• 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.

CW Draft League

watson

Banned
Baffled you don't rate his batting. Average of about 47 in FC cricket with 35 centuries is surely worthy of note
It is note worthy, but there is a world of difference between playing Kent at Tumbridge Wells, and fronting up to 4-5 angry Australian bowlers at the MCG on boxing day. At least in the 1930s there was. These days I think I'd rather have the Kent attack.
 

watson

Banned
I definitely disagree that he's good enough to be a wicket-keeper at this level.
And I definitely disagree with you definitely disagreeing with someone agreeing with someone else about Stewart being a top notch keeper.

Agreed that he started out as Mr Fumbles, but toward the end of his career he was pretty sharp in my opinion.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
He was competent yes, but nowhere near a top notch keeper, certainly not to have his glovework ranking him in this company.

It's a fallacy that he was an all rounder as well - should've been an opening batsman alone.
 

Jager

International Debutant
Statsguru tells me that Wilfred averaged 36.72 runs when opening the innings. This isn't bad, but it isn't good either.

Trouble is, if you play Wilfred as an opener then you lose a spinner because he hardly ever bowled when he partnered Jack Hobbs.

I even think that No.8 or 9 is probably too high in the order. All his genius resides in his bowling skills prior to WWI. Back then, he was only vaguely competent with the bat. But what a bowler!
God, there is a lot of statistical nitpicking that goes on here. If we're allowed to choose time periods for our players, do I get to choose young pre-injury Waqar, arguably the greatest fast bowling phenomenon of all time? You know, the one who took 180 wickets in his first 31 matches at 18.78 apiece, strike rate 35.6 with 19 five wicket hauls? Also, I choose late-career Stewart who was indeed a very reliable keeper. I'll have a young Neil Harvey and SRT too, cheers
 

Jager

International Debutant
R1
kingkallis- Garfield Sobers
Himannv- Imran Khan
Marcuss- Adam Gilchrist
Cabinet96- Keith Miller
Eds- Malcolm Marshall
Cevno- Richard Hadlee
Blakus- Vivian Richards
MrPrez- Jaques Kallis
watson- Glenn McGrath
Jager- Curtly Ambrose
AndyZaltzHair- Dennis Lillee
kyear2- Jack Hobbs

R2
kyear2- Shane Warne
AndyZaltzHair- Fred Trueman
Jager- Sachin Tendulkar
watson- Michael Holding
MrPrez- Muttiah Muralitharan
Blakus- Sydney Barnes
Cevno- Wasim Akram
Eds- Brian Lara
Cabinet96- Len Hutton
Marcuss- Bill O'Reilly
Himannv- Alan Davidson
kingkallis- Wally Hammond

R3
Jager- Waqar Younis
kyear2- Allan Donald
Himannv- George Headley
AndyZaltzHair- Ray Lindwall
Eds- Joel Garner
Marcuss- Aubrey Faulkner
kingkallis- Dale Steyn
Blakus- Graeme Pollock
Cabinet96- Clyde Walcott
Cevno- Shaun Pollock
MrPrez- Mike Procter
watson- Andy Roberts

R4
watson- Greg Chappell
MrPrez- Victor Trumper
Cevno- Andrew Flower
Cabinet96- Jim Laker
Blakus- Sunil Gavaskar
kingkallis- Richie Benaud
Marcuss- Ian Botham
Eds- Barry Richards
AndyZaltzHair- Clarrie Grimmett
Himannv- Frank Tyson
kyear2- Ricky Ponting
Jager- Harold Larwood

R5
AndyZaltzHair- Les Ames
kyear2- Everton Weekes
Blakus- Herbert Sutcliffe
Jager- Neil Harvey
Cabinet96- Courtney Walsh
Marcuss- Steve Waugh
Cevno- WG Grace
MrPrez- Allan Border
watson- Alan Knott
kingkallis- Rahul Dravid
Himannv- Ken Barrington
Eds- Kapil Dev

