-
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.
Cricketweb decides the best bowler ever, another contest. Nominations thread
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
cnerd123
likes this
Why can't they run into each other? I dont get this rationale
If you seperate them, wont they run into each other in the final 8? Whats thenuse of the other 56 names? Whats the point of the entire nomination exercise if we already basically know who the last 8 are going to be?
If you seperate them, wont they run into each other in the final 8? Whats thenuse of the other 56 names? Whats the point of the entire nomination exercise if we already basically know who the last 8 are going to be?
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
weren't you suggesting we do that with your previous post? have 8 unofficial seeds that are placed in the 8 different.. eighths of the bracket. So there paths won't cross til the final 8. Upsets might still happen anyway. I dunno. I'm happy either way. Maybe fully randomise it.
kyear was just saying it gives a clearer idea of who the best are 4 on the site, best 8 on the site, best 16 on the site etc etc if we seed a little bit. as opposed to the randomised method, because that only tells us the best bowler. he might vs the potential runner up in round 1 and we'll never know how far that other dude could have gone, he wouldn't have won but he might have came second. we... sort of know this site's top 4 batsman now based on the batting tournament, though maybe lara or grace would be there if they vsed someone else in an earlier round. i dont know why any of this matters, but it's kinda cool info
kyear was just saying it gives a clearer idea of who the best are 4 on the site, best 8 on the site, best 16 on the site etc etc if we seed a little bit. as opposed to the randomised method, because that only tells us the best bowler. he might vs the potential runner up in round 1 and we'll never know how far that other dude could have gone, he wouldn't have won but he might have came second. we... sort of know this site's top 4 batsman now based on the batting tournament, though maybe lara or grace would be there if they vsed someone else in an earlier round. i dont know why any of this matters, but it's kinda cool info
Last edited:
cnerd123
likes this
Nah what I meant is take the 8 bowlers with the most nominations as the indicator of CW's top 8 bowlers, and then randomise the actual voting.
That way you know who the best 8 are in CW's mind, and you get some exciting battles all through the voting process, with the best bowler (most likely but not necessarily the one with the most nominations) winning the whole thing.
That way you know who the best 8 are in CW's mind, and you get some exciting battles all through the voting process, with the best bowler (most likely but not necessarily the one with the most nominations) winning the whole thing.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I don’t feel that seedings really work for a theoretical exercise like this. In real life, players are seeded to be kept apart in the draw, but an unseeded player can play out of his skin and cause one or more upsets to go deep in the tournament. That would never happen, however, if people just went through the draw for a tournament and voted for who they thought was a better player. Almost every tournament would be won by the top seed, who would beat the second seed in the final, both having beaten the third and fourth seeds in the semis. The excitement of a “real” tournament is that the results don’t always go with the rankings due to the human factor involved. That is removed in a theoretical tournament, so I would personally get rid of the seeding thing altogether. And if we have Barnes vs Marshall in the first round, well that will just make it exciting and meaningful from the start.
TLDR – no seeds please.
TLDR – no seeds please.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Because I was on holiday for the start of the batsmen one and wasn't around to make the post I just did now.
indiaholic
International Captain
Won't matter either way. Even if you have seeds, the bowlers voting should be closer.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
more convincing arguments. maybe do away with seeding for the excitement factor of it all. it was pretty obvious younis khan, miandad and neil harvey were never gonna make the final 8, but nobody would be that outraged if donald, grimmett or garner did, and none of them are close to being in the top 8 seeds. I still like the idea of 64 names though. I can think of 32 paceman alone who deserve a mention in the discussion. like i said before bowling has so many variables. i predict a lot of close games
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
the bracket I made asked me to seed all 32 names, so 32 would vs 1st and 16 vs 17 etc.
and I did so according to what I thought was the CW consensus for the first 16(and I was close I spose, probs should have had Grace higher but him and Trumper are hard to gauge due to the era they played in)... for 17-32 it was easy, just went by the order of which they nominated, with Sehwag 32 because a lot of people were appalled he was even in there in the first place
and I did so according to what I thought was the CW consensus for the first 16(and I was close I spose, probs should have had Grace higher but him and Trumper are hard to gauge due to the era they played in)... for 17-32 it was easy, just went by the order of which they nominated, with Sehwag 32 because a lot of people were appalled he was even in there in the first place
cnerd123
likes this
Yea legit, I wanted to make the same point in the batting poll but couldn't get around to it until the polls had begun.Because I was on holiday for the start of the batsmen one and wasn't around to make the post I just did now.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Even with seeding the chance of upsets are higher with the bowlers than the batsmen.
Additionally seeding provides with somewhat of an accurate idea of where each player is legitimately ranked.
Of this is a parallel exercise to the batting one, the outline should be similar.
We now know who CW sees as the top 4, 8, 16 after the Don. This can provide a similar tier allocation.
That's my basic point. Not only seeing who is the best, but the second best etc.
Additionally seeding provides with somewhat of an accurate idea of where each player is legitimately ranked.
Of this is a parallel exercise to the batting one, the outline should be similar.
We now know who CW sees as the top 4, 8, 16 after the Don. This can provide a similar tier allocation.
That's my basic point. Not only seeing who is the best, but the second best etc.
Valer
First Class Debutant
I strongly disagree that we should throw away information for the purpose of "exciting" early round matches.
Its a theoretically ranking exercise its never going to be super gripping anyway.
Note that single elimination doesn't actually give you real rankings beyond first, however the rankings tend to be at-least reasonable with seeding.
In this voting system mis-seedings will likely show as close early matches against the final winner.
Note a true comparison sorting of even 64 players would take 100s of 1v1s.
Its a theoretically ranking exercise its never going to be super gripping anyway.
Note that single elimination doesn't actually give you real rankings beyond first, however the rankings tend to be at-least reasonable with seeding.
In this voting system mis-seedings will likely show as close early matches against the final winner.
Note a true comparison sorting of even 64 players would take 100s of 1v1s.
Last edited:
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
would people be opposed to 81 entrants, with 27 triple threats and only 1 advancing from each 3? Then from 81 it'll go, 27, to 9, 3... it'd be pretty quick that way. 4 rounds as opposed to 6.
Or 64, but 16 fatal-four ways? With just 1 advancing it'd go 64, 16, then 4. Over in 3 rounds!
Or is a traditional 1v1 system everyone's preferred style
Or 64, but 16 fatal-four ways? With just 1 advancing it'd go 64, 16, then 4. Over in 3 rounds!
Or is a traditional 1v1 system everyone's preferred style
Last edited:
