• 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.

Fast Bowler Survivor 2020 Finals Voting Thread

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Marshall and Ambrose.

As great as both of their oppo are, I don't think either is a particularly difficult choice.

Curtly had everything McGrath did but was quicker with it.
 

ankitj

International Coach
How did Marshall and Hadlee end up in the same semi match-up? Weren't they seeded #1 and #2 prior to this whole tourney started?

Why didn't rank #1 of group I go against rank #2 of group II? I'm confused at the match up.
 
Last edited:

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
How did Marshall and Hadlee end up in the same semi match-up? Weren't they seeded #1 and #2 prior to this whole tourney started?

Why didn't rank #1 of group I go against rank #2 of group II? I'm confused at the match up.
Seedings change based on the most recent rounds of voting. Hadlee was ranked 4th in the quarter finals.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah because you paired him with Marshall then as well...
That's because he was voted 5th in the preliminary finals despite being ranked 2 going in.

The methodology has been consistent the whole time. The whole point of running the preliminaries the way I did was to avoid any kind of bias against a bowler due to running into a juggernaut.

Here is the top 8 after each round of voting:

Code:
Groups:

Malcolm Marshall
Curtly Ambrose
Richard Hadlee
Glenn McGrath
Joel Garner
Sydney Barnes
Wasim Akram
Fred Trueman

R64:

Malcolm Marshall
Richard Hadlee
Curtly Ambrose
Sydney Barnes
Glenn McGrath
Joel Garner
Wasim Akram
Fred Trueman

R32:

Malcolm Marshall
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath
Wasim Akram
Richard Hadlee
Joel Garner
Fred Trueman
Sydney Barnes

Preliminary:

Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Curtly Ambrose
Richard Hadlee
Dale Steyn
Joel Garner
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee

Quarters:

Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Curtly Ambrose
Richard Hadlee
-------------------
Dale Steyn
Joel Garner
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
After this semi final there will be the grand final and the third place final so if Hadlee loses this he could conceivably get 3rd rank overall.
 

ataraxia

International Debutant
That's because he was voted 5th in the preliminary finals despite being ranked 2 going in.

The methodology has been consistent the whole time. The whole point of running the preliminaries the way I did was to avoid any kind of bias against a bowler due to running into a juggernaut.

Here is the top 8 after each round of voting:

Code:
Groups:

Malcolm Marshall
Curtly Ambrose
Richard Hadlee
Glenn McGrath
Joel Garner
Sydney Barnes
Wasim Akram
Fred Trueman

R64:

Malcolm Marshall
Richard Hadlee
Curtly Ambrose
Sydney Barnes
Glenn McGrath
Joel Garner
Wasim Akram
Fred Trueman

R32:

Malcolm Marshall
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath
Wasim Akram
Richard Hadlee
Joel Garner
Fred Trueman
Sydney Barnes

Preliminary:

Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Curtly Ambrose
Richard Hadlee
Dale Steyn
Joel Garner
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee

Quarters:

Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Curtly Ambrose
Richard Hadlee
-------------------
Dale Steyn
Joel Garner
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee
But in the post you had Hadlee 4th in the preliminary finals?

I didn't think he'd be outside the top 3 in most of the stages.
 
Last edited:

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
But in the post you had Hadlee 4th in the preliminary finals?

I didn't think he'd be outside the top 3 in most of the stages.
These were the results of those stages. Going into the preliminaries (i.e. after the round of 32) he was 5th. Going into the quarters and semis he was 4th.

Ultimately this isn't supposed to be the definitive taking of fast bowlers. It's supposed to be a close approximation to how CW members see these bowlers that gets more accurate the closer you get to the very best.

Every round of voting is important for this to work and it's been pretty amazing how consistent the voting has been - the lowest number of votes was 8 and that was in the group stages. We've consistently had numbers of votes in the teens since the round of 32 and the further we go the more people have voted.
 

Top