-
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
- Thread starter Jager
- Start date
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Pollock was a very good slipper. Not sure about Headley.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Yes, going with Barnes, anyone who go match Bradman stroke for stroke is good good to pass up. Richards will take Tylors place at first slip and Ponting will take over the captaincy. Tylor will be advisor from the dressing room and emergency fielder. Still adds to the team.
Last edited:
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Thanks Monk.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
1.) Barry Richards ^
2.) Sid Barnes
3.) Ricky Ponting * ^
4.) Lindsay Hassett
5.) Seymour Nurse ^
6.) Tony Greig (5)
7.) Les Ames +
8.) Malcolm Marshall (1)
9.) Alec Bedser (3)
10.) Jim Laker (4)
11.) Ian Bishop (2)
12.) Mark Taylor
A great team with great balance. A bowling attack with swing, seam, bounce, spin and raw, express pace led by the greatest fast bowler of them all Malcolm Marshall and one of the biggest spinners of the cricket ball in Jim Laker. The batting line up is headlined by Barry Richards, who ability wise is probably the best after Bradman and Ricky Ponting who is the greatest of the modern one downs. Richards is joined as an opener by the man who matched the Don stroke for Stroke in 1946 scoring 234. The greatest wicket keeper of the pre WW2 era was Les Ames who was handy enough of a batsman to have scored 100 FC 100's. He is joined behind the wicket by a flawless cordon of Barry Richards, Ponting and Seymour Nurse while the all round duties are handled by Tony Greig who was a capable batsman and under rated fast medium or off spin bolwer depending on the circumstances.
2.) Sid Barnes
3.) Ricky Ponting * ^
4.) Lindsay Hassett
5.) Seymour Nurse ^
6.) Tony Greig (5)
7.) Les Ames +
8.) Malcolm Marshall (1)
9.) Alec Bedser (3)
10.) Jim Laker (4)
11.) Ian Bishop (2)
12.) Mark Taylor
A great team with great balance. A bowling attack with swing, seam, bounce, spin and raw, express pace led by the greatest fast bowler of them all Malcolm Marshall and one of the biggest spinners of the cricket ball in Jim Laker. The batting line up is headlined by Barry Richards, who ability wise is probably the best after Bradman and Ricky Ponting who is the greatest of the modern one downs. Richards is joined as an opener by the man who matched the Don stroke for Stroke in 1946 scoring 234. The greatest wicket keeper of the pre WW2 era was Les Ames who was handy enough of a batsman to have scored 100 FC 100's. He is joined behind the wicket by a flawless cordon of Barry Richards, Ponting and Seymour Nurse while the all round duties are handled by Tony Greig who was a capable batsman and under rated fast medium or off spin bolwer depending on the circumstances.
Last edited:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
One hell of a team. Barry Richards and Sid Barnes as an opening combo is absolutely awesome. Two guys who the world didn't see enough of in tests, but both were supremely talented. Had they both played 50 plus tests I'm quite sure they'd be everyone's test ATG opening combo of choice. Bradman rated Barnes batsmanship very very highly.
Your bowling attack is brilliant imo. Marshall, Bishop and Bedser as quicks are all different and compliment each other well, and Laker is a very good spinner. Ames as keeper means the batting depth is good, and Marshall at 8 was a decent bat.
Greig is a handy all rounder and he is probably a bit underrated, particularly by Aussies who see him more as the Channel Nine protagonist than a very good AR.. His average of 40 plus with the bat and 32 with the ball is very good, and he should be remembered more than he is for his cricketing ability.
Last edited:
Valer
First Class Debutant
kyear2, the problem with drafts is you'll get completely contradictory opnions when voting.
Even moreso when the selection criteria are vague.
If it was clearly defined to be playing the martians for say even a 8 test home/ away with a nuetral decider one would pick a very diffrent team from say trying to be #1 for longest when the fill-ins after your players retired play for the local 4ths.
Ex: In this case Openers who last for ~5 years of play between them, with 17 tests are a problem, In that while value/time may be high (possibly over rated cf: fc averages, various standardisations ect.), your net value is still low (assuming a metric that actually encourages longevity).
Even moreso when the selection criteria are vague.
If it was clearly defined to be playing the martians for say even a 8 test home/ away with a nuetral decider one would pick a very diffrent team from say trying to be #1 for longest when the fill-ins after your players retired play for the local 4ths.
Ex: In this case Openers who last for ~5 years of play between them, with 17 tests are a problem, In that while value/time may be high (possibly over rated cf: fc averages, various standardisations ect.), your net value is still low (assuming a metric that actually encourages longevity).
Last edited:
watson
Banned
Selecting an ATG cricket team is just as much about creating a work of art as it is an exercise in number crunching.
