CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[weldone]

I blame Smali being a lazy bitch for World War III

 

[smash84]

I blame Smali being a lazy bitch for World War III

genuinely lol'd on this and with this I start working on the cricketers 21-30....

should be up in a couple of hours guys....I am working on it

 

[Spark]

No disrespect to the effort smali has put into this, it's been a top effort, but reading the last few pages has made me begin to regret partaking in this at all

 

[ankitj]

What I take away from last few pages is that Tendulkar fan boys suck. They don't have a sense of humour

 

[Cevno]

Ikki to post his list as a seperate thread (he won't be happy with anything else in any case) and stop moaning before the results are out even.

 

[Cevno]

What I take away from last few pages is that Tendulkar fan boys suck.

Damn! Should have voted too and not abstained.

 

[weldone]

I am particularly interested to see 1-25 in this case (mainly because we all sent in our top 25).

 

[Spark]

It's so bloody simple though ffs.

The title says "CW's Top 50 cricketers of all time."

Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that will piss off Burgey."
Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that Ikki likes."
Not "CW's Top 50 non-Indian or non-Australian cricketers."

My hope was that we would get a genuine cross-section of cricketing viewpoints in CW according to what people actually believe. If it turns up some odd surprises, cool! That's the whole point, and if it does turn out that CW as a group genuinely rates Imran > Sobers or Tendulkar > Bradman or whatever it is (key word: genuinely), then it provides an interesting point of discussion as to the rationale, the logic etc etc etc behind it.

But if people are going to just go "lol I won't vote for Bradman because it'll piss off Burgey and it'll be funniez if he doesn't top it" or "lol I won't vote for Sachin because it'll piss off the fanboys"... well, people are free to vote however they like, but if I'd have known that beforehand, as I said, I wouldn't have submitted.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[DingDong]

i would omit warne on the basis there are drug allegations against him anyway.

EDI?T - sorry not allegations but an actual guilty verdict.

 

[DingDong]

It's so bloody simple though ffs.

The title says "CW's Top 50 cricketers of all time."

Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that will piss off Burgey."
Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that Ikki likes."
Not "CW's Top 50 non-Indian or non-Australian cricketers."

My hope was that we would get a genuine cross-section of cricketing viewpoints in CW according to what people actually believe. If it turns up some odd surprises, cool! That's the whole point, and if it does turn out that CW as a group genuinely rates Imran > Sobers or Tendulkar > Bradman or whatever it is (key word: genuinely), then it provides an interesting point of discussion as to the rationale, the logic etc etc etc behind it.

But if people are going to just go "lol I won't vote for Bradman because it'll piss off Burgey and it'll be funniez if he doesn't top it" or "lol I won't vote for Sachin because it'll piss off the fanboys"... well, people are free to vote however they like, but if I'd have known that beforehand, as I said, I wouldn't have submitted.

I hope I'm wrong.

yes agreed

 

[smash84]

come on guys.....cheer up......the list is pretty good..........at least let the whole thing finish before taking premature jabs at people's trustworthiness or intellectual dishonesty etc etc

 

[weldone]

It's so bloody simple though ffs.

The title says "CW's Top 50 cricketers of all time."

Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that will piss off Burgey."
Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that Ikki likes."
Not "CW's Top 50 non-Indian or non-Australian cricketers."

My hope was that we would get a genuine cross-section of cricketing viewpoints in CW according to what people actually believe. If it turns up some odd surprises, cool! That's the whole point, and if it does turn out that CW as a group genuinely rates Imran > Sobers or Tendulkar > Bradman or whatever it is (key word: genuinely), then it provides an interesting point of discussion as to the rationale, the logic etc etc etc behind it.

But if people are going to just go "lol I won't vote for Bradman because it'll piss off Burgey and it'll be funniez if he doesn't top it" or "lol I won't vote for Sachin because it'll piss off the fanboys"... well, people are free to vote however they like, but if I'd have known that beforehand, as I said, I wouldn't have submitted.

I hope I'm wrong.

This.

