Test Cricket Draft

[LFD]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yep. I was basically trying to find a team that didn't have what I'd consider a pretty absurd pick in it, and I couldn't do so. I'm probably just being overly harsh though because I've never been involved in a "1970 and beyond" draft as such and I'm probably holding it all too close to all-time standards.

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Because I'm feeling like a particularly cruel bastard I'll pick these teams apart with what I just instinctively feel are 'weird' picks.

Ian Sea - Dhoni? GTFO. Morkel and even Vaughan also seem a bit dicey to me. I'm probably harsh on Vaughan because of the whole "not used to only drafting since 1970" thing though so I'm willing to give that one a pass; he was a world class batsman for at least part of his career.

Lifetime Fan - I really like most of this team, but Gayle at seven puts me off. He'd probably do a decent job there in reality but it's just so, so far out of position that it just doesn't seem like a proper draft pick to me. Really stands out. Probably the least flawed team though; my favourite.

Navman - De Villiers keeping wicket is an instant turn off; he's only just barely good enough to do it at Test level, let alone in a compilation of the last 40+ years. Also has a tail like a rat and a very unproven even if talented bowling attack.

Stu Monty - Symonds getting a run ensured I wouldn't give this team a second look anyway, but making Andy Flower keep wicket and open the batting alongside Michael Hussey just takes the piss. Both did it at times, yes, but rarely, and Flower's workload would end up ridiculous if he had to do it long term. He was also a poor glovemen. What are you doing with your life, Stu?

Jairzinho - Virat Kohli. Enough said.

Red Banjo - I don't mind this team too much, but we have another long tail here (Healy is listed at 6..) and Klusener shouldn't be getting anywhere near a Test draft. That middle section of the team really lets it down.

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Actually, upon further investigation, it appears that all eighteen teams participated in the same draft. Eighteen teams and no players pre-1970 would make it really tough, so I was definitely a bit harsh with some of those. Stand by most of those criticisms regardless tbh but I'm happy enough to let Vaughan, Morkel and Gayle at 7 go through without complaint now.

Thanks for your opinion.

I think you are being harsh as 18 teams in a draft is a lot. That is 198 players that need to be picked. Add to that it is only from 1970 till present, that makes it tougher as well.

Can you think of 18 keepers better than Dhoni for example?

[LFD]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Yeah Lifetime Sea has this. Don't know why he'd put Gayle at #7 though, especially seeing as Amiss played around a quarter of his Tests in the middle order and ought to go at #3. You could probably make a case to have Gayle in the top 10 openers since 1970 so one of the top 36 is a gimme.

So I'll go for him on the basis that Gayle would have a strop unless he opened and so the batting order would sort itself out.

Given the great all rounders in some of the teams. Some teams felt they could have a luxury player who could accelerate the innings if needed, which is important to win test matches, losing days to weather.

The top six or seven getting the bulk of the runs and then Gayle just having a license to have a bash and take the game away from the opposition.

I have done it myself (which you will see in the next round of teams) with Shahid Afridi coming in at 8. He is a luxury, if you have 400+ on the board already and he comes in for an hour or two it can make a massive difference in terms of time.

I think that is the reasoning for Gayle.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by LFD

Thanks for your opinion.

I think you are being harsh as 18 teams in a draft is a lot. That is 198 players that need to be picked. Add to that it is only from 1970 till present, that makes it tougher as well.

Can you think of 18 keepers better than Dhoni for example?

I was initially under the impression that the three groups all had separate drafts. I saw someone in here erroneously mention twelve teams though so I was going by that when I made that post - and in the end there were 18.

I'm a pretty experienced drafter, but I usually go in drafts of 10-15 with the whole history of cricket to select from. 18 teams with only players since 1970 considered is something I'm not too familiar with. Dhoni's not a great example though because I doubt there's anyone in the world who rates Dhoni less than I do. He's dire.

[LFD]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I was initially under the impression that the three groups all had separate drafts. I saw someone in here erroneously mention twelve teams though so I was going by that when I made that post - and in the end there were 18.

I'm a pretty experienced drafter, but I usually go in drafts of 10-15 with the whole history of cricket to select from. 18 teams with only players since 1970 considered is something I'm not too familiar with. Dhoni's not a great example though because I doubt there's anyone in the world who rates Dhoni less than I do. He's dire.

