• 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.

'GROUP B' - The Best of Each Decade Birthday Draft. VOTING THREAD

Please Vote for the 3 Strongest Teams


  • Total voters
    17

watson

Banned
ATG Test Match Championship: ‘GROUP B’

The Scenario

Each contestent has rented a Time Machine, gone back in time, and assembled their own ATG team as listed below. Each player in the team is in the peak form of their career, and is injury free.

Since the Test Match Championship will be played in modern conditions using modern equipment, the respective teams have been assembled in advance, and have played a full season in local competitions. ‘Old Timers’ have remarked that they, “thoroughly enjoyed the experience”, and that playing in 21st century conditions with excellent equipment was a “revelation”.

The Test Match Championship is comprised of Home and Away fixtures between each of the seven teams. The strongest team with the most wins in ‘GROUP B’ will advance to the Grand Final against the winner of ‘GROUP A’.


Voting Rules

Please vote for the 3 strongest teams. That is, the 3 teams that you think are the most likely to win the most matches in the ATG Test Match Championship, Group Stage. As usual for Test Match cricket, Wins = 1 point, and Draws/Losses = 0

Voting will be stopped and counted at 8:00 pm Sydney Time, THURSDAY. Votes after that time will be discounted. If there is a tie then voting will continue for a further 24 hours to break the deadlock.

Please remember to vote for 3 ‘GROUP A’ teams when you have finished voting for your 3 ‘GROUP B’ teams.

As stated before, the winner of ‘GROUP B’ will advance to the Grand Final against the winner of ‘GROUP A’.


CHASINGTHEDONs XI
Home Venue: Riverside Ground
01. Graham Gooch
02. Graeme Smith
03. Clem Hill
04. Peter May*
05. Martin Crowe
06. Aubrey Faulkner
07. Adam Gilchrist+
08. Jack Gregory
09. Hedley Verity
10. Alec Bedser
11. Brian Statham
12th Tony Greig


FREDFERTANGs XI
Home Venue: Old Trafford Cricket Ground
01. Victor Trumper
02. Virender Sehwag
03. Ted Dexter*
04. Brian Lara
05. Kevin Pietersen
06. Martin Donnelly
07. Alan Knott+
08. Harold Larwood
09. Johnny Wardle
10. Ted McDonald
11. Joel Garner
12th Reggie Spooner


KYEARs XI
Home Venue: Kensington Oval
01. Bruce Mitchell
02. Vijay Merchant
03. Viv Richards*
04. Inzamam-ul-Haq
05. AB De Villiers+
06. Stanley Jackson
07. Roy Kilner
08. Jim Laker
09. Dennis Lillee
10. Wes Hall
11. Ian Bishop
12th. Tip Snooke


WATSONs XI
Home Venue: Sydney Cricket Ground
01. Matthew Hayden
02. Stewie Dempster
03. Neil Harvey
04. Greg Chappell
05. Lindsay Hassett
06. Warwick Armstrong*
07. Ian Healy+
08. Richard Hadlee
09. Dale Steyn
10. Arthur Mailey
11. Neil Adcock
12th Percy Fender


MORGIEBs XI
Home Venue: Sydney Cricket Ground
01. Sunil Gavaskar
02. Bill Woodfull
03. David Boon
04. Cyril Washbrook
05. Allan Border*
06. Monty Noble
07. John Waite+
08. Stuart Broad
09. Fazal Mahmood
10, Bill O'Reilly
11. Glenn McGrath
12th Frank Foster


BLAKUS' XI
Home Venue: Sydney Cricket Ground
01. Gordon Greenidge
02. Bob Simpson*
03. Zaheer Abbas
04. Walter Hammond
05. Dudley Nourse
06. Phil Mead
07. Shaun Pollock
08. Bert Oldfield+
09. Alan Davidson
10. Bobby Peel
11. Allan Donald
12th. Cheteshwar Pujara


CAMO999s XI
Home Venue: Melbourne Cricket Ground
01. Jack Hobbs
02. WGGrace
03. Virat Kohli
04. Javed Miandad
05. Bill Ponsford
06. Clive Lloyd*
07. Richie Benaud
08. Don Tallon+
09. Wasim Akram
10. Shane Bond
11. Bill Johnston
12th. Herman Griffith


As a reminder, the Op was.......

