The CW50 - No.50-41

[FaaipDeOiad]

Great read.

Didn't have any of these guys in my top 25, personally.

 

[Pratters]

I wouldn't have Andrew Flintoff any where near the top 100 cricketers of all time, let alone the top 50.

 

[Fusion]

Didn't have any of these guys in my top 25, personally.

Same.

 

[morgieb]

Suprised Garner & Donald were that low.

 

[Uppercut]

I wouldn't have Andrew Flintoff any where near the top 100 cricketers of all time, let alone the top 50.

That's why it's CW's list and not Pratters's list.

Garner's the only one here I had, scraping in at 25th.

 

[morgieb]

I wouldn't have Andrew Flintoff any where near the top 100 cricketers of all time, let alone the top 50.

Bet ya, some Pommies rated him high due to his part in the Ashes win.

 

[Pratters]

That's why it's CW's list and not Pratters's list.

But the idea is to make it as true a list as possible. No one with sense can argue that Flintoff is among the top 100 cricketers of all time (as I said here, Flintoff cannot even be termed a great.)

I like the concept and I am looking forward to the rest of the list but it shouldn't stop me from pointing possible flaws. Maybe only include cricketers with at least 5 votes?

 

[Uppercut]

Well since the word "greatness" was left entirely open to interpretation, there's no such thing as a more or less "true" list.

 

[zaremba]

But the idea is to make it as true a list as possible. No one with sense can argue that Flintoff is among the top 100 cricketers of all time (as I said here, Flintoff cannot even be termed a great.)

I like the concept and I am looking forward to the rest of the list but it shouldn't stop me from pointing possible flaws.

Aussie writer Geoff Armstrong has published a pretty good book, the 100 Greatest Cricketers, which includes Flintoff. I wouldn't have him in there myself, tbh, but it's just about a respectable shout.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

At 5% Freddie probably got only two votes, but they were both Top 10ers.

 

[Uppercut]

Shane Warne put him at number 16 out of every player he'd played with or against. That's ahead of Adam Gilchrist, Steve Waugh and Allan Donald.

Although he also put Steve Harmison in his list. But you still have to respect the opinion of someone who faced the guy at his best.

 

[Pratters]

16th in a generation is hardly good enough to warrant a top 50 of all time.

 

[Jarquis]

At 5% Freddie probably got only two votes, but they were both Top 10ers.

Reckon it's pretty easy to name them both as well.

 

[Pratters]

40 people voted. So to be in the list you should get at least 10% of the votes or 4 votes. I think that's a fair criteria....

 

[Jarquis]

16th in a generation is hardly good enough to warrant a top 50 of all time.

Depends on the quality of the generation compared to others.
If the best 20 players ever, were all born in the same generation would you leave some out just because they were the 15th-20th of their generation? No.

 

[Pratters]

If the best 20 players ever, were all born in the same generation

The possibility of that happening is exactly nil.

 

[Days of Grace]

But the idea is to make it as true a list as possible.

In your opinion.

Don't be such a sadbuzz. This is a great stuff.

I didn't vote for any of those guys, btw.

Just of note: Barry Richards retired at age 37 at 80 centuries. Would have been a chance to score 100 centuries if he hanged around for a few more seasons IMO.

 

[Pratters]

Sorry guys, I have taken the debate about the list to the other thread.

 

[Pothas]

Spofforth the only one I had in my list at number 23.

 

[Athlai]

Richards - 23
Lindwall - 14 Kind of gutted he didn't get into the 30s.