Fast bowler survival round of 16

[The Sean]

Seeing Donald get shellacked in the votes brings a tear to my eye. So so underrated.

I don't think it was any reflection on Donald, most of us rate him as nothing short of brilliant. He was just unfortunate to be up against the bloke I daresay many of us consider to be the very best of all.

 

[Himannv]

I don't think it was any reflection on Donald, most of us rate him as nothing short of brilliant. He was just unfortunate to be up against the bloke I daresay many of us consider to be the very best of all.

Exactly. Just a bad draw for Donald. He could have held his own against most of the others I reckon.

 

[Himannv]

So, 3 Pakistanis, 2 West Indians, 2 Australians and 1 New Zealander get through to the quarters...

One might get the feeling that there should have been 1 more West Indian (and probably 1 Englishman).

Garner and Barnes are probably a bit unlucky to miss out (Nothing against Waqar and Lillee though, both champion fast bowlers in their own right).

Yeah Barnes in particular is a surprising omission. Voted for both Garner and Barnes to no avail.

 

[Teja.]

My ideal eight would have differed slightly from this list with Garner and Trueman in and Akram and Ambrose out.

Barnes I believe is the finest bowler ever, but whether he was a fast bowler is a matter of speculation and finally, opinion.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why did this suddenly turn into a string of battles? It would have been better if for the last 16 everybody picked their top 12 and then their top 8 and so on down to 6, then 4, then 2 and then had a final. The battle player v player format has become a bit tired and the most popular don't necessarily "survive".

 

[stephen]

Why did this suddenly turn into a string of battles? It would have been better if for the last 16 everybody picked their top 12 and then their top 8 and so on down to 6, then 4, then 2 and then had a final. The battle player v player format has become a bit tired and the most popular don't necessarily "survive".

Well the plan was always to run it this way.

Three rounds should be enough to accurately seed players, especially as players were seeded for round 3.

The reason I've gone to a standard round of 16/quarters/semis/finals format was that honestly, it was both far too much work for me personally to do. It took half an hour to an hour to compile each of the group results stages (and around two hours to do the wildcard round).

Admittedly the workload would have gotten less as the rounds progressed, but not significantly so. Either way, this should be the most definitive ranking of fast bowlers that CW has seen. Or at least that's the marketing line.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Best of 3 final, IMO. Just run the final battle thrice to make sure we have the right result