The Best of Each Decade Birthday Draft

The idea is to select 12 players, one from each decade. To stop arguments about whether Hobbs was a pre-War batsman, or a batsman from the 1920s, we'll be going by each player's Birthday. The cut-off Birthday dates for each decade are as follows;

>=1980s - After 31/12/1979
1970s - 01/01/1970 to 31/12/1979
1960s - 01/01/1960 to 31/12/1969
1950s - 01/01/1950 to 31/12/1959
1940s - 01/01/1940 to 31/12/1949
1930s - 01/01/1930 to 31/12/1939
1920s - 01/01/1920 to 31/12/1929
1910s - 01/01/1910 to 31/12/1919
1900s - 01/01/1900 to 31/12/1909
1890s - 01/01/1890 to 31/12/1899
1880s - 01/01/1880 to 31/12/1889
<=1870s - Before 01/01/1880

An example of a team, should you be so lucky, would be;

01. Jack Hobbs (1882) - 1880s
02. Herbert Sutcliffe (1894) - 1890s
03. Walter Hammond (1903) - 1900s
04. Greg Chappell (1948) - 1940s
05. Stan McCabe (1910) - 1910s
06. Garry Sobers (1936) - 1930s
07. Adam Gilchrist (1971) - 1970s
08. Malcolm Marshall (1958) - 1950s
09. Hugh Trumble (1867) <=1870s
10. Allan Donald (1966) - 1960s
11. Dale Steyn (1983) - >=1980s
12th. Arthur Morris (1922) -1920s

Each participant has 12 hours to pick their player for the Round. The odd numbered Rounds will be randomised, and the corresponding even Rounds will be in reverse order.

If a participant misses 2 consecutive Rounds then the next participant in the order can make their pick straight away without waiting the 12 hours. If a participant misses 3 consecutive Rounds then they will be assumed to be unavailable and cannot return to the game.

As usual, NO Bradman.

Feel free to join in. Anyone one play, but it's first come first served, so be quick. It would be nice to get 10 to 14 participants.

(If you don't think that the cut-offs for each decade are quite right then please let me know before we start)

Cheers - Watson
 
Last edited:

Howe_zat

Audio File
Each player in the team is in the peak form of their career, and is injury free.

Since the Test Match Championship will be played in modern conditions using modern equipment...
well that sucks

significantly changes the value of each player and was never mentioned as voting criteria while drafting

I'm going to use this as flavour for the OP only and vote how I usually do, hopefully others will as well
 

watson

Banned
well that sucks

significantly changes the value of each player and was never mentioned as voting criteria while drafting

I'm going to use this as flavour for the OP only and vote how I usually do, hopefully others will as well
Don't want to get into a protracted esoteric debate, but if WG Grace (for example) is about to front up to Allan Donald then why would he use a crappy old bat (in relative terms), and have no modern padding or protection? After all, we are assuming the context of a 'real' Test Match Championship.

Indeed, if we don't assume a context like a 'real' Test Match Championship played at some point in time, like 2014, then we are confronted with a simple 'logical impossibility' - a Test match strip cannot be both from the 1880s and the 2010s similtaneously. It must be one or the other. In other words, WG Grace cannot play a game of cricket in the 1880s, and Allan Donald play a game of cricket in the 1990s at the same time. A choice of some kind needs to made.

Personally, I think it devalues the ATG player more to exist in a team with no context at all, and consequently have nothing to 'do' other than help make up the numbers in a simple list - even if the 'doing' only exists within the realms of fantasy.

That's why I also added the following paragraph;

Since the Test Match Championship will be played in modern conditions using modern equipment, the respective teams have been assembled in advance, and have played a full season in local competitions. ‘Old Timers’ have remarked that they, “thoroughly enjoyed the experience”, and that playing in 21st century conditions with excellent equipment was a “revelation”.
But I guess, fantasy is not according to everyones taste because we each have our different temperments. I thoroughly enjoy the SciFi series 'Dr Who', and buy into all its weird premises. But at the same time other people think that it's a waste of time and all very stupid. Why would anyone want to suspend reality and belief that Time Travel inside a Police Call Box is 'real' they say?

Howe, for the sake of this Draft, I politely suggest that you think like a child again :)
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
well that sucks

significantly changes the value of each player and was never mentioned as voting criteria while drafting

I'm going to use this as flavour for the OP only and vote how I usually do, hopefully others will as well
I'm not sure why that would change anything?
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Don't want to get into a protracted esoteric debate, but if WG Grace (for example) is about to front up to Allan Donald then why would he use a crappy old bat (in relative terms), and have no modern padding or protection? After all, we are assuming the context of a 'real' Test Match Championship.

Indeed, if we don't assume a context like a 'real' Test Match Championship played at some point in time, like 2014, then we are confronted with a simple 'logical impossibility' - a Test match strip cannot be both from the 1880s and the 2010s similtaneously. It must be one or the other. In other words, WG Grace cannot play a game of cricket in the 1880s, and Allan Donald play a game of cricket in the 1990s at the same time. A choice of some kind needs to made.