If kyear 'feels' that Barry Richards and Sid Barnes would succeed against Andy's new ball attack (for example) on the evidence supplied by 17 Test matches then that is acceptable enough.
After all, it is no more a 'leap of faith' than assuming that your 2 bowlers from the 19th century would go OK against Sachin Tendulkar on a modern 2012 Mumbai batting strip. While their figures are excellent on paper there is no way of translating those figures into anything more than guess work.
The same idea applies to my 1920s middle-order. I think that it would go OK against Marshall or Holding because the bowlers in that period were almost as fast, but the wickets were exposed to the weather (uncovered) and consistently a lot more difficult. By implication, if a batsman was brilliant in 1925 he would most certainly be brilliant on a 2012 featherbed. But I have no way of proving any of that in reality. I am just guessing.
At the end of the day Maurice Leyland 'feels good' to me in the same way that Sid Barnes 'feels good' to kyear, and Charlie Turner 'feels good' to you. As I said before, selecting a cricket team is like creating a work of art in many ways - which is of course why we enjoy doing it. It's not like doing Maths homework!
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
There is enough evidence to show that both Barry Richards and Sid Barnes belong in these teams, in spite of the fact they played so few tests.
I usually prefer 20 tests as a starting point, but the circumstances of Richards in particular mean he must be considered.
Valer
First Class Debutant
I don't have any time issue with my picks as I both judge and pick on a value added to hypothetical *era apropriate* team.
Given you shouldn't be playing each team off against each other without taking the conclusion that follows^; peak based picking coupled with a very strong bias to recent players due the ever increasing sophistication of
a) technique
b) coaching
c) equipment (and hence familarity with it)
coupled with the strong increase in viable player pool.
^ Obviously the amount you take this conclusion depends on the weighting.
On richards / barnes could have, should have but ultimately didn't.
fwiw tests played is a poor metric vs time played due to the amount of cricket changing unless one wants to argue that a year of test in say 1960 is less valuable than the same in 2006.
Obviously sample size is a diffrent argument and depends on how sure then sample matches up to "true skill".
Given you shouldn't be playing each team off against each other without taking the conclusion that follows^; peak based picking coupled with a very strong bias to recent players due the ever increasing sophistication of
a) technique
b) coaching
c) equipment (and hence familarity with it)
coupled with the strong increase in viable player pool.
^ Obviously the amount you take this conclusion depends on the weighting.
On richards / barnes could have, should have but ultimately didn't.
fwiw tests played is a poor metric vs time played due to the amount of cricket changing unless one wants to argue that a year of test in say 1960 is less valuable than the same in 2006.
Obviously sample size is a diffrent argument and depends on how sure then sample matches up to "true skill".
Last edited:
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
I dont think that anyone seriously questions Richards credentials as a true ATG and one of the top 5 openers off all time. Also if one starts to question sample size what about Pollock, O'Reilly and Headley (all ATGs) and many more. In addition to his test record Barnes also maintained a FC average of over 54 over a 100 matches. I consider both to be good picks, especially Barnes considering how late he was selected.
Valer
First Class Debutant
Quantification of cricket & longevity has been done before and don't have the energy to do it again.
As an aside I think its a problem not just with drafts but real team picking**...
**One need good numbers and unadulterated averages especially in a short term (ex 1 season) sense is ineffective.
As an aside I think its a problem not just with drafts but real team picking**...
**One need good numbers and unadulterated averages especially in a short term (ex 1 season) sense is ineffective.
kingkallis
International Coach
CricZo XI
1. Len Hutton /
2. Matthew Hayden /
3. Hashim Amla /
4. Everton Weekes /
5. Doug Walters / o
6. Trevor Goddard / o (4)
7. Andrew Flintoff o / (3)
8. Jeff Dujon + /
9. Hedley Verity o (5)
10. Waqar Younis o (2)
11. Dennis Lillee o (1)
12. Dean Jones
Amla waves to the pavillion and Deano comes running with water and towel...
1. Len Hutton /
2. Matthew Hayden /
3. Hashim Amla /
4. Everton Weekes /
5. Doug Walters / o
6. Trevor Goddard / o (4)
7. Andrew Flintoff o / (3)
8. Jeff Dujon + /
9. Hedley Verity o (5)
10. Waqar Younis o (2)
11. Dennis Lillee o (1)
12. Dean Jones
Amla waves to the pavillion and Deano comes running with water and towel...
Jager
International Debutant
Had a look at all of the sides last night to figure go I'd vote for - made my own little ranking chart too, which had lots of subjective points to it so that it wasn't just a number crunch system - and was surprised to see how differently all of the sides came out. The most notable surprise was watson's team (which I was not expecting to do so well) but actually finished equal first. The more you look at it, the better it gets. There are also a few teams which look exceptional but don't fair so well under scrutiny