hell of a lot different.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I'd be interested to see that list as well.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Been thinking Sean.....will you apply some type of "weighting" to players who are listed who played prior to say 1939, prior to 1920, prior to 1900, as I feel the majority ofposters here may not consider going back that far in their assessments..the likes of myself, SJS, Days of Grace ,Yourself and maybe archie mac may take these into consideration but younger members tend to be a bit more emotive and dismiss, no pun intended, the earlier years...just a thought
Have to agree with Uppercut on this one - we have to go with what the votes tell us. But Macca, if it makes you feel any better then you'll be pleased to know that there has been plenty of appreciation for the Golden Oldies from a lot of voters!I don't really think there's a fair way to do that. You could just as well argue that a weighting should be given to players from Sri Lanka, because hardly any posters are from there and the rest of us might be a little too dismissive of Sri Lankan players.
This is a list of who most people here think are the best 25 players, warts and all. You might disagree with it in the end (I know I will
Yeah there is a massive difference and for me means that we can forget about the whole debate about whether or not players from pervious era's would do well in the present day. When assessing who is greater it really is totally Irrelevant
Last edited:
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
I thought Id have a look again at my own list as Id not paid attention to the 'era'of a player when I selected them. To my own suprize not one of my top 5 was born after WWIl and only 3 of my top 10. Though to be honest, there are more modern players on my list towards the late teens and early 20s.Been thinking Sean.....will you apply some type of "weighting" to players who are listed who played prior to say 1939, prior to 1920, prior to 1900, as I feel the majority ofposters here may not consider going back that far in their assessments..the likes of myself, SJS, Days of Grace ,Yourself and maybe archie mac may take these into consideration but younger members tend to be a bit more emotive and dismiss, no pun intended, the earlier years...just a thought
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
Yeah, it could work the other way - a nostalgic sense of 'it was better back then...' If this was on PC, no doubt there would be plenty of modern players on it, but people here are fairly level-headed.
Same with me actually, only 1 of the top 5 and 4 of the top 10 born after WWII.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Funny you should say that because earlier today I was thinking of a similar scenario. My solution was to follow another initiative from the ESPN study - each cricketer gets a bonus point for each time he has been nominated, which rewards consistency of selection. So in your example above Player A only gets one extra point (to finish with 24 points), but Player B gets five (to finish with 27).
The only thing that would change then is the tie-breaker, because using how many times a player has been voted for is no longer applicable as that has already been factored into the overall score. Personally, I'd rather have this updated scoring system and end up with some tied positions if need be.