Personally, I think it devalues the ATG player more to exist in a team with no context at all, and consequently have nothing to 'do' other than help make up the numbers in a simple list - even if the 'doing' only exists within the realms of fantasy.

That's why I also added the following paragraph;



But I guess, fantasy is not according to everyones taste because we each have our different temperments. I thoroughly enjoy the SciFi series 'Dr Who', and buy into all its weird premises. But at the same time other people think that it's a waste of time and all very stupid. Why would anyone want to suspend reality and belief that Time Travel inside a Police Call Box is 'real' they say?

Howe, for the sake of this Draft, I politely suggest that you become a child again :)
For the bolded - whether or not he could face Donald was never part of what WG set out to do and wasn't what made him a special player. So I'm not going to take it into account because it's nothing to do with how good he was.

As for the rest, what I mean isn't to insist on you not imagining a game between these sides if that's what you want. I'm just prickly about being told circumstances for voting are specific, rather than allowing people the criteria that they would normally use, after we've already played the draft.
 

watson

Banned
For the bolded - whether or not he could face Donald was never part of what WG set out to do and wasn't what made him a special player. So I'm not going to take it into account because it's nothing to do with how good he was.

As for the rest, what I mean isn't to insist on you not imagining a game between these sides if that's what you want. I'm just prickly about being told circumstances for voting are specific, rather than allowing people the criteria that they would normally use, after we've already played the draft.
Oh I see where you are coming from now. Yes, I should have made the Scenario part of the OP from the outset as that would have been more consistent. However, I don't think that the impact of the Scenario is as dramatic as you assume as people will still gravitate toward their favourite players, and favourite style of team, irrespective of what I write. As they say, "a champion in one era would still be a champion in another era", and everyone knows who their champions are.

Also, I had a lot of fun creating and writing the scenario, and didn't think that it would be deal other than peoples imaginations would be stirred.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I'm all for voting on the basis of the implicit assumption that Grace would have the advantage of modern equipment and training methods, and would not have his short Test career held against him. But the "players at their peak" bit doesn't sit well with me. If I were part of the draft, I'd have selected players a lot differently if I'd have known that beforehand.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
But how else do we select players. No one selects VI thinking you are getting his 1991 version you pick players at their peaks. Marshall from '83 to '84 etc.
 

watson

Banned
But how else do we select players. No one selects VI thinking you are getting his 1991 version you pick players at their peaks. Marshall from '83 to '84 etc.
Yes, a player cannot be both 25 years old, and 37 years old at exactly the same time. He has to be something when part of a team, and his peak is the obvious and preferred something.

Anyway, I don't want to detract any further from what has been a really fun Draft. But I do think that we have an interesting topic for a new separate thread.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
Blackus' team is superb. The attack of Donald-Pollock-Davidson-Peel-Hammond-Simpson has excellent variety and is a definite standout. What's more, it is given an extra edge by the brilliance of Oldfield. The opening partnership of Greenidge and Simo is to die for, and the middle order of Hammond-Nourse-Mead is very solid. Abbas did have his problems against the West Indian pacers of his time, but then again, most batsman did. Abbas is still class. An exceptional team from beginning to end.

Not sure about the two remaining choices as this Group, like the other one, is high quality and very tight. Something to ponder during the rest of the day.......
 
Last edited:

G.I.Joe

International Coach
But how else do we select players. No one selects VI thinking you are getting his 1991 version you pick players at their peaks. Marshall from '83 to '84 etc.
I look at their overall career. If you're selecting them with their peak in mind, then it opens up the debate of what constitutes a peak. When I pick Viv, I pick him keeping in mind that he could be sublime in one game and his '91 version in the next.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
I look at their overall career. If you're selecting them with their peak in mind, then it opens up the debate of what constitutes a peak. When I pick Viv, I pick him keeping in mind that he could be sublime in one game and his '91 version in the next.
The point at which the player reached their highest ICC rating is as good as any definition of peak that I've seen. Importantly, the algorithm used to calculate the 'peak rating' takes into account their entire career to that point.

Incidently, according to the ICC, Viv Richards reached his career 'peak rating' during 1981.

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/playerdisplay/test/batting/?id=1682

Also, you rationale means that Ian Botham should never be picked as the odds of him being rotund and underpar are too great. Realistically, from 1985 to 1992 he was a shadow of his former self.

I really must start a new thread, even though the discussion thus far has been really facinating and enjoyable!
 
Last edited:

G.I.Joe

International Coach
The point at which the player reached their highest ICC rating is as good as any definition of peak that I've seen. Importantly, the algorithm used to calculate the 'peak rating' takes into account their entire career to that point.

