Vintage Cricket Draft Anyone?

[Neil Pickup]

Nope, rules are rules.

 

[JohnnyA]

Nope, rules are rules.

ALright ... good luck acumulating bowling stats. Like I said, it should police itself

I'm gonna post a spreadsheet on the internet with the current standing as each player picks. I'll update it every round or so. Obviously these will be a little (or a lot) skewed until the last pick is made. But it'll be a useful tool.

Jon

 

[JohnnyA]

Here's the link to the updated standings. I'll format the look of the page when i get time. It's a little blocky right now. Alos, if anyone knows how to hide the equations that haevn't been fillind in yet (Excel), I'd appreciate it:

VINTAGE CRICKET STANDINGS

 

[Mister Wright]

Thanks Jonny!

I Like

 

[Slats4ever]

Umm you've left out one of my details
Curtly Ambroose has taken 22 5 wicket innings in his time.
Border has also taken 2
Thanks mate

 

[JohnnyA]

Umm you've left out one of my details
Curtly Ambroose has taken 22 5 wicket innings in his time.
Border has also taken 2
Thanks mate

Thanks Slats. If anyone sees any incorrect numbers, then post to tell me.

I'll update that on the spread sheet, and upload it after the current round has completed.

Jon

EDIT: Here's the link to the updated standings. I'll format the look of the page when i get time. It's a little blocky right now. Also, if anyone knows how to hide the equations that haven't been filled in yet (Excel), I'd appreciate it:

VINTAGE CRICKET STANDINGS

 

[Neil Pickup]

=(IF(Team Cell/Player Cell=''),NA,current formula)

Brackets are probably wrong.

What it basically means is... "if there's no player here, put NA, otherwise calculate the figure"

 

[JohnnyA]

=(IF(Team Cell/Player Cell=''),NA,current formula)

Brackets are probably wrong.

What it basically means is... "if there's no player here, put NA, otherwise calculate the figure"

Thanks ... sounds complicated, so I'll give it a miss I thinks it should be OK the way it is.

I updated the web page again to include a rankings table of where everyone stands in each category. Check it out below:

VINTAGE CRICKET STANDINGS

 

[marc71178]

The 10 game minimum refers to batting positions (opener, middle order and WK)

Since when has WK been a batting position?

It's a specialist area!

 

[JohnnyA]

Since when has WK been a batting position?

It's a specialist area!

Yes it is a specialist position. That's why a player has to have played at least 10 tests to qualify ... same with openers, middle order batsmen and bowlers.

Don't wicket keepers bat? Maybe I've been missing something all these years

. Most WK's are in the side because of their batting these days: Gilchrist, Stewie, Flower, Sangakara, Boucher (terrible keeper!).

 

[marc71178]

But the point is, a keeper is a keeper, and Tillekeratne is most definitely NOT one.

He has named in 11 games, and out of 77 that is not enough to make him one IMO - Neil has shown how silly that 10 rule is with his bowler suggestions!

 

[PY]

Boucher (terrible keeper!).

I hope you're not basing that on the summer Tests as both him and Stewart had torrid times with the dodgy pitches but I think Boucher is a bloody good keeper, maybe not a all-time great but still quality.

I would rate him as about 3rd-4th best keeper in the international arena at the moment. Maybe even 2nd.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

For my money...

Hart
Taibu
Patel/Read
Latif
Boucher
Jacobs
Sangakarra/Gilchrist

I would controversially rate Jacobs above Gilchrist and Sangakarra, because although his style I unorthodox, he's a solid
'keeper who has taken some superb catches in his tenure.

 

[JohnnyA]

But the point is, a keeper is a keeper, and Tillekeratne is most definitely NOT one.

He has named in 11 games, and out of 77 that is not enough to make him one IMO - Neil has shown how silly that 10 rule is with his bowler suggestions!

10 games positional eligablity. End of story. It's completely irrelevant that Tillakeratne happens not to keep anymore. Those we're the rules at the start. The rules are the same for everybody.

Walcott is another who qualifies at WK, despite only playing 14 games there.

There is no debate here. WK is essentially a batting slot for our purposes ... just like Opener and Middle Order. It's specific for players who have played at least 10 games at the position. They accumlate stats and points just like the rest of the players.

I thought about only allowing bowlers to score bowling points and batters batting points. And having a separate "all-rounder" slot. I disgarded this because I felt 7 scoring categories were too little as it is, and that including all-stats increases the possibilities.

Perhaps I shouldn't have included dissmissals (catches etc). Maybe that's what's confusing you. I only included it because 6 cateogories weren't enough. WK is a batting slot, that accumulates batting points .. and has the occasional bonus of having lots of extra dismissals to boost your Fielding total.

It's pretty obvious this is a game about batting and bowling stats.

I hadn't specified about Bowling or Batting positional eligability. I may yet do so. I'm still giving it some thought. For the most part it should police itself. But I'll do some research. Tactics that are against the spirit of the game and make a mockery of the setup will not be allowed. This is the first time this type of draft has been done ... Im still working out the very specific rules as we go along.

 

[JohnnyA]

For my money...

Hart
Taibu
Patel/Read
Latif
Boucher
Jacobs
Sangakarra/Gilchrist

I would controversially rate Jacobs above Gilchrist and Sangakarra, because although his style I unorthodox, he's a solid
'keeper who has taken some superb catches in his tenure.

For our purposes though, keepers are just batters who have put on the gloves a requiste number of times.

As for pure keeping ... I'd like to see a few of those guys keep to a top class spinner.

Keeping is over-rated IMHO. It shouldn't really be that difficult catching the ball with those huge gloves on. It's about consistency, concentration, and not making mistakes. This is why I consider Stewart a better keeper than Jack Russell. Jack might have been the better "pure" keeper in terms of what he could do. But he made too many stupid gaffes. Stewart was Mr Consistency for England. Caught all the easy ones, snagged the odd blinder, and was consistently Englands second best batter for the last 5 years (first behind Thorpe, then behind Vaughn). Stewie was priceless ... and England just let him go ... UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

It was a disgrace that he was hounded out of the job by the press and supposed experts (Botham is such a w*****r). Hell, if he were a catcher in baseball with his kind of offensive capabilities with the bat, he'd have been offered a 3-4 year $25-30 million contract (at least) ... despite being 40 yrs old!!!! He perfectly balanced the England team ... now they look like sh*t. Cricket is such a backward game sometimes.

 

[marc71178]

Im still working out the very specific rules as we go along.

That is very evident.

 

[JohnnyA]

That is very evident.

What exactly is your problem?

 

[marc71178]

Isn't it obvious?

If we're going to do something, you cannot bend the rules so stupidly halfway through.

Out of the other people partaking in this, I expect none of them would even consider Tillekeratne as a keeper (a bit like the Sri Lankan selectors, but then what would they know?)

 

[age_master]

if the rules are 10 games, and tillikaratne has kept in 11 than he classifies as a keeper.

 

[marc71178]

if the rules are 10 games, and tillikaratne has kept in 11 than he classifies as a keeper.

And that doesn't strike you as a tad farcical - he is not a keeper for 66 of those games (the ones where he get's the runs that give him these stats that make him worth selecting)