The CW50 - No.20-11

[The Sean]

Sure mate, Worrell was nominated by four people and came in 58th. Knott was nominated by three people and came in 88th. Wicketkeepers who aren't named Gilchrist are pretty underappreciated by most of us, it seems.

 

[silentstriker]

Surprised Sobers, Hobbs, etc didn't make the top 25 in 100% of people's lists. Seems crazy to me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Surprised Sobers, Hobbs, etc didn't make the top 25 in 100% of people's lists. Seems crazy to me.

Suspect one of them has; zaremba has already alluded to bumping a certain Aussie batsmen from his list.

 

[silentstriker]

Ah, I thought he merely didn't put him first. That's an interesting case then: I'd think it'd be either Sobers, Hobbs, or maybe Grace that would make 100%. I doubt it with Grace, so I'll say Hobbs or Sobers. I'm going with Sobers with 100% of votes then.

 

[andyc]

Suspect one of them has; zaremba has already alluded to bumping a certain Aussie batsmen from his list.

Pretty sure he was saying that he put Jardine first over the Don. But yeah, find it hard to see people not putting at least Sobers and Grace somewhere in there 25 along with Bradman.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Pretty sure he was saying that he put Jardine first over the Don. But yeah, find it hard to see people not putting at least Sobers and Grace somewhere in there 25 along with Bradman.

Read it as Bradman missing out, because Mr Z said "at his expense", but could be wrong.

How could I not? He was a last minute addition to my team, at the expense of an unlucky Australian who I thought (a) probably had enough votes anyway and (b) didn't like the short stuff so much.

 

[Matt79]

Would say it was Sobers. Some hsve already pretty much made clear they wouldn't put in players from the 19th century - I'm certain Grace has been left out of some lists.

 

[bunny]

Sure mate, Worrell was nominated by four people and came in 58th. Knott was nominated by three people and came in 88th. Wicketkeepers who aren't named Gilchrist are pretty underappreciated by most of us, it seems.

Hello Sean. Can you a compile a list of the players outside the top 50 and who got at least one vote.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, I'm with Brumby I'm pretty sure that's what z meant. Can confirm it himself though I guess.

 

[Matt79]

Hello Sean. Can you a compile a list of the players outside the top 50 and who got at least one vote.

Would kinda kill some of the interest in the top 10 - it's pretty obvious but there could still be a shock.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah, better to wait till after the top 10's been unveiled then list who everyone voted for IMO - I'd like to be reminded of who I did!

 

[zaremba]

Read it as Bradman missing out, because Mr Z said "at his expense", but could be wrong.

Yes a slightly tongue-in-cheek selection on my part. I figured that Bradman would have enough votes without mine, so DRJ was first and the Don nowhere. As I pointed out in another thread, Bradman loses out because of his poor bowling record in all conditions.

 

[Days of Grace]

Ah, I thought he merely didn't put him first. That's an interesting case then: I'd think it'd be either Sobers, Hobbs, or maybe Grace that would make 100%. I doubt it with Grace, so I'll say Hobbs or Sobers. I'm going with Sobers with 100% of votes then.

I'd go with Warne getting the 100%, tbh.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Can't really see how anyone could leave out Sobers, so he'd be the most likely after Bradman for 100% I think. Even if he never bowled he'd still have a pretty good case for making the list.

The other players who should be obvious top 25 picks in my mind (Hobbs, Grace, Gilchrist etc) at least have an argument as to why they might be excluded, since two of them played a long time ago and how highly you rate Gilchrist depends a lot on how much you value his contribution as a keeper, given that he wouldn't make it as a batsman alone. I can't see a case for leaving out Bradman or Sobers at all.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Can't really see how anyone could leave out Sobers, so he'd be the most likely after Bradman for 100% I think. Even if he never bowled he'd still have a pretty good case for making the list.

The other players who should be obvious top 25 picks in my mind (Hobbs, Grace, Gilchrist etc) at least have an argument as to why they might be excluded, since two of them played a long time ago and how highly you rate Gilchrist depends a lot on how much you value his contribution as a keeper, given that he wouldn't make it as a batsman alone. I can't see a case for leaving out Bradman or Sobers at all.

To be fair I don't think Zaremba case for leaving out Bradman was overly scientific. More a case of wanting to put Jardine at 1 and it was easier to directly replace Bradman in that position rather than move others around having typed out his list.

 

[zaremba]

To be fair I don't think Zaremba case for leaving out Bradman was overly scientific. More a case of wanting to put Jardine at 1 and it was easier to directly replace Bradman in that position rather than move others around having typed out his list.

Busted.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd go with Warne getting the 100%, tbh.

I would be extremely surprisded if that were true. I didn't vote in this, or he wouldn't be there (neither would Murali).

I think the Warne vs. Murali debate has caused people to be polarized in their rating of both Warne and Murali, and under or overrating one depending on which side of the fence they're on, so I think at least a few people will include Murali and not Warne, and vice versa for others.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I didn't vote in this.

Ah! I wondered why dear old Glenn's highest rating was only Number 2.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Probably wouldn't even have been number 2 were it not for me

 

[zaremba]

To be fair I don't think Zaremba case for leaving out Bradman was overly scientific. More a case of wanting to put Jardine at 1 and it was easier to directly replace Bradman in that position rather than move others around having typed out his list.

I should add that the deletion of Bradman altogether also had an element of the protest vote about it. I remember a poll some months ago on CW called something like "name the top 3 Aussie cricketers of all time". AKA "the fight for second place". There's always a degree of anti-climax about a contest that always inevitably ends with the same winner. Perhaps that's why, as a long-suffering England fan, I was attracted to the one man who defied the supposedly foregone conclusion that was the 1932/33 Ashes.

FTR if I hadn't gone for DRJ (and thus straight to the naughty step as far as you're concerned I suspect LT) I would have put Bradman 1 and Grace 2, but by a tight margin.