• 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 idea, 'restrictions draft'. Top 7 under x amount of test runs/centuries, (cont)

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And the bowlers have to be under x amount of test wickets



Could possibly swing it so the top 7 need a combined test batting average of under 40 or something like that instead, with the bowlers needing a combined test bowling average of over 30, though that may be getting too complicated


Am aware this poses problems due to making batting orders inflexible and all-rounders kinda being game breakers depending on where they bat



idea needs refining
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I've got an awesome idea. How about you make it so you can't select the type of player that the previous participant did. If the person ahead of you in the order selected a spinner, you can select any player but a spinner (so you can select a batsman or pacer or keeper or all-rounder instead). In effect, the previous pick becomes 'taboo' to you :ph34r:
 

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
In regards to your idea mr, what about rules such as these...

Batsman who have either scored 8,000+ Test runs or have a Test average of 45+ are ineligible

Bowlers who have either taken 250+ Test wickets or have a Test average of -25 are ineligible

All-rounders are fine to pick as long as their batting & bowling stats adhere to rules 1 & 2.

Wicketkeepers would be largely unaffected, simply adhering to rule 1.

And finally, if a batsman who played 50 tests & averaged, say, 42 with the bat, also took something like two wickets at 16.00, a special rule requiring that a players must have taken more wickets than matches played will be adopted to ensure that batsmen such as these wont be unfairly labelled as 'all-rounders'.

Thoughts?
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sounds good, I wanted to encourage lesser players to be chosen so it works in that sense. Also sounds like less hassle than my original method which would require a lot of calculations
 

Top