a massive zebra
International Captain
With only 3,500 posts in 15 years, I’m not exactly the most regular poster on this forum. If this or a very similar thread has been done previously, feel free to shoot me down in flames, but here is my idea for a draft:
The objective is to select the worst possible XI from those who have played a reasonable amount of Test cricket. Of course, it would be theoretically possible to select a horrific XI simply by selecting 11 bowlers who were rabbit batsmen, or by selecting 11 rubbish batsmen. But there would be little skill or enjoyment in this, and it is not really consistent with the spirit of this draft. I would prefer to give this draft some sort of credibility by implementing certain restrictions to ensure the team could actually have been selected, namely:
1. Each team must include:
- At least six batsmen who played at least 50% of their innings in the top 7 of the batting order. These six batsmen must bat in the top 7 of your batting order.
- At least one designated wicket keeper who made a Test stumping.
- At least four bowlers who bowled an average of at least 150 balls per Test.
2. Only players who have played a minimum 10 Tests are eligible.
3. Unlike with most drafts, Don Bradman definitely IS eligible!
I’m happy to make slight tweaks to the above criteria in line with a general consensus, but the fundamental principles must remain the same: The objective is to select the worst possible XI among those who were given a fair trial at Test cricket (no one Test wonders), and the XI must be one which could actually have been selected by selectors with the best interests of their team in mind (so it must include several top order batsman, a wicket keeper, and a few real bowlers).
I think Bangladesh players should be eligible, but I'm happy to be overruled if most people disagree. In their first few years of Test cricket, Bangladesh were indeed horrific, but I don't think they were significantly worse than some other teams in their first few years of Test cricket, such as South Africa in the 1880s/1890s or New Zealand in the 1930s. I guess the argument against this viewpoint is Bangladesh played many more Tests in their early years than South Africa or New Zealand, so their talent pool of eligible hopeless players is much greater.
I personally think this draft should be interesting because the objective is pretty much the opposite of most of the countless drafts we have seen on the site, so it should encourage the selection of some players who have never previously been selected for any draft. It should also help improve many members knowledge of the less successful international participants of our great sport, who despite their embarrasing lack of success at the top level are most probably far better cricketers than almost every member of our forum.
Post draft voting will be to select the three worst XIs!
Is anyone interested?
The objective is to select the worst possible XI from those who have played a reasonable amount of Test cricket. Of course, it would be theoretically possible to select a horrific XI simply by selecting 11 bowlers who were rabbit batsmen, or by selecting 11 rubbish batsmen. But there would be little skill or enjoyment in this, and it is not really consistent with the spirit of this draft. I would prefer to give this draft some sort of credibility by implementing certain restrictions to ensure the team could actually have been selected, namely:
1. Each team must include:
- At least six batsmen who played at least 50% of their innings in the top 7 of the batting order. These six batsmen must bat in the top 7 of your batting order.
- At least one designated wicket keeper who made a Test stumping.
- At least four bowlers who bowled an average of at least 150 balls per Test.
2. Only players who have played a minimum 10 Tests are eligible.
3. Unlike with most drafts, Don Bradman definitely IS eligible!
I’m happy to make slight tweaks to the above criteria in line with a general consensus, but the fundamental principles must remain the same: The objective is to select the worst possible XI among those who were given a fair trial at Test cricket (no one Test wonders), and the XI must be one which could actually have been selected by selectors with the best interests of their team in mind (so it must include several top order batsman, a wicket keeper, and a few real bowlers).
I think Bangladesh players should be eligible, but I'm happy to be overruled if most people disagree. In their first few years of Test cricket, Bangladesh were indeed horrific, but I don't think they were significantly worse than some other teams in their first few years of Test cricket, such as South Africa in the 1880s/1890s or New Zealand in the 1930s. I guess the argument against this viewpoint is Bangladesh played many more Tests in their early years than South Africa or New Zealand, so their talent pool of eligible hopeless players is much greater.
I personally think this draft should be interesting because the objective is pretty much the opposite of most of the countless drafts we have seen on the site, so it should encourage the selection of some players who have never previously been selected for any draft. It should also help improve many members knowledge of the less successful international participants of our great sport, who despite their embarrasing lack of success at the top level are most probably far better cricketers than almost every member of our forum.
Post draft voting will be to select the three worst XIs!
Is anyone interested?