ODI quality control draft

[trundler]

Vivian Richards

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

AndrewB> mE>Ankit

 

[mr_mister]

Vivian Richards

Just so you know, he took enough wickets to be an AR therefore will be in your 32-36 category as a bowler

 

[weldone]

Just so you know, he took enough wickets to be an AR therefore will be in your 32-36 category as a bowler

All-Rounder to be precise, and there can only be 3 bowlers with lower bowling average.

 

[AndrewB]

AB de Villiers

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Ricky Ponting

 

[ankitj]

Sachin Tendulkar [role: batsman; bat avg: 42-46; bowl avg: n/a]

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Does Sachin make it as an allrounder?

 

[ankitj]

Does Sachin make it as an allrounder?

Doesn't meet wickets to matches ratio criterion for all-rounder.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Doesn't meet wickets to matches ratio criterion for all-rounder.

Oh Okay

 

[mr_mister]

A very slight tweak to the rules to stamp out a potential loophole. While I said you can only have one bowler represented in each category, I also said earlier if you have more than 5 bowlers who met the min wicket ratio requirement, the highest averaging players with the ball would just become batsmen. This could potentially be exploited if you think about it and contradicts the other rule anyway.

So you are now only allowed exactly 5 bowlers who meet the min 1:2 wicket match ratio. 4 of them need to be over 3:4 and 3 of them, the specialists need to be over 4:5(though this part seems redundant). And those 5 bowlers need to fit into the 5 categories obviously.

Any extra bowling strength will have to be though part timers who don't meet the min ratio, eg Tendaulker.

I apologise for a late rule change but this was quite a hard draft to construct.

 

[ankitj]

In some cases the top batsmen in a batting average range (30-34 or 34-38) are those that happen to qualify on wickets to match ratio. This new rule in effect forces you to forego the best batsman in that range.

But I am cool with it.

 

[mr_mister]

Well those top batsmen you're referring to would be all rounders right? Or at least more than handy with the ball

And maybe I could make it so you're allowed more than 5 who meet the min ratio, but the extra bowlers have to fall in the 36+ category? I just don't want people able to sneak multiple players in the under 24, 24-28 etc categories.

 

[ankitj]

Stick to your previous one may be. Else you need additional clause that they can average under 36 so long as they take less than 1/2 wickets per match. Confusing much?

 

[mr_mister]

If they have less than a 1:2 ratio, they can average whatever as they're only a part timer. That rule was already in place.

I don't think any bowlers really worth their salt as a bowler have less than a 1:2 ratio

 

[mr_mister]

Okay how about this. You can have an unlimited number of players above the 1:2 ratio, but only 5 above the 3:4 ratio.

If you have 3 players decent with the bat you want to play in the top 7 and they've all played 100 games, if:

Player A took 59 wickets
Player B took 64 wickets
Player C took 77 wickets

Player C would definitely need to slot in a category, and one of player A and B likely would to. The one with the higher average out of A and B would just be played as a batsman and part timer. If you have 5 bowlers above the 3:4 ratio, then both A and B could be part timers and not need to go in a category.


Being realistic, I can't see player A and B, all anyone who takes less than 75 wickets per 100 games, giving an unfair advantage to a drafter with the ball. Both would likely average well over 30 with the ball.

Okay, maybe that finally settled it

 

[mr_mister]

Michael > Jimmy > Teuton

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Sanath Jayasuriya (Bat: 30-34, Bowl: 36+) will be my first selection please

Charter 77 so Far

Sanath Jayasuriya (Bat: 30-34, Bowl: 36+)

 

[jimmy101]

Michael Bevan

 

[Teuton]

Shane Warne 24-28