Yeah fair enough (on both points).

The last pick was tough, but that's good.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by LFD

Given the great all rounders in some of the teams. Some teams felt they could have a luxury player who could accelerate the innings if needed, which is important to win test matches, losing days to weather.

The top six or seven getting the bulk of the runs and then Gayle just having a license to have a bash and take the game away from the opposition.

I have done it myself (which you will see in the next round of teams) with Shahid Afridi coming in at 8. He is a luxury, if you have 400+ on the board already and he comes in for an hour or two it can make a massive difference in terms of time.

I think that is the reasoning for Gayle.

Gayle has one game plan and will stick to it - and the assumption that you can always play that at the fall of the 5th wicket is no way to pick a side. What if you're 80/5 rather than 400/5? What you actually want in that role is adaptability. Often you get fairly one-dimensional allrounders that come in there, but this is just because they aren't good enough to bat in the top six.

Then there's the fact that in any match situation, the runs from 400 to 600 matter vastly less the runs that get you from 0 to 200 anyway. Deploying one of your top bats in that role is a waste.

The one and only time you can be sure of the match situation is before a ball is bowled. Gayle in that team should play his game right from the word go. If he fails, you have another opener to come in at #3 to fix things, if he comes off, not a problem.

[LFD]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Gayle has one game plan and will stick to it - and the assumption that you can always play that at the fall of the 5th wicket is no way to pick a side. What if you're 80/5 rather than 400/5? What you actually want in that role is adaptability. Often you get fairly one-dimensional allrounders that come in there, but this is just because they aren't good enough to bat in the top six.

Then there's the fact that in any match situation, the runs from 400 to 600 matter vastly less the runs that get you from 0 to 200 anyway. Deploying one of your top bats in that role is a waste.

The one and only time you can be sure of the match situation is before a ball is bowled. Gayle in that team should play his game right from the word go. If he fails, you have another opener to come in at #3 to fix things, if he comes off, not a problem.

Yeah I don't really disagree, I am just saying what I think the reasoning was for the Gayle selection.

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Actually, upon further investigation, it appears that all eighteen teams participated in the same draft. Eighteen teams and no players pre-1970 would make it really tough, so I was definitely a bit harsh with some of those. Stand by most of those criticisms regardless tbh but I'm happy enough to let Vaughan, Morkel and Gayle at 7 go through without complaint now.

Ah, my bad. I read the draft order part which says something like Team 1, Team 2...Team 12, so I assumed there were 18 teams in the draft.

[Prince EWS]

So as it turns out I may have accidentally CWB'd the forum this came from. Woops.

[LFD]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

So as it turns out I may have accidentally CWB'd the forum this came from. Woops.

What does that mean?

Edit - I get it now!

[Himannv]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

CWB'd

CricketWeb Banned??

No, I agree with the others when they say that all these sides have something to dislike about them. Maybe CW should have its own draft with these same rules to see if they could do better.

@the OP, just put up all the teams imo.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by LFD

What does that mean?

Edit - I get it now!

There is no way you should've got that. I wonder what you actually think I meant.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Himannv

CricketWeb Banned??

Nah, CWB304. Pretty sure I come across to them as he does to us, especially since I ended up ranting about one player I didn't rate for about five successive posts.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Himannv

Maybe CW should have its own draft with these same rules to see if they could do better.

Yeah, I don't mind the draft idea. It'd give me a better idea as to how good or otherwise picks like Michael Vaughan and Morne Morkel actually were too, especially if we went with 18 teams too.

[LFD]

Originally Posted by Himannv

Maybe CW should have its own draft with these same rules to see if they could do better.

@the OP, just put up all the teams imo.

If you do the same, then do it with 18 teams, like we did!

I have all the teams, but don't have all the write ups.

Will post the write ups and teams for Group 2 tomorrow night and then Group 3, three days later!

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

There is no way you should've got that. I wonder what you actually think I meant.

I assumed it was CW (cricket web - the website) and B'd - just saying you have stamped your mark on our forum. But I was wrong (partly right).

[Eds]

There was a post-1970 draft on here. AldoRaine ran it IIRC.