Top 25 cricketers of Shane Warne's Career - as decided by CW

[SJS]

Thank you guys but there is just a little bit more.

We have rated our selections now we need to rate the selectors

The final 15 read as

1 Lara
2 Murali
3 Tendulkar
4 McGrath
5 Warne
6 Ambrose
7 Wasim
8 Ponting
9 Waugh
10 Donald
10 Dravid
12 Gilchrist
13 Flower
14 Kallis
15 Waqar


I decided to add the ranks of everyone's final 15 (from those who had made a selection of 15 and see who has the lowest total. A perfect score would be 119, the ranks of the above 15 added up. Any deviation would mean addition of points. Here is what I got.

As with the list of cricketers let me start at the bottom. I must comment that all players with a single valid nomination were clubbed together as number 30. All those with a single invalid nomination were clubbed at number 50. (We had a total just above fifty)

Not surprisingly we had at the very bottom the poster whose selection we had rejected as frivolous at best. This poster scored a massive 502. His selection bears repeating. The names are listed in the order of his preference.

1. Knight
2. Donald 10
3. Lara 1
4. Streak
5. Pollock 16
6. Bell
7. Bond
8. Giles
9. Sangakarra 27
10. Hogg
11. Twose
12. Moody
13. Pretorius

The numbers besides four of them give their rank in the final 28 the only one's to do so. Other than Lara and Pollock he did not nominate anyone from the final fifteen. Its revolutionary.

Their were two other posters who were not scratched but didnt do a great job as selectors. Here they are with their final scores.

• Chaminda00 : 281
• Chubb : 265

Here are the next 20 with their final scores. The best selector of these being at the top.

• Shankar 126
• The_Bunny 126
• biased_Indian 128
• ChubbRain 128
• Jamee999 130
• Bhupindersingh 133
• Dasa 134
• Dissector 134
• funnygirl 138
• nightprowler10 139
• KaZoH0lic 145
• sjs 148
• SANZ 149
• beleg 150
• Mahindinho 153
• shortpitched713 159
• Xuhaib 164
• Spierz 168
• honestbharani 171
• Dubilog 183

 

[SJS]

I must confess here one error in my tally which went un-noticed till now. I did not take into account IamDavid's nominations from 11-15. It wouldnt have made any important difference to our final tally but because of this I am not able to include him in this selectors list of those who named 15. I will do thatseparately.

# 7 FaaipDeOiad
- He named everyone from 1-10
- missed 2 of the final 15 numbers 11 and 13.
- Hayden at #17 highest ranked in his list
- His final Tally 124.
Well Done

# 6 Fusion
- He named everyone from 1-13.
- Missed only one 14.
- Hayden at #17 highest ranked in his list
- Final Tally 123

Superb effort.

#5 Adharcric
- He named everyone from 1-1.
- Missed only one 13.
- Pollock #16 highest ranked in his list
- Final Tally 122


Now come the real champs.

Three poster scored an identical 121 to jointly hold the numbe 2 spot. In alphabetical order..

#2 Ozfan
- He named everyone from 1-13.
- Missed only one 14.
- Pollock #16 highest ranked in his list
- Final Tally 121


#2 Silentstriker
- He named everyone from 1-14.
- Missed only one 15.
- Hayden #17 highest ranked in his list
- Final Tally 121


#2 The Sean
- He named everyone from 1-13.
- Missed only one 14.
- Pollock #16 highest ranked in his list
- Final Tally 121


I did not think anyone could do better but I was surprised.

 

[The Sean]

Two observations. I think the second oz-fan there should read The Sean, because it matches what I got.

And secondly - wouldn't perfect score be 120 rather than 119?

 

[SJS]

In our final players' list of fifteen we did have a clear cut winner in Lara but even he did not have a perfect score. Everyone did not vote for him. But we did have a poster who almost did a perfect job.

He did an amazing job, Here are his stats

- He named everyone from 1 to 15
- His list wasnt an exact replica (orderwise of the final one butit was very good since
- The top six of the final list were his top six too.
- The bottom four (I cant say five since number 10 was split and he got one of them right at number 11 too) were his bottom four too.
- Needless to say his middle five tallied with the list's middle five.

- His final tally : a perfect 119 !!​

The Champion Selector
Silfer


​

 

[SJS]

Two observations. I think the second oz-fan there should read The Sean, because it matches what I got.

You are right, I'll correct that rightaway

And secondly - wouldn't perfect score be 120 rather than 119?

Not if you have two players (Donald and Dravid) both ranked 10 and no one ranked 11

 

[Fusion]

Thanks SJS for compiling the results. It was as fun reading your compilation, as it was to rank the players themselves. Just a note, I think "the highest rank player" tidbit you gave for the top guesers seem to be wrong/identical in many cases.

 

[The Sean]

Again SJS, top work - interesting stuff. And great effort Silfer.

If only stupid Jacques stupid Kallis hadn't ruined my perfect score...

 

[Ikki]

No, that's not the point here. I am not asking you who you would prefer to watch.

