-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
CW Ranks Top 25 Batsmen of All Time (Version 2010)
- Thread starter weldone
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Lara - 3
G Chappell - 2
Border - 1
G Chappell - 2
Border - 1
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Probably win the 2011 World Cup, continue the current form in tests for another 2 years or so, and then retire. I shall be happy to rank him at no. 2 after that, forget Richards.
By the way, last time CW ranked Sachin ahead of Viv, and this time also it was looking such from the voting patterns for rank 1, 2 and 3. That's the reason I became overconfident about him and showed honestly to place Hammond and Hutton above him in my voting. And, he lost by 1 vote. I take the blame from other Sachin fans
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Oh I see, you are talking about the top 10...
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I really hate tactical voting in this; it just removes the point. Especially when it's really obvious and the 2 and 1 options are genuine prank-cricketers who obviously won't topple the 3 vote. If I was running it I'd actually disqualify all votes I didn't think were a "serious and honest attempt." Just me though.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
That wouldn't change the result in any way. Agarkar isn't gonna come in top 25, don't worry. And what if people start putting Dravid or Martin Crowe in place of the usual Agarkars and all? How would you decide whether those are 'serious and honest', or not? I could easily vote like this now for rank 5 - Tendulkar (3), Crowe (2) and Dravid (1). It won't be honest from my side. I might be doing this because I am sure the last two has virtually no chance of coming as rank 5 (according to the voting pattern till now). But how can you come to the conclusion about my honesty and seriousness from that voting (especially given that Crowe and Dravid were actually very good batsmen)?
I believe the current system is the best. And indulge in tactical voting if you wish to
. Different voters are voting with different purpose, that's what makes it fair.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, but I disqualify the 3-vote as well. If someone went, for example,
3 - Hammond
2 - Agarkar
1 - Pujara
I'd just render the whole thing invalid. It's quite clearly a tactical vote to get one player in at the expense of the spirit of the voting process. Players shouldn't suffer merely because their fans aren't cheap ****s.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
That's not the point. The point is you won't disqualify a vote like Hammond (3), Dravid (2) and Crowe (1) even though it can be dishonest as well, in some cases (but you can't be sure). In that way, your process will be much more unfair than mine.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, people should at least put some effort into masking their cheating though.
Really I just think it's a dog act regardless tbh.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
To be honest with my votes therefore, I have drawn my own list of 25 batsmen/bowlers from which I keep striking off those who are already ranked, and keep posting the top-3 from remaining.
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
No, I guess it's a perfectly OK technique to 'pass' some of your votes like Hurricane does, sometimes. Because you can vote for 3, doesn't necessarily require you to vote for 3. That's the rule here. Some (like Hurricane) sometimes vote for one (3 points), and pass the other two votes (2 points and 1 point). And some name Agarkar and Chris Martin. Both have necessarily the same objective in mind. And, maybe they're not being dishonest. They might have a point, actually. For example, if you are voting for rank 1 batsman you might go like Bradman, pass, pass (or Bradman, Agarkar, Martin). Which doesn't mean that you're a Bradman fanboy, and doing a dog act; but means that you don't think anyone other than Bradman should even be in contension for being the rank 1 batsman. That's just one example.Yeah, people should at least put some effort into masking their cheating though.
Really I just think it's a dog act regardless tbh.
And, I think that's just perfectly OK, and in line with the concept of the thread. The bottomline is, because you can vote for 3, you are not 'forced' to vote for 3.
Maximus0723
State Regular
When does this round conclude?
Slifer
International Captain
me too fwiw.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
in another day...
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
I do, and people should...They should care about FC cricket, and ODI cricket too in some cases...
If they do, only then people like WG Grace, Harold Larwood, Vivian Richards, Dennis Lillee, Barry Richards, Mike Procter, Greg Chappell, Wasim Akram etc. will be ranked where they should be.
