CW Draft League

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Jager

Perhaps we should make it essential to have them in the XI, otherwise I'd hazard a guess they would be relegated to 12th man

Yeah, that'd work much better or else everybody will use that clause to fill their 12th player position.

[Eds]

Forcing people to use a certain clause in their XI is a bit... :/

If you picked a clause where 0 good players can be picked then it's your fault if everyone uses it to pick their 12th man, quite frankly.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Eds

Forcing people to use a certain clause in their XI is a bit... :/

If you picked a clause where 0 good players can be picked then it's your fault if everyone uses it to pick their 12th man, quite frankly.

But if everybody has to use that clause in their 11 it will even out, as it'd be the same for everyone. Would also add a different dimension to this draft compared to all previous ones on CW and make people use their other 11 clauses wisely to get 10 starting players.

Right now everybody can just leave that clause till the last and then pick 11 out of 11 in the other ones.

Either we should make it compulsory to include in 11 or Jager can change that clause. I prefer the former personally, but either would be better.

[Eds]

Originally Posted by Cevno

But if everybody has to use that clause in their 11 it will even out, as it'd be the same for everyone. Would also add a different dimension to this draft compared to all previous ones on CW and make people use their other 11 clauses wisely to get 10 starting players.

Right now everybody can just leave that clause till the last and then pick 11 out 11 in the other ones.

And that's Jager's fault for picking a clause which doesn't let you have any good players.

If you have to include someone from Jager's clause in the XI, then everyone will use Blakus' clause for their 12th men. And so on and so forth. Where's the line?

[watson]

I just assumed that everyone would make the women cricketer their 12th 'man'. Didn't think for a second that it would be compulsory to have a women in the actual XI. Sounds too much like 'Affirmative Action' ideology from the Clinton administration for mine. And I'm a political conservative.

Nothing against Jager BTW.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Eds

And that's Jager's fault for picking a clause which doesn't let you have any good players.

If you have to include someone from Jager's clause in the XI, then everyone will use Blakus' clause for their 12th men. And so on and so forth. Where's the line?

Blakus' clause still at least has some room for picking up decent players towards the end of this, who may make some teams when other clauses are exhausted.

But for Jager's clause, everybody will automatically use it for their reserve to be on the safe side as their is no concrete way of comparing.

[Agent TBY]

This is quite a pointless debate because it really doesn't matter whether you have the female in the first XI or not. Whoever you pick with that clause isn't going to affect your votes or how good your team is perceived to be - nobody knows has a clue about any of them.

No offence, but I think it's a terrible idea for a clause.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Agent TBY

This is quite a pointless debate because it really doesn't matter whether you have the female in the first XI or not. Whoever you pick with that clause isn't going to affect your votes or how good your team is perceived to be - nobody knows has a clue about any of them.

No offence, but I think it's a terrible idea for a clause.

I can think of a number of good women's cricketers off the top of my head. It's a great way to get people out researching and learning more about cricket. Isn't that what this forum's for?

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Agent TBY

This is quite a pointless debate because it really doesn't matter whether you have the female in the first XI or not. Whoever you pick with that clause isn't going to affect your votes or how good your team is perceived to be - nobody knows has a clue about any of them.

No offence, but I think it's a terrible idea for a clause.

point taken that no-one has any idea. I'm going to say no to making it compulsory, it's not fair otherwise

[Eds]

Originally Posted by Cevno

But for Jager's clause, everybody will automatically use it for their reserve to be on the safe side as their is no concrete way of comparing.

Precisely why it's not a good clause in a Draft 'League'.

EDIT: It's fine as a 12th man type thing though.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Eds

Precisely why it's not a good clause in a Draft 'League'.

EDIT: It's fine as a 12th man type thing though.

In some regards it limits the flexibility of teams, making the other 11 selections slightly more important

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Eds

EDIT: It's fine as a 12th man type thing though.

12th man isn't taken into account while rating teams though, so it might turn into a beauty contest.

[watson]

A good compromise would be that the 12th women IS rated. She has too appear on the Voting thread.

Incidently, don't you love sports/forums dominated by blokes as it's like a time warp to the 1950s. I'm about to pass out laughing here

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Cevno

12th man isn't taken into account while rating teams though, so it might turn into a beauty contest.

+

=
Draft win?

[Agent TBY]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

I can think of a number of good women's cricketers off the top of my head. It's a great way to get people out researching and learning more about cricket. Isn't that what this forum's for?

Okay, but how much research can you do anyway? Women's internationals have existed since 1934 (I just looked it up, you learn something new every day!), but how much footage or literature do you think exists? Is there enough to let you differentiate between Heyhoe-Flint, Bakewell and Denise 'Ms. Don Bradman' Annetts?

I don't think there is. Most people will have to rely on stats alone, and we all know that's an absolute crapshoot.