The point is you continue to argue that Warne is a better bowler than Mcgrath(presumely because of the wow factor), Wasim had the same (if not more) wow factor too, would you call Wasim a better bowler than Mcgrath on that basis ?

Nope. Which is why I rate him lower than McGrath (because I am not judging on that basis - wow factor). I mean, it's gotten to the point that people are starting to mark Warne down because they assume his 'wow factor' or whatever is influencing their judgment too much.

 

[SJS]

Thanks SJS for compiling the results. It was as fun reading your compilation, as it was to rank the players themselves. Just a note, I think "the highest rank player" tidbit you gave for the top guesers seem to be wrong/identical in many cases.

It just looks like that. Its not identical but very similar. Its because the selections of Ozfan, The Sean and Silentstriker are almost identical ! The order of players does not affect the marks.

 

[Fusion]

It just looks like that. Its not identical but very similar. Its because the selections of Ozfan, The Sean and Silentstriker are almost identical ! The order of players does not affect the marks.

Ah I see. Thanks again for the effort!

 

[Chubby Rain]

SJS, I'd just like to mention that I thought this was meant to be an exercise in posting ones own opinions of how the contemporaries of Warne rate wrt each other. I didn't realize it was meant to be an exercise in seeing how close one got to the majority opinion. I guess I must forsake personal preferences in the future, and ride along with the popular opinion if I'm to be considered as having done a 'great job'.

 

[SJS]

SJS, I'd just like to mention that I thought this was meant to be an exercise in posting ones own opinions of how the contemporaries of Warne rate wrt each other. I didn't realize it was meant to be an exercise in seeing how close one got to the majority opinion. I guess I must forsake personal preferences in the future, and ride along with the popular opinion if I'm to be considered as having done a 'great job'.

Of course mate.

The ranking of selectors was just additional fun. It has no lelevance to the main objective of the 'opinion poll'

 

[Sanz]

Nope. Which is why I rate him lower than McGrath (because I am not judging on that basis - wow factor). I mean, it's gotten to the point that people are starting to mark Warne down because they assume his 'wow factor' or whatever is influencing their judgment too much.

I cant say about others, but that certainly is not true in my case. I consistently rate Wasim and Warne as two of the best players in Warne's era. Not only were they great bowlers and achieved great success,but also highly skillful and very entertaining and that's why they are my top 2 cricketers of last 20 years.

In this thread I didn't include Warne, because I was under the impression that we were picking bets players of warne era excluding warne and I was too lazy to go and update my list when I found that we could pick Warne too.

 

[Perm]

amazing work, SJS... That article is worthy of the CW front page...

I agree with this, definitely. Get James onto it!

 

[Matteh]

I'd like to point out that Nick Knight averages more than Brian Lara against Shane Warne in ODI cricket. Not really the daft selection it was made out to be.

 

[nightprowler10]

I'd like to point out that Nick Knight averages more than Brian Lara against Shane Warne in ODI cricket. Not really the daft selection it was made out to be.

Is that based on this completely useless system?

 

[SJS]

I'd like to point out that Nick Knight averages more than Brian Lara against Shane Warne in ODI cricket. Not really the daft selection it was made out to be.

I think you have a great point.

Tell you what though. Put Klass-Jan J van Noortwijk of Netherlands above Nick Knight.

Why? Because van Noortwijk above Nick Knight since he averages at least 134 (actually infinity) against Rudolph van Vuuren.

Haven't heard of van Vuuren did you say? Well let me tell you. Van Vuuren is a Namibian new ball bowler against who poor Nick Knight averages a mere 6.

Makes emminent sense right ??



PS The above is supposed to be dripping with sarcasm for those too dense to get that much.

 

[pup11]

I think you have a great point.

Tell you what though. Put Klass-Jan J van Noortwijk of Netherlands above Nick Knight.

Why? Because van Noortwijk above Nick Knight since he averages at least 134 (actually infinity) against Rudolph van Vuuren.

Haven't heard of van Vuuren did you say? Well let me tell you. Van Vuuren is a Namibian new ball bowler against who poor Nick Knight averages a mere 6.

Makes emminent sense right ??

I think stats are like mini-skirts, they reveal a lot but it also covers up the reality! :rolleyes:

 

[SJS]

I think stats are like mini-skirts, they reveal a lot but it also covers up the reality! :rolleyes:

I totally agree thats exactly what I was trying to say here. To say that Nick Knight has a better average against Warne than Lara and use this to try to prove something is trying to be too clever by half.

Lara and Nick Knight belong to different planets where talent as batsmen is concerned. Anyone who thinks otherwise is...well...an 'interesting' personality

 

[Matteh]

I totally agree thats exactly what I was trying to say here. To say that Nick Knight has a better average against Warne than Lara and use this to try to prove something is trying to be too clever by half.

Lara and Nick Knight belong to different planets where talent as batsmen is concerned. Anyone who thinks otherwise is...well...an 'interesting' personality

Test cricket, certainly. ODI, not so certain.