Cricketweb decides the greatest bowler ever in a 64 player bracket. Contest thread.

[cnerd123]

Even as a bowler Botham's contribution to cricket and the enjoyment we get from it was huge, and so he trumps Garner IMO.

And so it is decided - Afridi is the greatest cricketer of all time.

 

[The Sean]

Division 1

Shoaib Akhtar vs Shane Bond
Bert Ironmonger vs Kapil Dev
Richard Hadlee vs Shaun Pollock
Ray Lindwall vs Imran Khan

Division 2

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar vs Harold Larwood
Shane Warne vs Wes Hall
Dennis Lillee vs George Lohmann
Mike Procter vs Bill O'Reilly

Division 3

Richie Benaud vs Frank Tyson
Fred Trueman vs Clarrie Grimmett
Johnny Briggs vs Curtley Ambrose
Erapalli Prasanna vs Bishan Bedi

Division 4

Anil Kumble vs Derek Underwood
Charlie Turner vs Neil Adcock
Jason Gillespie vs Bob Willis
Hedley Verity vs Brian Statham

Division 5

Colin Croft vs Jeff Thomson
Andy Roberts vs Waqar Younis
Malcolm Marshall vs Jimmy Anderson
Fred Spofforth vs Glenn McGrath

Division 6

Jim Laker vs Abdul Qadir
Hugh Trumble vs Fazal Mahmood
Peter Pollock vs Alan Donald
Ian Botham vs Joel Garner

Division 7

Alan Davidson vs Alec Bedser
Mohammad Asif vs Keith Miller
Wasim Akram vs Michael Holding
Courtney Walsh vs Sydney Barnes

Division 8

Hugh Tayfield vs John Snow
Muttiah Muralitharan vs Arthur Mailey
Ian Bishop vs Dale Steyn
Maurice Tate vs Subhash Gupte

I think Imran is greater than Lindwall - not by much, mind - but I gave Lindwall a vote because he doesn't deserve the shellacking he's getting. You could, I'm sure, say something similar about several other champions on the wrong end of thrashings in this round.

 

[cnerd123]

Some excellent matchups here. Would be so gun if we could have write-ups for all the battles too.

Division 1

Shoaib Akhtar vs Shane Bond
Bert Ironmonger vs Kapil Dev
Richard Hadlee vs Shaun Pollock
Ray Lindwall vs Imran Khan

Division 2

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar vs Harold Larwood
Shane Warne vs Wes Hall
Dennis Lillee vs George Lohmann
Mike Procter vs Bill O'Reilly

Division 3

Richie Benaud vs Frank Tyson
Fred Trueman vs Clarrie Grimmett
Johnny Briggs vs Curtley Ambrose
Erapalli Prasanna vs Bishan Bedi

Division 4

Anil Kumble vs Derek Underwood
Charlie Turner vs Neil Adcock
Jason Gillespie vs Bob Willis
Hedley Verity vs Brian Statham

Division 5

Colin Croft vs Jeff Thomson
Andy Roberts vs Waqar Younis
Malcolm Marshall vs Jimmy Anderson
Fred Spofforth vs Glenn McGrath

Division 6

Jim Laker vs Abdul Qadir
Hugh Trumble vs Fazal Mahmood
Peter Pollock vs Alan Donald
Ian Botham vs Joel Garner

Division 7

Alan Davidson vs Alec Bedser
Mohammad Asif vs Keith Miller
Wasim Akram vs Michael Holding
Courtney Walsh vs Sydney Barnes

Division 8

Hugh Tayfield vs John Snow
Muttiah Muralitharan vs Arthur Mailey
Ian Bishop vs Dale Steyn
Maurice Tate vs Subhash Gupte

 

[mr_mister]

i was on planning for short write ups for the final 16, might do them next round instead

 

[mr_mister]

and i'll a do vote count soon, studying atm. this whole thing has been one big exam procratination

 

[watson]

And so it is decided - Afridi is the greatest cricketer of all time.

Mediocre numbers and lack of match winning performances count against Afridi obviously. Think that you've missed the point, taken it out of context, then created a strawman.

 

[cnerd123]

Mediocre numbers and lack of match winning performances count against Afridi obviously. Think that you've missed the point, taken it out of context, then created a strawman.

I did indeed do all that. Partly for humorous effect, and partly to point out that such a point ("entertained us all") is a ridiculous reason to rate a cricketer as superior to another. If you were to use it alone as an argument, it wouldn't hold up, so why use it as an addenum? It may increase Botham's value in a subjective analysis, but doesn't hold up as an objective value of greatness, especially when we have far better tools at our disposal.

But each to their own I suppose.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Greatness is not objective anyway

 

[watson]

I did indeed do all that. Partly for humorous effect, and partly to point out that such a point ("entertained us all") is a ridiculous reason to rate a cricketer as superior to another. If you were to use it alone as an argument, it wouldn't hold up, so why use it as an addenum? It may increase Botham's value in a subjective analysis, but doesn't hold up as an objective value of greatness, especially when we have far better tools at our disposal.

But each to their own I suppose.