R6
Eds- Frank Worrell
Himannv- Denis Compton
kingkallis- Matthew Hayden
watson- Hedley Verity
MrPrez- Ian Healy
Cevno- Anil Kumble
Marcuss- Javed Miandad
Cabinet96- Fazal Mahmood
Jager- Wilfred Rhodes
Blakus- Kumar Sangakkara
kyear2- Denis Lindsay
AndyZaltzHair- Arthur Morris

R7
watson- Bob Simpson
Jager- Dudley Nourse
AndyZaltzHair- Clive Lloyd
Eds- Gordon Greenidge
kingkallis- Graham Gooch
Marcuss- Geoff Boycott
kyear2- Colin Croft
Himannv- Hanif Mohammad
MrPrez- Saqlain Mushtaq
Blakus- Frederick Spofforth
Cevno- Virender Sehwag
Cabinet96- Bruce Mitchell

R8
Cabinet96- Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Cevno- Shane Bond
Blakus- Peter Pollock
MrPrez- Bob Willis
Himannv- Bill Lawry
kyear2- Ted Dexter
Marcuss- Ian Bishop
kingkallis- Wes Hall
Eds- Charles Macartney
AndyZaltzHair- Bill Ponsford
Jager- Alec Stewart
watson- Rohan Kanhai

R9
Cabinet96- David Gower
Cevno- Inzamam-ul-Haq
Eds- Hugh Tayfield
AndyZaltzHair- Frank Woolley
Marcuss- Stan McCabe
Jager- Doug Walters
MrPrez- Bill Woodfull
kingkallis- Kevin Pietersen
watson- Mushtaq Mohammad
Blakus- Kumar Ranjitsinhji
Himannv- Peter May
kyear2- Vijay Merchant

R10
kyear2- John Snow
Himannv- Derek Underwood
Blakus- Hugh Trumble
watson- Lindsay Hassett
kingkallis- Rod Marsh
MrPrez- Brian Statham
Jager- Douglas Jardine
Marcuss-
AndyZaltzHair-
Eds-
Cevno-
Cabinet96-

R11
AndyZaltzHair-
Jager-
MrPrez-
Marcuss-
Blakus-
Himannv-
kyear2-
Eds-
kingkallis-
watson-
Cevno-
Cabinet96-

R12
Cabinet96-
Cevno-
watson-
kingkallis-
Eds-
kyear2-
Himannv-
Blakus-
Marcuss-
MrPrez-
Jager-
AndyZaltzHair-
 

Jager

International Debutant
Last edited:

watson

Banned
God, there is a lot of statistical nitpicking that goes on here. If we're allowed to choose time periods for our players, do I get to choose young pre-injury Waqar, arguably the greatest fast bowling phenomenon of all time? You know, the one who took 180 wickets in his first 31 matches at 18.78 apiece, strike rate 35.6 with 19 five wicket hauls? Also, I choose late-career Stewart who was indeed a very reliable keeper. I'll have a young Neil Harvey and SRT too, cheers
Well, presumerably, if you did have a time-machine to zip around the past to collect all the players for your team, then you would have to choose a specific moment in time to pick up Neil Harvey. You can't go to 1950 and 1960 similtaneously, that would be silly. Unlike the notion of time-travel which isn't silly at all because Dr Who does it.
 

Eds

International Debutant
God, there is a lot of statistical nitpicking that goes on here. If we're allowed to choose time periods for our players, do I get to choose young pre-injury Waqar, arguably the greatest fast bowling phenomenon of all time? You know, the one who took 180 wickets in his first 31 matches at 18.78 apiece, strike rate 35.6 with 19 five wicket hauls? Also, I choose late-career Stewart who was indeed a very reliable keeper. I'll have a young Neil Harvey and SRT too, cheers
You're thinking about it wrong. Pre-injury Waqar was still a Waqar that was essentially a fast bowler. Neil Harvey and Tendulkar were both batsmen throughout their career, as well. We're not picking someone at their peak - we're focusing rather on player role.

