• 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.

Ultimate Test Draft

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Probably getting the stage where is is overkill. But I always wanted to do a draft with a bit of difference and based on criteria. Basically the draft will be based on picking players from 10 different eras.

Basically you would need a player who debuted from each of these eras:
- 1877-1899
- 1900-1919
- 1920-1929
- 1930-1949
- 1950-1959
- 1960-1969
- 1970-1979
- 1980-1989
- 1990-1999
- 2000+

You pick a player who debuted from each of those eras and then last round you pick anyone.

Reckon this could separate the men from the boys and see who really know their cricket history.

If we haven't reached over kill and there is either 6 or 8 guys interested. Just post here. I want to keep the pool short so we get high quality sides.

1. chaminda_00
2. pskov
3. Matt79
4. Samuel_Vimes
5. Goughy
6. Someset
7. The Sean
8. Michaelf7777777
 
Last edited:

pskov

International 12th Man
I'll take part in this. It isn't like I have anything better to do...

Are we only allowed to take a player from a certain era each round, or do we just need one from each era and we can take them in any order we like as long as we fulfill the requirements?
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
I'll take part in this. It isn't like I have anything better to do...

Are we only allowed to take a player from a certain era each round, or do we just need one from each era and we can take them in any order we like as long as we fulfill the requirements?
Nah you have to take a player from a certain era each round. I thought about the other way but just thought everyone would just pick the older players last.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I'm in. Is the period nominated for the entire round, or do we just have to make sure that we have one from each era by the end of round 10 - ie. round one, do we all have to pick pre-1899. And how to we manage the turn progression? Don't know that serpentine will work here as it means the people in the middle never get to pick one of the top few cricketers of their day. Maybe a sliding order? If you go first in round 1, you go to last in round 2, and every one else moves up one, repeated each round?
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Maybe a sliding order? If you go first in round 1, you go to last in round 2, and every one else moves up one, repeated each round?
I like this idea. I hate the whole you go first one round and last the next round. For something like this you want to be in the middle.

So basically

Round One: (1,2,3,4,5,6)
Round Two: (2,3,4,5,6,1)
etc
 

pskov

International 12th Man
Maybe make it so the first drafter in each round chooses the decade rather than have us going in a predetermined order? But still make sure that every era has to be chosen at least once.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Maybe make it so the first drafter in each round chooses the decade rather than have us going in a predetermined order? But still make sure that every era has to be chosen at least once.
Fine with that.

One more spot left so we can keep this quick.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Maybe make it so the first drafter in each round chooses the decade rather than have us going in a predetermined order? But still make sure that every era has to be chosen at least once.
Fine with that.

One more spot left so we can keep this quick.
Actually prefer we do it with the set order initially specified. Otherwise, as first stated, the 19th century guys will be left til last. Reckon it adds to it to have the players we're all more familiar with amongst the last ones picked.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Actually prefer we do it with the set order initially specified. Otherwise, as first stated, the 19th century guys will be left til last. Reckon it adds to it to have the players we're all more familiar with amongst the last ones picked.
Agreed - I like the way it was first set out.
 

pskov

International 12th Man
Actually prefer we do it with the set order initially specified. Otherwise, as first stated, the 19th century guys will be left til last. Reckon it adds to it to have the players we're all more familiar with amongst the last ones picked.
Fair enough it was just an idea I don't really mind. But if you think the 19th century guys would be left till last I think you'd be surprised. There are some guys with bloody ace records from that era.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Not fussed either way preference would be to go through the pre set order. As if you leave the early era last you might not get any decent keepers and stuff. There is more options going from early to current players. Due to more players to select from.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
I like this idea. I hate the whole you go first one round and last the next round. For something like this you want to be in the middle.

So basically

Round One: (1,2,3,4,5,6)
Round Two: (2,3,4,5,6,1)
etc
One problem with this is that there are more rounds than there are competitors. Means that the blokes up first get two shots at first pick whereas the guys down the order only get one.

If we had 11 competitors for 11 rounds then it would work.
 

Top