CW Ranks the Batsmen

[adharcric]

Two years ago, we went about compiling rankings of the 25 greatest batsmen and the 25 greatest bowlers in the history of cricket. Given that we have several new members and forum activity has increased significantly (as evident in the turnout for the post-WWII selection threads), the time is ripe to give it another shot. Essentially, we'll start at #1 and work our way down - last time, someone suggested the reverse but I'm not sure how that would work.

One change that I'd like to make is to remove the restriction of having a proven record in test cricket. Let's rank the best batsmen (not test batsmen), period - it's up to you to decide how much importance should be given to performance in test cricket - so that we can give serious consideration to the likes of WG Grace, Barry Richards and Vijay Merchant. To ensure the best results, voting will happen through posts rather than polls. Please resist the temptation to check out the old version.

Before I introduce a preliminary selection pool and get started with the voting, any suggestions on the best way to run this?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I think someone suggested the last time that a better way to vote would be to rank the three top candidates not currently in (3-2-1). With only 1 vote per man, someone can get in with very vocal support from 25-30 %, while the remaining 70 % might be split on a number of candidates.

 

[silentstriker]

So if I rank:

1. Bradman
2. Hobbs
3. Sobers

Bradman would get 3 points, Hobbs 2 and Sobers 1. And then the highest tallied player at the end gets in? That sounds good.

 

[The Sean]

EDIT - completely misread the whole "not-already-in" part of the deal.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Agree with that, but could we make it more than 3 - say at least 5 or maybe 10? If we only have three votes, one of them is going to be the default (Bradman) leaving us with only two picks from all of cricket history. We'll end up with a broader picture, IMO, if we expand the choices to 5 or preferably 10 (or even more depending on how people feel about it).

What we did last time - and I see no reason to change that - is that you make a new vote every time someone is elected. So you start with the obvious, then when he's in, we get more of a free choice from cricket history.

 

[SJS]

I think we should do it in three parts.

First ask everyone to vote for their top 25 batsmen. (No need to rank them) This will prevent skewing because of 25 for the top ranked and just 1 for the last which can make a player with just five supporters (all ranking him number 1) edging out some one ranked at number 25 by everyone of 120 votes.

Then of the people voted for, select the 25 with the maximum votes and ask everyone to pick their top ten (again without rank).

Then from the top ten, ask everyone to pick their top five and now rank them according to number of votes received.

 

[silentstriker]

I kind of preferred it the old way TBH. That was a fun competition. Lots of good arguments about votes as they were coming in for a spot. It was good fun all around. Making it too rigid will stifle discussion.

 

[fredfertang]

Will it be permissible to post in this thread whilst wearing rose-tinted eyewear?

 

[SJS]

Will it be permissible to post in this thread whilst wearing rose-tinted eyewear?

 

[adharcric]

So if I rank:

1. Bradman
2. Hobbs
3. Sobers

Bradman would get 3 points, Hobbs 2 and Sobers 1. And then the highest tallied player at the end gets in? That sounds good.

Looks good but it might be overkill. How about just a 1-2 vote (instead of 1-2-3)?

 

[bagapath]

sounds good. waiting for the prelim pool to come up

 

[SJS]

So if I rank:

1. Bradman
2. Hobbs
3. Sobers

Bradman would get 3 points, Hobbs 2 and Sobers 1. And then the highest tallied player at the end gets in? That sounds good.

I like that ranking. So here is mine. . . see above

 

[The Sean]

So when is this going to get started?

 

[adharcric]

So when is this going to get started?

Later today hopefully, been up all night finishing an assignment.