Obviously entertainment it's not the only reason, but it should be a significant factor in how we rate cricketers. After all, if cricket is not a form of entertainment then what is it?

All cricketers that we call great entertain by turning a mere Cricket match into great theatre. They get us involved in the heat of the battle and feel part of the tension. They inspire and give us a sense of awe so that our life is enriched.

Michael Holding becomes great because of his battle with Brian Close at the Oval, 1976. Ambrose becones great because of his battle with Steve Waugh at Queens Park, 1995, and Botham becomes great because of his clashes against Australia, 1981. Lillee overcame a broken-back, Colin Blythe succeeded against bouts of epilepsy and depression, and Compton played some of his best innings with chronically injured knees. All of these things seem to be superficial and irrelevant, but in reality they give cricket its heart and soul.

Averages and Strike Rates are only part of the story and legend.

 

[mr_mister]

Score update:

Shoaib leads 14-10
Kapil leads 19-5
Hadlee leads 24-0
Imran leads 20-4

Larwood leads 16-8
Warne leads 24-0
Lillee leads 21-3
O'Reilly leads 22-2

Benaud leads 12-11
Trueman leads 18-5
Ambrose leads 24-0
Bedi leads 15-9

Underwood leads 14-9
Turner leads 15-7
Willis leads 18-5
Verity leads 21-2

Croft leads 12-11
Waqar leads 18-5
Marshall leads 24-0
McGrath leads 22-2

Laker leads 23-0
Fazal leads 19-5
Donald leads 24-0
Garner leads 23-1

Davidson leads 15-9
Miller leads 19-5
Wasim leads 19-5
Barnes leads 21-2

Snow leads 13-11
Murali leads 23-1
Steyn leads 24-0
Tate leads 13-10

 

[OverratedSanity]

I see atleast 6 votes for Gupte. You ****ed up somewhere.

 

[mr_mister]

yep, he was 10 but I forgot to put the 0 after the 1. A mistake with my last job of the entire post ha

 

[cnerd123]

How come some battles tally up to 23 votes and some up to 24 votes? Are people abstaining?

 

[viriya]

So someone actually voted for Arthur Mailey over Murali?

O_0

 

[mr_mister]

yeah Watson. but people gave him more crap about Botham over Garner lol.

The argument he used to defend Botham could be applied to Mailey. The "Millionaire" was an entertaining character

 

[Hurricane]

Round 1:

Division 1

Shoaib Akhtar vs Shane Bond
Bert Ironmonger vs Kapil Dev
Richard Hadlee vs Shaun Pollock
Ray Lindwall vs Imran Khan

Division 2

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar vs Harold Larwood
Shane Warne vs Wes Hall
Dennis Lillee vs George Lohmann
Mike Procter vs Bill O'Reilly

Division 3

Richie Benaud vs Frank Tyson
Fred Trueman vs Clarrie Grimmett
Johnny Briggs vs Curtley Ambrose
Erapalli Prasanna vs Bishan Bedi

Division 4

Anil Kumble vs Derek Underwood by miles
Charlie Turner vs Neil Adcock
Jason Gillespie vs Bob Willis
Hedley Verity vs Brian Statham

Division 5

Colin Croft vs Jeff Thomson
Andy Roberts vs Waqar Younis
Malcolm Marshall vs Jimmy Anderson
Fred Spofforth vs Glenn McGrath

Division 6

Jim Laker vs Abdul Qadir
Hugh Trumble vs Fazal Mahmood abstain
Peter Pollock vs Alan Donald abstain
Ian Botham vs Joel Garner

Division 7

Alan Davidson vs Alec Bedser abstain
Mohammad Asif vs Keith Miller
Wasim Akram vs Michael Holding
Courtney Walsh vs Sydney Barnes

Division 8

Hugh Tayfield vs John Snow
Muttiah Muralitharan vs Arthur Mailey
Ian Bishop vs Dale Steyn
Maurice Tate vs Subhash Gupte

 

[mr_mister]

How come some battles tally up to 23 votes and some up to 24 votes? Are people abstaining?

yes, and it's really annoying. Because when I did the voting I quickly ctrl + f the last name of the person I expect to be losing and count how many times they appear(or appear bolded) until I reach the bottom of the page. Then I work out the other person's score from 24(in this instance) minus that number. I have to keep a tally in my head to take off an extra point when there's an abstain.

Id prefer people just take a stab and go with one in these scenarios instead of abstaining

 

[viriya]

yeah Watson. but people gave him more crap about Botham over Garner lol.

The argument he used to defend Botham could be applied to Mailey. The "Millionaire" was an entertaining character

I'm pretty sure picking Mailey over Murali has nothing to do with "entertainment" and more to do with an issue with how Murali bowled.

 

[mr_mister]

ahhh I hadn't considered that

 

[Victor Ian]

yes, and it's really annoying. Because when I did the voting I quickly ctrl + f the last name of the person I expect to be losing and count how many times they appear(or appear bolded) until I reach the bottom of the page. Then I work out the other person's score from 24(in this instance) minus that number. I have to keep a tally in my head to take off an extra point when there's an abstain.

Id prefer people just take a stab and go with one in these scenarios instead of abstaining

Done! (from now on)