 

[DingDong]

come on guys.....cheer up......the list is pretty good..........at least let the whole thing finish before taking premature jabs at people's trustworthiness or intellectual dishonesty etc etc

we wouldnt have this problem if u hurried the eff up and posted the whole list already

 

[Spark]

come on guys.....cheer up......the list is pretty good..........at least let the whole thing finish before taking premature jabs at people's trustworthiness or intellectual dishonesty etc etc

It's just the last few pages of the thread though. I mean, the last thing I wanted to read here was a quote-train-war about whether someone's inclusion/exclusion or whatever from the list was a travesty or not, or about vote-countering or whatever, or how many Australians made up someone's list or whatever.

It's just really very, very boring.

EDIT: And I thought that it was smali's own personal time which is being used to do this for the benefit of everyone here, not ours. Feel free to go at your own pace IMO.

EDIT2: Want to make it very clear that my posts are on this page are as Spark the poster, not Spark the mod. Just fyi

 

[ankitj]

It's so bloody simple though ffs.

The title says "CW's Top 50 cricketers of all time."

Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that will piss off Burgey."
Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that Ikki likes."
Not "CW's Top 50 non-Indian or non-Australian cricketers."

My hope was that we would get a genuine cross-section of cricketing viewpoints in CW according to what people actually believe. If it turns up some odd surprises, cool! That's the whole point, and if it does turn out that CW as a group genuinely rates Imran > Sobers or Tendulkar > Bradman or whatever it is (key word: genuinely), then it provides an interesting point of discussion as to the rationale, the logic etc etc etc behind it.

But if people are going to just go "lol I won't vote for Bradman because it'll piss off Burgey and it'll be funniez if he doesn't top it" or "lol I won't vote for Sachin because it'll piss off the fanboys"... well, people are free to vote however they like, but if I'd have known that beforehand, as I said, I wouldn't have submitted.

I hope I'm wrong.

Out of curiosity, who do you suspect might not have submitted a genuine list? FTR, I was trolling over the last few pages but Ikki and Burgey were probably not getting it and falling for it. FWIW I have 6-7 Aussies, similar number of West Indians and Englishmen, and only 2 Indians (one at #8 and one at #24).

I had the same concerns of people not voting genuinely at the start of this thread, and I was hushed down and asked to "lighten up". Glad that more people care about genuineness. FTR, only non genuine submissions so far to my mind has been votes for Jardine.

While we are at it, this cracked me up...

At the end of the day, I could leave Tendulkar out of my top 25 far easier than I could Warne. Yet I know the reactions if I had.

 

[ankitj]

come on guys.....cheer up......the list is pretty good..........at least let the whole thing finish before taking premature jabs at people's trustworthiness or intellectual dishonesty etc etc

I blame Smali being a lazy bitch for World War III

.

 

[Spark]

I didn't have any specific suspicions, just a general bad vibe which I wanted to get off my chest.

What I want to distinguish though, is a list that isn't genuine from a list that is controversial. A list made to piss someone else off, troll or to tactical vote (???????) is IMO not genuine. A list that just has some strange omissions and inclusions can still be perfectly genuine if it can be justified.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's so bloody simple though ffs.

The title says "CW's Top 50 cricketers of all time."

Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that will piss off Burgey."
Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that Ikki likes."
Not "CW's Top 50 non-Indian or non-Australian cricketers."

My hope was that we would get a genuine cross-section of cricketing viewpoints in CW according to what people actually believe. If it turns up some odd surprises, cool! That's the whole point, and if it does turn out that CW as a group genuinely rates Imran > Sobers or Tendulkar > Bradman or whatever it is (key word: genuinely), then it provides an interesting point of discussion as to the rationale, the logic etc etc etc behind it.

But if people are going to just go "lol I won't vote for Bradman because it'll piss off Burgey and it'll be funniez if he doesn't top it" or "lol I won't vote for Sachin because it'll piss off the fanboys"... well, people are free to vote however they like, but if I'd have known that beforehand, as I said, I wouldn't have submitted.

I hope I'm wrong.

Yep, AWTA.

I have no problem with people who have unconventional ideas submitting lists here as long as they genuinely believe in what they've sent, and if those lists results in some surprises well that's what it's all about. But as I said earlier in the thread, I have grave fears over the potential for intellectual dishonestly, trolling, non-serious efforts and manipulation messing with the whole process.

 

[zaremba]

Ikki wants wikileaks for the CW top 50

but what to call it? Crickileaks or Ikkileaks?

 

[weldone]

but what to call it? Crickileaks or Ikkileaks?