ATG Black Caps ODI team League Tpurnament (10 players wanted).

[kiwiviktor81]

So I've been curious about this, thinking about an all-time Black Caps ODI team.

Here's how this tournament works. Everyone who is in selects their all-time ODI side with a keeper and five bowlers, including bowling order. The players must come from the 24 that are in the ATG team in ODI CricSim ODI CricSim Instructions | VJM Publishing. If you can't be bothered loading the simulator, the 24 players you have to choose from are:

Anderson, Astle, Bond, Boult, Cairns, Crowe, Fleming, Guptill, Hadlee, Harris, Jones, Larsen, McCullum, Mills, Morrison, Parore, Pringle, Ronchi, Southee, Taylor, Turner, Vettori, Williamson, Wright.

Select them in this format (example follows):

1. Guptill.
2. McCullum (wk)
3. Williamson
4. Crowe
5. Taylor
6. Cairns (5)
7. Anderson
8. Hadlee (3)
9. Vettori (4)
10. Bond (1)
11. Boult (2)

I have a special series mode on the simulator that isn't yet ready for release, but I can use it. I will simulate a series with each BCs team against the opposition from our ATG moment in ODI history - the semifinal win against SA. The player whose team gets the most wins (or concedes the fewest losses) in a first to 100 match each team bats first once series wins the league, and the tournament.

The SA opposition will be:

1. Amla
2. de Kock (wk)
3. du Plessis
4. Rossouw
5. de Villers
6. Miller
7. Duminy (5)
8. Philander (2)
9. Steyn (1)
10. Morkel (3)
11. Tahir (4)

So I need 10 players, who's in?

kiwiviktor81's BCs won 100-62 (61.7%)
NZ Tailender's BCs won 100-70 (58.8%)
Dan's BCs won 100-72 (58.1%)
NUFAN's BCs won 100-78 (56.2%)
Zinzan's BCs won 100-82 (55.0%)
Flem274*'s BCs won 100-87 (53.5%)
Chewie's BCs lost 89-100 (47.1%)

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Oh, and no two players can select the same XI (obviously). First in, first served.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Does Anderson really make the team when his bowling is not needed? I know its irrelevant to what you're achieving. But its interesting. Because that is a really strong bowling line up.

I'm not convinced.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Does Anderson really make the team when his bowling is not needed? I know its irrelevant to what you're achieving. But its interesting. Because that is a really strong bowling line up.

I'm not convinced.

I wanted to choose an example that no one else would pick, so that I didn't counterfeit one of the first 10 players. What's your side?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I wanted to choose an example that no one else would pick, so that I didn't counterfeit one of the first 10 players. What's your side?

Well I think you have the bowling attack perfect.

So just looking into Anderson as a bat.

His raw numbers do compare favourably with Wright, Jones, Coney, Greatbatch, McMillan, Twose, Oram, Styris, Harris, Elliot, Fleming and even Astle.

Turner opening and McCullum dropping down the order to #7 would increase the averages. Just surprises me that Anderson is so far in the mix. But you're not wrong.

 

[Dan]

1. Turner
2. Astle (6)
3. Williamson (c)
4. Crowe
5. Taylor
6. McCullum (wk)
7. Harris (5)
8. Hadlee (3)
9. Vettori (4)
10. Boult (1)
11. Bond (2)

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

1. Turner
2. Astle (6)
3. Williamson (c)
4. Crowe
5. Taylor
6. McCullum (wk)
7. Harris (5)
8. Hadlee (3)
9. Vettori (4)
10. Boult (1)
11. Bond (2)

I'm not sure Paddles would appreciate that.

Bond at first change, with Boult swinging into the wind might keep the great man happy. Astle over Guppy - tough decision. Harris over Cairns? Big call.

 

[Prince EWS]

Boycotting because I can't pick Roger Twose.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Boycotting because I can't pick Roger Twose.

You can pick Roger Twose, but you have to go to the back of the queue because the simulator isn't yet ready to sim players outside the 24 + CWC 15s.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

kiwiviktor's BCs def. 2015 CWC SA in the first leg 100 - 62.

Now simulating Dan's side.

 

[Prince EWS]

You can pick Roger Twose, but you have to go to the back of the queue because the simulator isn't yet ready to sim players outside the 24 + CWC 15s.

"Boycotting because you don't think Roger Twose is in the top 24" is probably a more accurate statement, because then I can go on boycotting later.

 

[Zinzan]

1. Turner
2. Astle (6)
3. Williamson (c)
4. Crowe
5. Taylor
6. McCullum (wk)
7. Harris (5)
8. Hadlee (3)
9. Vettori (4)
10. Boult (1)
11. Bond (2)

Presumably the omission of Cairns is due to his tarnished name rather than his ability to make the ATG NZ XI.. yeah?

 

[Zinzan]

Turner
Astle
Williamson
Crowe
Taylor
McCullum (wk & capt)
Cairns (5)
Hadlee (2)
Vettori (4)
Mills (1)
Bond (3)

Like Dan's pick of Boult > Mills, but think it's a bit early for me to displace Mills just yet. but don't think Boult's that far away.

 

[Dan]

Its more a thought-experiment NZ ATG XI -- other people will presumably pick genuine ones with no weird selections.

I'm interested to see how Hadlee goes at first change (even if it would be captaincy suicide atm), how Turner-Astle would go as an opening combination, and whether the batting depth outweighs the average 5th and 6th bowling options.

 

[Zinzan]

Its more a thought-experiment NZ ATG XI -- other people will presumably pick genuine ones with no weird selections.

Nah, It was actually pretty much bang-on the money with the exception of Harris over Cairns, and as you say Paddles at first change.

 

[Zinzan]

I'm not sure Paddles would appreciate that.

Bond at first change, with Boult swinging into the wind might keep the great man happy. Astle over Guppy - tough decision. Harris over Cairns? Big call.

Still think Astle is reasonably > over Guptill as an opener. Astle's average of 35 & SR of 73 is probably equal to Guppy's 39 @ 82 given the different era he played in (94-06). But he's still miles ahead in terms of 100s.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Still think Astle is reasonably > over Guptill as an opener. Astle's average of 35 & SR of 73 is probably equal to Guppy's 39 @ 82 given the different era he played in (94-06). But he's still miles ahead in terms of 100s.

One of the weirdest statistics ever is that Astle had 16 100s and Jones 0, even though Jones had a higher average.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Still think Astle is reasonably > over Guptill as an opener. Astle's average of 35 & SR of 73 is probably equal to Guppy's 39 @ 82 given the different era he played in (94-06). But he's still miles ahead in terms of 100s.

7/113 and Astle 16/223.

Hmm I still think its a tough decision. Astle is slightly ahead on the century ratio and has the runs on the board. Astle by far is the better bowler, but that is not needed for this team. Guptill is a sensation in the field.

I also suspect that Guptill will continue to improve.But that is crystal ball gazing I admit. But Guptill's fielding is sensational. Not just runs saved, but catches too. So with Boult, Guptill and Williamson from the new breed in the side, there is plenty of runs being saved and great catches from fairly good batting shots.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

One of the weirdest statistics ever is that Astle had 16 100s and Jones 0, even though Jones had a higher average.

What was the 50's count?

Failure to convert is not new, and the runs were scored at a slower pace back then.

 

[Zinzan]

7/113 and Astle 16/223.

That looks quite even, but don't forget 100s were much more of a rarity in Astle's era 1994-2006 than Guppy's.

I'd suggest the 16 tons Astle scored between 1994-2006 wouldn't be that far behind the 100s all the other kiwis playing in that era put together.