CW50 2nd Edition - No 02

[smalishah84]

Number 02 Sir Donald Bradman

Highest Ranking 1
Total Points 1202
Number of Votes Received 51/57
Rank in 1st Edition 1

What they said of him

The greatest cricket of the 20th century (Wisden)

“... he will always be in the category of the brilliant, if unsound, ones. Promise there is in Bradman in plenty, though watching him does not inspire one with any confidence that he desires to take the only course which will lead him to a fulfilment of that promise. He makes a mistake, then makes it again and again; he does not correct it, or look as if he were trying to do so. He seems to live for the exuberance of the moment.” (Percy Fender’s initial analysis on Bradman)

“Next to Mr. Winston Churchill, he was the most celebrated man in England during the summer of 1948. His appearances throughout the country were like one continuous farewell matinée. At last his batting showed human fallibility. Often, especially at the start of the innings, he played where the ball wasn't, and spectators rubbed their eyes.” (RC Robertson’s observation of Bradman on his last tour of England in 1948)




Sir Donald Bradman

“Sir Donald Bradman of Australia was, beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived and the greatest cricketer of the 20th century. Only WG Grace, in the formative years of the game, even remotely matched his status as a player. And The Don lived on into the 21st century, more than half a century after he retired. In that time, his reputation not merely as a player but as an administrator, selector, sage and cricketing statesman only increased. His contribution transcended sport; his exploits changed Australia's relationship to what used to be called the "mother country". Throughout the 1930s and 40s Bradman was the world's master cricketer, so far ahead of everyone else that comparisons became pointless. In 1930, he scored 974 runs in the series, 309 of them in one amazing day at Headingley, and in seven Test series against England he remained a figure of utter dominance; Australia lost the Ashes only once, in 1932-33, when England were so spooked by Bradman that they devised a system of bowling, Bodyline, that history has damned as brutal and unfair, simply to thwart him. He still averaged 56 in the series. In all, he went to the crease 80 times in Tests, and scored 29 centuries. He needed just four in his last Test innings, at The Oval in 1948, to ensure an average of 100 ¬- but was out second ball for 0, a rare moment of human failing that only added to his everlasting appeal. Bradman made all those runs at high speed in a manner that bewildered opponents and entranced spectators. Though his batting was not classically beautiful, it was always awesome.

[Howe_zat]

Well.

Bugger.

[Satguru]

Hmmm... not sure if this is a joke post tbh, so wont post anything on topic

[Pothas]

Nah this joke has been done.

[bagapath]

**** off mate. Want to see who voted for whom. This is just not right.

[Satguru]

yeah im hoping this isnt a joke, coz the same thing isnt funny a second time

[8ankitj]

Ah well. Curious how may of the 51 votes placed him at #1. Can't be more than 47 of them for the math to work. Likely much fewer than that I guess. The average points per vote is 23.5, so the average rank in lists of those who voted him would be less than #2. Itstl.

[smalishah84]

please move on to the other thread to confirm if this is a joke or not

[Eds]

I hope this is real.

[Cabinet96]

Wow. Wasn't really expecting that. How could 6 people not view him as one of the top 25 cricketers of all time? Who didn't include Bradman in their lists? Show yourself!

I like how he's ranked number 2, and is then described as unquestionably the greatest cricket of the 20th century in the write up. Kinda contradictory.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Well.

Bugger.

Originally Posted by Satguru

Hmmm... not sure if this is a joke post tbh, so wont post anything on topic

Originally Posted by Pothas

Nah this joke has been done.

Originally Posted by bagapath

**** off mate. Want to see who voted for whom. This is just not right.

exhibts a through d as to why joke votes really aren't funny

[Prince EWS]

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.

[Satguru]

Ok, now that we know this isnt a joke, this is a ****ing joke

Bradman not at No.1 is wrong. just wrong.

The fact that 6 people didnt nominate him at all made the difference... those 6 might have just done it either as a joke believing their one vote wouldnt make a difference, or did it on purpose to unfairly swing the vote... either way it is a bit of a shame tbh

[smalishah84]

some people while trying to be funny ended up destroying it.....

the reason I took so long to put this up was that I wanted to do some editing and put Bradman on top....tbh I really was tempted to do it but then decided not to tamper with anything.

I wanted to discuss this with NUFAN but didn't go ahead with the discussion either.....but this is it folks......

it was great to conduct this exercise although in the end people were disappointed.

[8ankitj]

Average position of Sobers in the list of those that voted him = 3.6
Average position of Bradman in the list of those that voted him = 2.5

6 people not voting for Bradman did him in. I don't how many of them were just kidding