Draft League Season 2 Voting Thread

[watson]

Originally Posted by Jager

Would have gone for Andy, Valer and Prez if I was choosing based purely on my favourites - love their sides.

Yes it's a shame that imagination gives way to pragmatism! Their teams deserve more votes than they are currently getting. Particularly Valer and Prez.

[Monk]

Monk's XI
1. Sunil Gavaskar
2. Roy Fredericks
3. Ian Chappell*
4. Brian Lara
5. Keith Miller
6. Frank Woolley
7. Farohk Engineer †
8. Kapil Dev
9. Jason Gillespie
10. John Snow
11. Derek Underwood

12. Michael Clarke


In the end, I am very happy with this team.

Bowling
The early rush and consequent taboo-ing of many great quick bowlers meant that selections had to be a little more “selective” than in an uncompromised draft. The pace attack I selected has plenty of variety and I believe the capacity to take twenty wickets. Miller is an ATG quick, no doubt, and his average and SR are phenomenal. Snow has a great reputation, he was before my time, but Ian Chappell rates his as the best quick he faced. That says a lot considering the era. Gillespie, remembered as the third bowling cog in the McGrath/Warne era, is another outstanding, somewhat underappreciated quick. Many a good batsman said he was trickier to face than Warne. Kapil, a clever and skillful swing bowler will bowl all day if need be. Underwood provides a first rate spin option with his left armers, and if conditions suit spin, he will rip through the opposition. Engineer was chosen specifically as a player who can keep to spin effectively, and in partnership with Underwood damage would be done. Woolley can provide some steady left arm medium pace as required.

Batting
Two openers who compliment each other Fredericks and Gavaskar, left and right, flamboyant and disciplined, Gavaskar is, in my opinion, history’s greatest opener. Fredericks an aggressive left hander. My middle order will score big and score quick. Chappell, Lara, Miller and Woolley combine left and right handedness with highly aggressive play. All tough characters, and tough cricketers. Engineer and Kapil at 7 and 8 provide a lot of depth, and I am the only drafter to have a double century maker at 9.

Fielding
This is a draft focus of mine, and I am happy here. Fielding matters a lot. Chappell, Lara, Miller and Woolley are four of the top ten slippers of all time, and all can field elsewhere equally comfortably. Fredericks is a great in-fieldsman, and Kapil, Gillespie and Snow will do the work in the outfield. Engineer (sometimes forgotten) was an outstanding wicketkeeper, tidy and dynamic. 12th man Clarke is one of the great modern fielders.

Leadership
Chappell is a great tactical captain, and a great leader of men. Miller will provide VC support, and Kapil, Gavaskar and Lara all captained their countries.

X-factor
Miller. Enough said. Lara, one of the top five bats of all time, and ultra aggressive. A big partnership between Lara and Miller would be the ultimate.

[Jager]

The fact you had the nuts to play Miller in the top 5 was a deciding factor for me too... at number 5 as well, right were he belongs

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

Don't get Jager's comment but meh. Not expecting many votes considering how far behind some selections were made.

I made my own little team analysis system and you were drawn for second position, but Monk had all of the extra bonus points awarded (the only person to do so) whereas you had the better players IMO. From a team balance perspective Monk's just trumped yours, but you're in with a chance of usurping Eds here regardless!

Can Eds go back to back? It will be funny if Cevno/Marcuss win because they'll get five points each, therefore less than second place

[watson]

Originally Posted by Jager

I made my own little team analysis system and you were drawn for second position, but Monk had all of the extra bonus points awarded (the only person to do so) whereas you had the better players IMO. From a team balance perspective Monk's just trumped yours, but you're in with a chance of usurping Eds here regardless!

Can Eds go back to back? It will be funny if Cevno/Marcuss win because they'll get five points each, therefore less than second place

I think that it makes more sense if they both get the full points for coming first; and no one gets the points for coming second since Eds and Marcuss will both vacate second place.

