A potential compromise I have come up with; which appeases the above sentiments, whilst maintaining a measure of balance in the competition, is democratic election of captaincy. Those who wish to lead an XI may nominate to do so, then present to the registered playing group their policy for any potential reign as captain. These nominees will be voted upon by the registered players, with each afforded one vote. As there are currently 3 XI's, the 3 leading candidates resulting from this balot would be declared captains, with a mandate to do as they please with regards to drafting, selection, etc.
Of course, nominees are free to state any policy platform they like - and this may include draft intentions, desired players, an assigned vice-captaincy candidate on the ballot, etc - granting much more freedom to develop the "cliquey" sentiment which is being sought above. This does not neccesarily guarantee getting your first preference playing group - non-captain players are all still subject to an open draft - but allows election to captaincy based on whatever ideals any group would like to develop.
On the flip side of this, captains who are not meeting their promises or the expectations of the playing group would be subject to a possible vote of no confidence by the playing group. This motion would need to be passed by the entirety of the playing squad for it to be approved.
Last edited by DJellett; 02-09-2012 at 02:23 AM.
Want to be the next Bradman - of the forum?
Simmed Cricket. Real Fun.
CricketWeb Cricket - Sign Up Now
I got great enjoyment shouting "WHY THE **** ISN'T THIS GAME BEING PLAYED AT THE BASIN?!>!?!?" to reasonably significant cheers from the sparse crowdOverrated XI Warner, Burns, Steve Smith, Rahane, Bairstow, Alecz Day, Donovan Grobelaar, Luke Ronchi, Faulkner, Dan Christian, Permaulone day NZ will bring chappell to his knees in a puddle of his own tears and you'll see Phlegm on his belly greedily tasting every delicious tear before watching the hope fade from that old ****s eyes.
The thing is, there can't be any monopolisation of talent because every player is more-or-less equal at this stage.
Let teams form themselves IMO, then for a potential second season allow for retentions and drafting or whatnot - by then some idea as to the development of each player will have emerged.
Last edited by DJellett; 02-09-2012 at 02:30 AM.
I see your point that all players are of basically the same ability at this stage, but each specializes in a different area. This is why an open draft is so critical in ensuring a level playing field.
Last edited by DJellett; 02-09-2012 at 02:37 AM.
At worst, one side may select all the wicketkeepers - so we allow any teams left without a wicketkeeper to edit a player's registration to make them keep.
I think you can trust each team to organise themselves properly without throwing out balance.
I think we misunderstand one another - if teams can be formed based on whatever alliances people generate, there is the potential for 6 batsmen rated 100, 1 keeper rated 100, 4 bowlers rated 100 to get together and form a team. Not only would this team be near unbeatable, there would only be, say hypothetically - 3 batsmen rated 100 and perhaps 2 bowlers rated over 80 - left for the two remaining sides to choose from. This is inherently unfair; whilst an open draft, taking alternating picks from the player pool to build a squad, allows fair spread of specialised talent and makes squad strength dependent on the drafting strategies and abilities of the team captain/vice-captain.
@CowsCorner - 202 followers and counting!
Disclaimer: I am a biased South African. Anything I say is likely to have something in it that ultimately favours the Proteas.
Jesus, why's it all about being as equal as possible. Forget dimming cricket, let's just give the match to whoever wins the toss if we are trying to turn games into 50/50 contests.
You're forgetting that all registrations are out of 100 so all lineups with have 1100 points of ability, regardless. So theres the equality you were after.
Should definitely give people the opportunity to chose who they play for/with. You'll lose the interest of some if you force them to play somewhere theyve got no interesting in doing.
How about giving players the option of accepting contracts, if they reject they end the draft as free agents and sort their own contract out. Most likely with the people they want to play.
End of the day if you want this to last more then five minutes, it not about the quality for the players in each team. But the quality for forum members activity levels that make a strong team. The best teams have always been the ones who want to play together, as they generally keep the same sides each season and not have to fill gaps each season.
Last edited by chaminda_00; 02-09-2012 at 04:12 PM.
The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)
Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)
RIP WCC and CW Cricket
Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS
If the player pool is such that some sides are going to have to be unbalanced, a draft doesn't solve that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)