CW Ranks Top 25 Batsmen of All Time (Version 2010)

[jaideep]

brian lara - 3 pts
ranjitsinghji - 2 pts
ricky ponting - 1 pt

 

[Hurricane]

Grace
Haddin
Turner

It seems to be like someone said - Grace either gets elected in the top 3 in these things or he falls by the way side. Is Gavaskar > Grace. Is Border > Grace.

What was one of those stories - Grace scored a double century against 22 fielders. How is that even possible and the grass was long.

Oh well its a democracy I guess.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara - 3
Chappell - 2 (Greg)
Border - 1

 

[honestbharani]

BTW, I don't understand the casting vote rule... Or changing vote rule.. There is a tie, then you put both guys at 6 and move on to 8, AFAIC.. Otherwise, this is not exactly representative of how CW votes...

 

[weldone]

BTW, I don't understand the casting vote rule... Or changing vote rule..

If changing votes is illegal, then the first question comes from me like this - how do I catch who all have edited their posts and changed their votes? I hope you understand that's not feasible (I don't know if a mod can tell, but I doubt).

The other way is, allowing everyone to change their votes. If the rule is same for everyone, it's fair. You have (3+2+1) points for 3 players. You can use those points the way you want.

 

[vic_orthdox]

3. G Pollock
2. G Headley
1. W Grace

 

[NUFAN]

This is getting tough, I should probably write down my top 40 or so.

3 - G. Pollock
2 - L. Hutton
1 - G. Chappell

Somehow gavaskar has gone down my pecking order in the space of 3 days.

 

[Blakus]

Grace
Headley
Lara

 

[marc71178]

If changing votes is illegal, then the first question comes from me like this - how do I catch who all have edited their posts and changed their votes? I hope you understand that's not feasible (I don't know if a mod can tell, but I doubt).

The other way is, allowing everyone to change their votes. If the rule is same for everyone, it's fair. You have (3+2+1) points for 3 players. You can use those points the way you want.

You can easily see an edited post because it says at the bottom of it that it was edited.

Simply don't allow edited votes and if it's a tie have an equal rank - to do it the current way is making a bit of a mockery as you're saying your vote almost counts double by being able to change it after everyone else has spoken.

 

[Athlai]

It also says the time when the post was editted so you can seperate posts which have been editted well after time and posts were a legitimate mistake may have been corrected a few minutes later.

 

[Teja.]

Hammond
Headley
Chappell

 

[Matt79]

3 points - Grace
2 - G. Chappell
1 - Lara

 

[jaideep]

If changing votes is illegal, then the first question comes from me like this - how do I catch who all have edited their posts and changed their votes? I hope you understand that's not feasible (I don't know if a mod can tell, but I doubt).

The other way is, allowing everyone to change their votes. If the rule is same for everyone, it's fair. You have (3+2+1) points for 3 players. You can use those points the way you want.

Yes you can use the points the way you want to but that applies to everyone and you should give some time to others as well to change their votes after you did.Anyway there is a good chance of a tie between lara and chappell in this round too.

 

[Matt79]

Just call it a tie, have the rankings go
5
=7
=7
8
etc

Imo

 

[Athlai]

Just call it a tie, have the rankings go
5
=7
=7
8
etc

Imo

I thought it went
5
6=
6=
8
personally

 

[Matt79]

I thought it went
5
6=
6=
8
personally

 

[Athlai]

Glass of vodka IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

If changing votes is illegal, then the first question comes from me like this - how do I catch who all have edited their posts and changed their votes? I hope you understand that's not feasible (I don't know if a mod can tell, but I doubt).

The other way is, allowing everyone to change their votes. If the rule is same for everyone, it's fair. You have (3+2+1) points for 3 players. You can use those points the way you want.

no u can change your votes.. I meant you changed yours specifically coz it was a tie, which I feel, with all due respect, is stupid.. If CW voted 2 guys at 6, then so be it... You had a cut off and it was a tie till then.. It should be 6. Hammond and Lara and we should be voting for #8 now...

 

[weldone]

Well, I am not changing the rules, because:

1. I myself am convinced that it is fair.
2. I don't find any point in ranking two players at the same position, lessens the fun element associated with the thread. There should be 25 different batsmen in 25 different ranks. Otherwise, we can be politically correct like we are and say that about 10 batsmen after Bradman are of about same status, rank them together, and chuck the idea of the thread.
3. We've moved a long way after Hadlee-Murali and Hammond-Lara tug of war. Changing the rules will mean re-taking the votes for this round, not worth it.
4. Strategic voting should be a part of this thread. Keep editing your votes whenever you want, to serve any purpose. Adds to the fun element, again.
5. I shall not be changing my votes if it's not a tie. If I wanted, I could easily change the rankings by editing my votes in the end of every round (yes, that would have been possible mathematically except in some cases like Bradman). I shall edit my votes only to break a tie, because as I said, I don't want two players at the same position.
6. It is my thread. I'll do the way I want

 

[weldone]

Yes you can use the points the way you want to but that applies to everyone and you should give some time to others as well to change their votes after you did.Anyway there is a good chance of a tie between lara and chappell in this round too.

That's not a valid point according to me. This applies to anyone who casts the votes in the latter part. He has the privilege of knowing the exact position till then, and can vote according to the situation (like even if he feels that Grace should be the next man but knows that Grace has practically no chance according to the points then he might vote for Lara). In that way, it could have been perfectly fair (like you mean it) if and only if people did not come to know others' votes, and had this been done through emails or something. Which, again, would have lessened the fun element.

And, coming to the 2nd sentence from you, if anyone feels that there is a good chance of a tie between Lara and Chappell in this round, they are free to change their votes to tilt it in favor of one of the two. That's perfectly part of the game, you may try it yourself.