Example A:
You pick Wilfred Rhodes. A player with the stats of an all-rounder who was never able to do well with bat and ball at the same time, and never really played as an all-rounder at all. Just because over the course of his career his stats equal out to those of an all-rounder, doesn't mean he can be used as an all-rounder here. As a result of this, you've either picked yourself a strong opening batsman that could be a good option as a second or third spinner, OR, a superb spinner who batted at 9 or 10.

Example B:
You pick Alec Stewart. Throughout his career, he showed that he was a more than capable opening bat, as well as being a more than capable middle order bat. Without the gloves, he would be capable of batting anywhere in the order. However, because he never really consistently opened and kept at the same time, he should not be made to do so here. As a result of this, you've either picked a specialist opening batsman, a specialist middle order batsman, or a middle-order wicketkeeper-batsman.

Example C:
You pick Garfield Sobers. A player who consistently performed with bat and ball throughout his career. However, at the beginning of his career, he was brought into the side as a bowler. Because of this, you've got license to use him as the specialist bowler he was when he was brought into the team, if you so wish. You'd never want to do that, but it'd be an option.

See what I mean?
 

Jager

International Debutant
Well, presumerably, if you did have a time-machine to zip around the past to collect all the players for your team, then you would have to choose a specific moment in time to pick up Neil Harvey. You can't go to 1950 and 1960 similtaneously, that would be silly. Unlike the notion of time-travel which isn't silly at all because Dr Who does it.
:laugh:

unfortunately we have to examine players in as a whole instead of their glory days only.
 

Jager

International Debutant
What happens if I partner Stewart with a magnificent opening batsmen who will take a huge amount of the pressure off him?
 

MrPrez

International Debutant
What happens if I partner Stewart with a magnificent opening batsmen who will take a huge amount of the pressure off him?
Your batting attack will be worse than a team with two magnificent opening batsmen?
 

Eds

International Debutant
Seems unlikely at this stage. :p

I'd still argue that he wouldn't do very well, though. For the same reasons I mentioned earlier. He just hasn't proven himself as an opening wicketkeeper-batsman.
 

Jager

International Debutant
Indeed you might be right, although on that note I should also mention that this entire exercise is mere speculation :p I think I'll keep him there until I snag an opener - sort order out later
 

watson

Banned
I know you're just messing obviously, but had you been serious you would have proven my point. We don't get to pick which time period of a player we want.

P.S I find it amusing that Rhodes averaged 32.21 at the outbreak of WWI, having scored both his centuries

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

6 five-fors, 105 wickets at 24.90 at that stage too
I see where you are coming from Jager, and you do have some valid points. But the history of Rhode's career is a little more subtle and intriguing in my opinion.

Rhodes scored his first century in the 1911 Ashes series and averaged 57.87 with the bat. In the same Ashes series his wicket tally was exactly zero (If I've read the columns right this time).

On-the-other-hand, Rhodes claimed 31 wickets in the 1903/04 Ashs series at a mere 15.7 runs a piece. In the same Ashes series his top score was 40 runs (at No.11) and his batting average was 18.00.

I think that is is farely obvious that Rhodes wasn't an allrounder in the true meaning of the word. At his bowling peak he was a truly great bowler who happened to be a useful tail-end batsman. At his batting peak he was a good batsman who was rarely used as a bowler.
 

Jager

International Debutant
Conveniently I am not playing him as an all-rounder, but as a world-class spinner who can bat. I'd imagine it was more how he was deployed that altered his numbers, much like Miller
 

watson

Banned
:laugh:

unfortunately we have to examine players in as a whole instead of their glory days only.
I think that we have stumbled across an interesting philosophical and technical point.

Personally, I look at the player's entire career to see whether they are worthy of being considered for an ATG team. I then narrow the player down to a specific year, or even series once I have selected the player.

In my imagination a fat rotund Ian Botham from 1989 does not bowl to a greying Vivian Richards from1990. Instead, a faster Ian Botham from 1979 bowls to a younger Vivian Richards from 1980.
 

Top