I think that the same principle should apply in retrospect to the last Draft where 2 or more teams are tied.

What do you think?

[Eds]

Originally Posted by watson

I think that it makes more sense if they both get the full points for coming first; and no one gets the points for coming second since Eds and Marcuss will both vacate second place.

I think that the same principle should apply in retrospect to the last Draft where 2 or more teams are tied.

What do you think?

Yeah, I agree, as that's what happens in real life.

Jager was talking about Marcuss/Cevno winning though, in which case they'd get 5 points each (the 1st prize is 10 points, split to make 5 points), and whoever came second would get 7.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Eds

Yeah, I agree, as that's what happens in real life.

Jager was talking about Marcuss/Cevno winning though, in which case they'd get 5 points each (the 1st prize is 10 points, split to make 5 points), and whoever came second would get 7.

Yeah, that doesn't seem quite right to me.

[Himannv]

After some thought, I went with Jager, Cevno/Marcuss and kk. Eds unlucky to miss out.

[Himannv]

Got to love the top 5 MrPrez has. Would be awesome to see them bat together.

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Jager

I made my own little team analysis system and you were drawn for second position, but Monk had all of the extra bonus points awarded (the only person to do so) whereas you had the better players IMO. From a team balance perspective Monk's just trumped yours, but you're in with a chance of usurping Eds here regardless!

Can Eds go back to back? It will be funny if Cevno/Marcuss win because they'll get five points each, therefore less than second place

After you get the raw score, the 'bonus' points come into play, and these are the points that make or break a side and truly show how clever or resourceful the drafter was with their team. I give an extra point for left-right opening combinations, being a good batsman as a wicketkeeper, having an excellent fifth bowling option (Sobers, Worrell, Walters etc.), having batting depth to the number eight slot, having a tactical genius/inspiring captain and for having a left-arm frontline bowling option. I will probably add having three great slippers as an extra too, but here's an example using watson's side (hope he doesn't mind, but it's a pretty good wrap I am giving him )...

Surely I got all bar one? Or did Waugh/Armstrong not qualify?

[watson]

Incidently Marcuss, it was your No.3 and No.4 combo that lost you most points as Jackson is comfortably the weakest first-drop on show.

This is how the scoring went;

Sutcliffe + Langer: 5/12 = 8 points
Jackson + Lloyd: 12/12 = 1 point
Waugh + Armstrong: 8/12 = 5 points
Knott to Trueman: 3/12 = 10 points

The top order is weighted so; 9 x 1.1 = 9.9

Hence you scored 24.9 which ranked you as 8/12 for batting.

[Marcuss]

Where's an explanation to your scoring method mate?

So harsh on Jackson, could've been second to Bradman given a chance.

[Marcuss]

To say he's "by far" weaker than Hashim Amla and Ian Chappell is ludicrous

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

To say he's "by far" weaker than Hashim Amla and Ian Chappell is ludicrous

Jackson never actually batted in the number 3 spot in tests. Surprisingly, he opened the batting more often than not, but he only played 8 tests.

Jackson is one of my personal favourites. On the Cricket Archives DVD there is footage of him batting, and he had a beautiful fluent style (Mark Waugh like), playing late cuts etc. Bradman comments that Jackson was one of the most pleasing to watch ever, and draws a comparison between Jackson, Kippax and Trumper as the most elegant Australian batsmen.

I guess like any player who doesn't get to play a lot of tests for reasons somewhat unfair, you have to look at their FC stats. Jackson's are very good, but not absolutely outstanding.

[Marcuss]

I know Jackson never batted at 3 but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest he might have done ok there considering he did well at the top of the order and also batted elsewhere in the middle order.

His FC stats, while not exceptional, are comparable to Charles Macartney's - a player people have no hesitation in lauding over. Now I appreciate the differences in pre/post war but that is somewhat offset by the fact Jackson's FC stats do not encompass any of what could reasonably be expected to be his best years.