“Universally Challenged” Draft Idea

[trundler]

Must've batted in the top 7 for over half their innings I reckon

 

[a massive zebra]

Anyone who batted in the top 7 for at least 50% of their innings can be picked as a specialist batsman, irrespective of their bowling calibre.

The requirements outlined in the opening post are minimum criteria. You can select more than six top 7 batsmen or more than four bowlers if you wish.

 

[a massive zebra]

trundler > me > SillyCowCorner

 

[trundler]

Farveez Maharoof

 

[a massive zebra]

Andy Whittall

7 wickets @ 105 in 10 Tests and no batting pedigree! Even his first class bowling stats are pretty dire!

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Brian Murphy

18 wkts at 61.83 and SR of 120

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. Brian Murphy
10.
11.

 

[trundler]

What I find amusing is that there are separate drafts for players who played too many and those who played too few tests running at the same time.

 

[mr_mister]

Ian Salisbury

 

[fredfertang]

I'll nip in before I go to work

New Zealander Lawrie Miller - specialist batsman who played in 13 Tests and averaged 13

 

[MrPrez]

Alok Kapali

Managed 17 Test matches, averaging 17.69 with the bat.

 

[a massive zebra]

Round 1
kingkallis
Teuton - Rubel Hossain
marc71178 - Asoka de Silva
trundler - Parveez Maharoof
a massive zebra - Andy Whittall
SillyCowCorner1 - Brian Murphy
mr_mister - Ian Salisbury
Michaelf7777777 - Alex Moir
fredfertang - Lawrie Miller
MrPrez - Alok Kapali
Flem274 - blair pocock

Round 2
Flem274
MrPrez - Khaled Mashud
fredfertang - David O'Sullivan
Michaelf7777777 - John Sparling
mr_mister - Ian Craig
SillyCowCorner1
a massive zebra
trundler
marc71178
Teuton
kingkallis

Round 3
mr_mister
trundler
Flem274
Michaelf7777777
Teuton
fredfertang
marc71178
MrPrez
kingkallis
SillyCowCorner1
a massive zebra

Round 4
a massive zebra
SillyCowCorner1
kingkallis
MrPrez
marc71178
fredfertang
Teuton
Michaelf7777777
Flem274
trundler
mr_mister

Next up are:

Flem274 x2 > MrPrez > fredfertang

KingKallis and Michaelf77777 have catch up picks at their own convenience.

 

[a massive zebra]

I am considering lowering the minimum criteria required to qualify as a frontline bowler, which is currently set at an average of at least 150 balls per match. This criteria was implemented to ensure the teams adopt a similar structure to sides that are selected with their best interests in mind. Simply selecting 11 rubbish batsmen or 11 bowlers who were rabbit batsmen would indeed create a terrible side, but goes against the spirit of what we are trying to do here. However, on reflection I have noticed that a few bowlers who were clearly selected as frontline bowlers did not actually bowl 150 balls per match (Shahadat Hossain for instance). I have no intention of excluding genuine frontline bowlers purely due to a statistical anomaly or because I set the minimum threshold too high.

Do you think the 150 balls per match criteria is OK as it is? Would 120 balls per match be a fairer minimum criteria to identify frontline bowlers? Or is balls per match not the best indicator of whether someone is a frontline bowler? Any feedback appreciated.

 

[marc71178]

Keep it as is IMO.

 

[mr_mister]

I too thought it was a tad high. Only a tad.

 

[fredfertang]

I am considering lowering the minimum criteria required to qualify as a frontline bowler, which is currently set at an average of at least 150 balls per match. This criteria was implemented to ensure the teams adopt a similar structure to sides that are selected with their best interests in mind. Simply selecting 11 rubbish batsmen or 11 bowlers who were rabbit batsmen would indeed create a terrible side, but goes against the spirit of what we are trying to do here. However, on reflection I have noticed that a few bowlers who were clearly selected as frontline bowlers did not actually bowl 150 balls per match (Shahadat Hossain for instance). I have no intention of excluding genuine frontline bowlers purely due to a statistical anomaly or because I set the minimum threshold too high.

Do you think the 150 balls per match criteria is OK as it is? Would 120 balls per match be a fairer minimum criteria to identify frontline bowlers? Or is balls per match not the best indicator of whether someone is a frontline bowler? Any feedback appreciated.

I think it should be down to you to make a totally arbitrary decision in each individual case - if it helped you could ask James to change your username to Sajid Javid

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Alex Moir will be my first selection please

Charter 77 so Far

Alex Moir

 

[a massive zebra]

Keep it as is IMO.

If this is the general consensus, I would be happy to keep it as it is. My only concern is this criteria was set up to identify frontline bowlers, but a few players that clearly were selected as frontline bowlers (such as Shahadat Hossain) are excluded by it, which would suggest the criteria is not fit for purpose.

I too thought it was a tad high. Only a tad.

So what would you have gone with?

I think it should be down to you to make a totally arbitrary decision in each individual case - if it helped you could ask James to change your username to Sajid Javid

Ha!

In all seriousness, I'm inclined to think this is probably the winning way. Anyone who bowled over 150 balls per match is definitely fine. If and when someone selects a frontline bowler who does not meet this criteria, I will decide if the said bowler is eligible or not.

Sound fair?

 

[mr_mister]

If this is the general consensus, I would be happy to keep it as it is. My only concern is this criteria was set up to identify frontline bowlers, but a few players that clearly were selected as frontline bowlers (such as Shahadat Hossain) are excluded by it, which would suggest the criteria is not fit for purpose.



So what would you have gone with?



Ha!

In all seriousness, I'm inclined to think this is probably the winning way. Anyone who bowled over 150 balls per match is definitely fine. If and when someone selects a frontline bowler who does not meet this criteria, I will decide if the said bowler is eligible or not.

Sound fair?

130-140.

 

[a massive zebra]

Flem274 times out

MrPrez > fredfertang > Michaelf7777777

 

[MrPrez]

Khaled Mashud