Incidently, according to the ICC, Viv Richards reached his career 'peak rating' during 1981.
1981 Richards, at what appears to be a 'cumulative peak', is picking a player that played 43 Tests. You'd be ignoring the 78 Tests he played subsequently. If you're picking Viv Richards - the player who played 121 Tests - you've got to take his entire career into account. Both the good and the bad.


Also, you rationale means that Ian Botham should never be picked as the odds of him being rotund and underpar are too great. Realistically, from 1985 to 1992 he was a shadow of his former self.
You say that like it's problematic. Overall I'd expect that there's an equal chance of fat Botham showing up as there is of early Botham. It's a package deal. Depending on the stage of the draft, if that's a better package overall than the next best available option, I might very well go for him. He might win me a game single handedly and he might contribute absolutely nothing the next. Depending on the composition of my team and the philosophy of how I'd want my team to play, I might very well choose to pick him.


Honestly, I'm not saying that picking a player based on his peak is a flawed concept in itself. All I'm saying is that it's not the norm, and if the intention was to get people to vote based on that understanding, it probably should have been made clear right at the start so people could formulate their strategy accordingly.
 

watson

Banned
1981 Richards, at what appears to be a 'cumulative peak', is picking a player that played 43 Tests. You'd be ignoring the 78 Tests he played subsequently. If you're picking Viv Richards - the player who played 121 Tests - you've got to take his entire career into account. Both the good and the bad.




You say that like it's problematic. Overall I'd expect that there's an equal chance of fat Botham showing up as there is of early Botham. It's a package deal. Depending on the stage of the draft, if that's a better package overall than the next best available option, I might very well go for him. He might win me a game single handedly and he might contribute absolutely nothing the next. Depending on the composition of my team and the philosophy of how I'd want my team to play, I might very well choose to pick him.


Honestly, I'm not saying that picking a player based on his peak is a flawed concept in itself. All I'm saying is that it's not the norm, and if the intention was to get people to vote based on that understanding, it probably should have been made clear right at the start so people could formulate their strategy accordingly.
But that leaves us with the problem of how often your player undergoes his 'metamorphasis'. Is it once a series, once a Test match, once an innings, or during an innings perhaps? And if you do decide once a Test Match, for example, why once a Test match? Better to assume a player to be at the height of his career and be done with it I reckon.

However, it was wrong of me to assume that my assumption would be the 'norm' as you say, just because it makes sense to me. Apologies.


(This is beginning to sound like a conversation out of The Big Bang Theory :laugh:)
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
But that leaves us with the problem of how often your player undergoes his 'metamorphasis'. Is it once a series, once a Test match, once an innings, or during an innings perhaps? And if you do decide once a Test Match, for example, why once a Test match? Better to assume a player to be at the height of his career and be done with it I reckon.

However, it was wrong of me to assume that my assumption would be the 'norm' as you say, just because it makes sense to me. Apologies.


(This is beginning to sound like a conversation out of The Big Bang Theory :laugh:)
I just assume the likelihood of the player showing up in a particular flavour to be based on the impression I have of his career. It's a very nebulous idea and can't be put in numbers, in my opinion.
 

watson

Banned
I just assume the likelihood of the player showing up in a particular flavour to be based on the impression I have of his career. It's a very nebulous idea and can't be put in numbers, in my opinion.
I quite like that sort of 'wholistic' thinking, and I wouldn't say that it's 'nebulous' at all. But rather it has a higher degree of complexity.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
Finally decided to go for Fred's team as Larwood and McDonald operating at 90mph with the new ball is too irresistable, especially with Garner at first change. The skills of Knott was also a big factor for me, especially when keeping to the dynamic left-arm spin of Wardle. I would have preferred an anchor man to partner either Trumper or Sehwag so as to give the top order some stability, but a lineup of Dexter-Lara-Pietersen-Donnelly has so much firepower it could hit itself out of trouble more often than not. All-in-all a cracking team.

I must admit that I initially overlooked Camo's team, but decided it needed a vote for its originality. Realistically, the swing and cut of the two left-arm pacers, Akram and Johnston, would be a batsman's nightmare on any wicket offering assistance. Backed-up by the raw pace of Bond and the baffling roundarm, round-the-wicket technique of WG, and Camo has a potent pace attack. Johnston could also bowl decent orthodiox spin, so the team has two spinners to exploit any turn in the wicket. The batting lineup features two of England's finest openers, and the middle-order of Miandad-Ponsford-Lloyd is very dependable and capable of scoring a ton of runs once set. Not sure about Kohli, but he seems talented enough. However, in the end, it was the leadership skills of Lloyd and Benaud that gave this team the edge over its competitors. I doubt that you could find a better pairing anywhere. A most singular team. Well done.
 
Last edited:

Top