• 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.

Anyone up for making a new draft?

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Do a draft where each successive pick cannot be a player of the same type as the two previous picks. So if participant A picks a fast bowler and participant B picks a spin bowler, then participant C cannot pick either a fast bowler or spin bowler. If he then picks a batsman, participant D cannot then pick either a spin bowler or batsman. Rounds would need to be randomised every alternative round to prevent the same participants from being continually shafted.

Obviously would need strict numerical criterea to define all-rounders and Sobers (combo quickie + spinner) and such. Or just leave Sobers (CWtop50 #1) and Bradman (CWtop50 #2) out of it.
 
Last edited:

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
Excellent idea for a draft. I would probably make it 1500 FC first class appearances and have a maximum of say 2 or 3 current players to prevent people from going for current young players who have started their careers well.
Yeah, good suggestion.

Will start a thread on it later today or tomorrow. 1500 FC appearances per player and a limit of 2/3 players currently playing should be good.

Also wrt to the first round, i'll open up the places in it for auction by using FC appearances deductible from 1500, and then we can do a snake order from there.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
Do a draft where each successive pick cannot be a player of the same type as the two previous picks. So if participant A picks a fast bowler and participant B picks a spin bowler, then participant C cannot pick either a fast bowler or spin bowler. If he then picks a batsman, participant D cannot then pick either a spin bowler or batsman. Rounds would need to be randomised every alternative round to prevent the same participants from being continually shafted.

Obviously would need strict numerical criterea to define all-rounders and Sobers (combo quickie + spinner) and such. Or just leave Sobers (CWtop50 #1) and Bradman (CWtop50 #2) out of it.
Like this idea too . Team balance will be a interesting proposition to mantain. Though it has a higher luck quotient.
 
Last edited:

Eds

International Debutant
Joe's has to be my favourite idea so far. Could be very interesting if you've got a packed batting lineup and then the two in front of you pick a bowler and an all-rounder. Would need to be run very well with strict rules though, I imagine.
 

weeman27bob

International Regular
Joe's has to be my favourite idea so far. Could be very interesting if you've got a packed batting lineup and then the two in front of you pick a bowler and an all-rounder. Would need to be run very well with strict rules though, I imagine.
No skipping people though? Or maybe if someone gets skipped, they can get forced to look for a very niche role by the person in front of them.
 

Eds

International Debutant
No skipping people though? Or maybe if someone gets skipped, they can get forced to look for a very niche role by the person in front of them.
Yeah, I say if a person is skipped they just use the original two picks they had to avoid anyway. Otherwise we could get strategical non-picking if someone wants a batsman and one of the two people in front of them takes a batsman.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Like this idea too . Team balance will be a interesting proposition to mantain. Though it has a higher luck quotient.
Yeah, it does. But the truly merit-driven ideas all seem to be done. Until some one comes up with the next great idea, lets roll with this.

Anyone with a snazzy name for the draft? All I can come up with is 'Prohibition Draft'.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Criterea for categorising players. I propose-

All-rounders - At least 2 wickets per match AND batting average of 27. (Keeps Hadlee in, but Kallis out. Kallis should really be considered a batsman and part time bowler with his 1.8 wpm, IMO)

Wicket-keepers - At least 15 matches as keeper (Keeps Walcott out).

Pace-bowlers - At least 2 wickets per match AND batting average below 27.

Spin-bowlers - At least 2 wickets per match AND batting average below 27.

Batsmen - Does not fit into any of above categories.

Thoughts?
 

Eds

International Debutant
I really think Kallis should be included as an all-rounder in this. There's no way you wouldn't use him as a fifth bowling option if you had him in your side.

Although, you should just create the thread with whatever name and we can discuss this in there.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
Seems good to me. Keeping Kallis in would mean setting the limit to 1.8 which would need calculations everytime.
 
Last edited:

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I'm not creating a thread unltil we come up with a title that doesn't remind me of Al Capone :p

We'll have to reduce the WPM to 1.8 to accomodate Kallis.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
15+ matches for keepers isn't quite right as it becomes more and more lenient as we get more modern. For example it'd exclude Walcott but include Sangakkara. Why not say they have to have kept wicket in over half their matches?
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
15+ matches for keepers isn't quite right as it becomes more and more lenient as we get more modern. For example it'd exclude Walcott but include Sangakkara. Why not say the have to have kept wicket in over half their matches?
Yeah, good point. Had forgotten Sangakkara. What about the rest of the categories?

And please suggest a name for the draft while you're at it.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Was thinking of something like an 'Age Draft' where you have a total of 333 years to spend on players where their value is how old they were when they played their final test.
 

Top