• 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 Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Asking people to list 50 names in order is bound to be dodgy as hell IMO. Particularly because, for me, the gap between #50 and #40 will be miniscule compared to, say, the gap between #12 and #9. You could have some hybrid, asking people to rank a set number of names which get a diminishing number of points going down the list, then have a "pool" of names which all get the same number of points - your "honourable mentions", as it were.
Agreed. Perhaps an ranked top 25 and an unranked 26-50?
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
The chances of this happening are very very remote IMO
No, Cabinet's point is extremely valid (and I've said the same). This list is biased towards players who polarize opinions (like Flintoff, Jardine).

Consider Flintoff vs Subhash Gupte (just a hypothetical example) - Now, there are many voters (like me) who won't keep Gupte in top 25 but will keep him in top 50.

Let's say 4 out of 20 voters keep Flintoff in top 25, but none keep Gupte. But if we do the voting with 50, maybe 13 among 20 will keep Gupte (all between 26-50) while only 7 out of 20 will keep Flintoff.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
No, Cabinet's point is extremely valid (and I've said the same). This list is biased towards players who polarize opinions (like Flintoff, Jardine).

Consider Flintoff vs Subhash Gupte (just a hypothetical example) - Now, there are many voters (like me) who won't keep Gupte in top 25 but will keep him in top 50.

Let's say 4 out of 20 voters keep Flintoff in top 25, but none keep Gupte. But if we do the voting with 50, maybe 13 among 20 will keep Gupte (all between 26-50) while only 7 out of 20 will keep Flintoff.
Even then you can argue that some posters value flintoff so high that he does deserve a place higher than gupte
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
No, Cabinet's point is extremely valid (and I've said the same). This list is biased towards players who polarize opinions (like Flintoff, Jardine).

Consider Flintoff vs Subhash Gupte (just a hypothetical example) - Now, there are many voters (like me) who won't keep Gupte in top 25 but will keep him in top 50.

Let's say 4 out of 20 voters keep Flintoff in top 25, but none keep Gupte. But if we do the voting with 50, maybe 13 among 20 will keep Gupte (all between 26-50) while only 7 out of 20 will keep Flintoff.
I've never heard of this gupte bloke but he obviously wasn't as good as Freddie

If you're going to do this then you just count all the votes. Otherwise it's not the CW50.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't really have a problem with the format, the problem is that cricket's a bit too objective.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
More regularly you do it, the less people care and you'll get worse results.

Sort of like the Battle of the Members. :ph34r:
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Should just lock Bradman Sobers and Kohli as the top 3 and vote for the other 47 to avoid a farce like the 2nd edition.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
AWTA. And make the 26-50 optional.

So 25 ordered (mandatory) and then up to 25 additional unordered names after that.
I like this idea. Makes sense. Not having it too frequently is also the way to go. While every 5 years is ideal and even 3 years is a bit quick, it is okay I guess. Never bad to have lesson in cricket history and see where the forum stands regarding past/present greats.
 

Top