Test Cricket Draft

[AndyZaltzHair]

So what's it going to be; Bradman debuted - 30 November 1928

 

[AldoRaine18]

So what's it going to be; Bradman debuted - 30 November 1928

1st December 1928 onwards then.

And with this timeline, 16 participants should be alright.

 

[NUFAN]

Who's going to bowl if you have to pick 10 outfielders and a keeper?

 

[AldoRaine18]

So how many are in with the post Bradman timeline?

The ones I can count are :

Me
kingkallis
AndyZaltzHair
Himannv
Jager
Saint Kopite

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Don't think 16 participants will fill in; might be though let's see

 

[kingkallis]

I think 1970 is fine, lets imagine teams without Sobers, Millers and Hammonds as well..

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Making the timeline to 1928 is not helping too much because we generally tend to select only handful of players before that era; it's not going to make a world of difference if timeline is 1928 so IMO to make it interesting either make it PRE-1970 or make it POST 1960/1970

 

[Eds]

Making the timeline to 1928 is not helping too much because we generally tend to select only handful of players before that era; it's not going to make a world of difference if timeline is 1928 so IMO to make it interesting either make it PRE-1970 or make it POST 1960/1970

Agree with this.

 

[Blakus]

Yeah I'm in.

 

[Jager]

In with new rules

 

[AldoRaine18]

Making the timeline to 1928 is not helping too much because we generally tend to select only handful of players before that era; it's not going to make a world of difference if timeline is 1928 so IMO to make it interesting either make it PRE-1970 or make it POST 1960/1970

The point of that period is to exclude Bradman. It's an unfair advantage to have Bradman in any team. If you want an all time draft excluding The Don, I'm in. You can choose the period you want, I am gonna pick the players I know well by either watching them play or enough footage. What is the point on picking someone based on stats from cricinfo without having a clue on his strengths and weaknesses? I am speaking for myself here. My knowledge on test cricket is very limited and mainly post 50s or 60s, and hence I chose a post 70s period.

I still stand by my argument of a post 70 period being the most competetive for everyone. If you think its very easy to play in that period, try it. Maybe you guys have been involved in many drafts before including those players and want something different which is understandable. But as of now, I am not willing to change it anymore. A post Bradman period is fine and I dont think it will be an issue. Once the game starts and your picks start getting stolen, things will automatically get interesting.

If that doesnt convince you enough, the next time we can play by your rules. Thanks.

 

[AldoRaine18]

To conclude, I am fine with either post Bradman or post 70. As of now its post Bradman, if need be we can go back to post 70.

And the number of participants depends on the number of registerations.

 

[Jager]

Would be fun to do a pre-WWII draft

 

[Eds]

In fact, I think I'd enjoy post '70 (or '60). Definitely more so than post Bradman.

In if it's the former. Think the latter will simply be a case of the usual teams these drafts generate.

 

[AldoRaine18]

Lets have a vote. I have two conditions. Period should end with the present day. No Bradman. After that, whatever you guys want. Post bradman. Post 60/70. Post whatever

Please put in your choice..

Me : Post 1970
kingkallis :
AndyZaltzHair :
Himannv :
Jager :
Saint Kopite :
Eds :
Blakus :

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

If period should end with present day, I'd go with Post '60 if 16 players and post '70 if 10 players

 

[Jarquis]

Aldo, just pick one. As a spectator I say post 1970.
In fact, if it's post 1970 I may be inclined to join in.

 

[AldoRaine18]

My choice is post 70 only. But a couple of members joined after the rules were changed. Which is why I am asking it again and again.

My call is post 70.

 

[Jager]

post 70 might as well

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Lock post 70