• 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.

Draft League Season 2 Voting Thread

Vote for the three strongest sides in your opinion.

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Eds

Eds

International Debutant
watson said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

watson

Banned
Eds said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that doesn't seem quite right to me.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Jager said:
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 :cool:
Click to expand...
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 )...
Click to expand...
Surely I got all bar one? Or did Waugh/Armstrong not qualify?
 
watson

watson

Banned
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.
 
Last edited:
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Where's an explanation to your scoring method mate?

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

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Marcuss said:
To say he's "by far" weaker than Hashim Amla and Ian Chappell is ludicrous
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
 
watson

watson

Banned
Marcuss said:
Where's an explanation to your scoring method mate?

So harsh on Jackson, could've been second to Bradman given a chance.
Click to expand...
The operative word is 'could've', which underscores the main point - we just don't know.

8 Test matches and 70 First Class games with an average of 45 is too little to go on and in terms of 'longevity' makes him 'far weaker' relative to other ATG batsman. After all, there have been plenty of batsman who have promised much in the Test arena but failed to deliver. David Hookes springs to mind.

Incidently, here is Ian Chappell scoring 192 against John Snow and co. in 1975;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pETb3hYBNGk

And Amla's recent triple century;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ASY88Wz-E8&feature=related
 
Last edited:
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
watson said:
The operative word is 'could've', which underscores the main point - we just don't know.

8 Test matches and 70 First Class games with an average of 45 is too little to go on. After all, there have been plenty of batsman who have promised much but failed to deliver. David Hookes springs to mind.
Click to expand...
Yep, and the fact that he tragically died young naturally makes people see him with rose coloured glasses.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I hope everyone takes the same attitude when judging WG Grace. **** him, dire bowling average and the batting wasn't much cop.
 
watson

watson

Banned
No worries. Got plenty of time on my hands due to 'Atypical Pneumonia' - caused by a bug called 'Mycoplasma'. All I can say is thank God for erythromicin as it is currently working a treat.

Anyway, I was particularly impressed with the photo-sequence of WGs back-foot defensive shot. Head was right over the ball, plus a very straight bat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top