CW50 2nd Edition - No 02

[weldone]

I have no issue with Bradman not being #1. In fact I didn't even put him there myself.

I don't, however, think this is an accurate reflection of the collective opinions of this site's members. It's come about because of few blokes submitted completely serious lists bar the deliberate exclusion of Bradman (and maybe a few others, but not Sobers) to be funny, hipster or mischievous.

Number of Votes Received 51/57

That says it all, and frankly it discredits the whole list. Again - not because not having Bradman at #1 is crime within itself, but because we all know that's where CW would rate him and that it demonstrates the amount of intellectually dishonest lists that we submitted.

My thoughts exactly - and my prediction in the other thread has come true. And the sentence in bold is the most important thing in my mind. Bradman being at no. 2 mustn't be the only result of intellectual dishonesty from some members. It is the most evident result of the dishonesty no doubt. But there must be other results which aren't so apparent to strike us (who knows, if all voters were honest the man at no. 19 might have been at number 17, or the man at no. 47 mightn't have been in the list at all etc etc - we'll never know)...

 

[Ikki]

Could it be that six members decided that they couldn't possibly rate a player they've never seen play? Not even some proper test playing footage. I don't begrudge people the opinion to not rate somebody all they know of is a (excellent) stat sheet. Especially when it's been drilled home that stats aren't everything.

Something tells me someone who was old enough to see Sobers probably wouldn't leave Bradman out of it.

Anyway, thanks Smali and Nufan for the effort.

 

[smash84]

you're welcome Ikki

I am glad that you took part in this exercise and threw up some good debates.

 

[The Sean]

Could it be that six members decided that they couldn't possibly rate a player they've never seen play? Not even some proper test playing footage. I don't begrudge people the opinion to not rate somebody all they know of is a (excellent) stat sheet. Especially when it's been drilled home that stats aren't everything.

Yup, remember Beleg often said it was only fair that he voted upon players that he'd seen play. Some people see it that way.

At the risk of coming across overly harsh and bah-humbugish, I can totally respect this thinking - right up until the point where they submit a list.

But by submitting a list, for which they know the scope is "all time", they ARE ranking players they haven't seen - and they're rating every single one of them as worse than all the players they have. And if you've already acknowledged that you can't rate players you haven't seen, why do you even want to take part in an All Time ranking exercise anyway?

Note that this isn't specific to the current Bradman/Sobers/no.1 thing, more a general issue that has come up before and has always gotten on my ****.

 

[vic_orthdox]

At the risk of coming across overly harsh and bah-humbugish, I can totally respect this thinking - right up until the point where they submit a list.

But by submitting a list, for which they know the scope is "all time", they ARE ranking players they haven't seen - and they're rating every single one of them as worse than all the players they have. And if you've already acknowledged that you can't rate players you haven't seen, why do you even want to take part in an All Time ranking exercise anyway?

Note that this isn't specific to the current Bradman/Sobers/no.1 thing, more a general issue that has come up before and has always gotten on my ****.

I guess they still have a right to vote for the best players. Many of us have biases to the players we've seen, maybe these guys are just more honest.

But it's a fair point, and not my argument to have.

 

[Debris]

Didn't vote in this because did not get the opportunity before it closed. Just out of curiosity, I know that there were some votes not counted. Would they have made a difference? I am trying to save my opinion of the CW community here.