Originally Posted by SJS
The fact that he rates the players 1-99 (irrespective of discipline) and still manages to get a keeper, two openers and so on each segment of 11 from 1-11 to 89-99 makes it clear that his 1-99 rating for individual players is of doubtful pedigree. He would have been smarter to pick, say, 22 (or more) best openers in history and rank them; pick the 11 (or more) best keepers and rank them, and similarly rank the best all rounders, the best new ball bowlers, best spinners and rank them in each category and then pick the teams from the highest ranked available for selection from each list.
That he does not do so and still calls his individual players' ranking from 1-99 as done honestly and puts players against each other even if they come from completely different disciplines while putting a value their worth as a cricketer is a very suspect exercise.
Other than that I admire the work and have wondered how much I would have differed from it as well. My differences with him do not make me upset because he has chosen cricketers who do not look misfits in a list of the 100 best cricketers of all time. How you or I would personally rank a player against another is not something that shows him up as wrong. It just shows you and I have 'different biases' then him . . .
The 'different biases' approach is the right way to look at it. But the thing is when I make a list of such a nature, I call it 'My Favorite100 Players', but using words like Greatest 100 Players puts a lot more responsibility on the author, and he should take stock of that. What do you say?