Old Timers Reverse Order Draft

[trundler]

I believe @Line and Length can pick also

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Monty Noble (1898) will be my next selection please

Charter 77 so Far
Phil Mead
Monty Noble (*)
S. F. Barnes

 

[ataraxia]

@trundler

 

[trundler]

KS Ranjitsinhi 1896

 

[trundler]

@ataraxia

 

[ataraxia]

Ah but this is time travel and we can have various aspects of a player's career.

Just back on this, I don't think that's the established precedent around here.

This is hilarious considering you just classified Jack Hobbs (1 wkt @ 165.00) as a part time bowler in the other reverse draft lol

1 wicket @ 165 falls into the part-time category (not the half-time category, full-time category, or never bowled category). When you've bowled less than 500 balls in test cricket, then the margin of error comes into play. As such, part-time bowlers aren't generally measured by their averages (nevertheless, Hobbs has over 100 wickets at 25 a piece in FC matches) and more in what situations they've bowled. Hobbs has opened the bowling in test cricket, but hasn't bowled too much because he's been reluctant to bowl.

Now I'm not sure exactly where this links in with Rhodes, but I'll start off by clarifying that when opening the batting, he still bowled to (very roughly) the extent of a Hammond/Worrell/S Waugh. He focused on his batting to an extent where he barely bowled. I don't think it's right to say to him that he would be a full-time bowler and open the batting when he didn't often do that (just like Smith playing as a batting all-rounder). Nevertheless, there are more openers back in those days than middle-order batsmen, so I highly doubt Rhodes will end up opening.

 

[ataraxia]

Sammy Carter (1907)
Vernon Ransford (1907)

3) Herbie Taylor* /
.
5) Vernon Ransford /
6) Charles Kelleway / o
.
8) Sammy Carter + /

 

[trundler]

Thrilled to wind up again with Clem Hill (1896)

 

[trundler]

@Line and Length with a double

 

[Line and Length]

I have to make a ruling here. While I could jump in after 6 hours of Michaelf7777777 being eligible, my 12 hours didn't actually start until he (Michael) made his selection (2 hours ago). Thus, the selections made by both @trundler and @ataraxia are premature and disallowed.
My selection, free of anyone jumping, is Ranjitsinhji (1896).
@trundler is next and, if he still wishes to select Clem Hill, he may do so, in which case @ataraxia can maintain his 2 selections (to start Round 3 and end Round 4) meaning @trundler is now up.

 

[Line and Length]

Further to my ruling, the OP states "Rounds must be completed before the “jump in” opportunity applies." Therefore 4th round picks couldn't be made until after my 3rd round pick.

 

[trundler]

I'll take Hill

 

[Line and Length]

@ataraxia re Rhodes. I accept your interpretation and his final batting position will decide if he his used as a front line bowler or not.

 

[trundler]

I'm assuming Ataraxia will still make those 2 picks he did make so can make my next pick?

 

[Line and Length]

It seems @ataraxia would want to maintain his Carter and Ransford selections,
As these selections were made after the pick of Ranjitsinhji (made illegally by Trundler then claimed by me) I think we can assume his (ataraxia's) picks stand and we can proceed.

@trundler will be up next.

 

[trundler]

Tom Hayward 1896.

Worked out for me.

 

[Line and Length]

Tom Hayward 1896.

Worked out for me.

It certainly did. I was preparing to select Hayward myself.
Justice is served and I have to revert to C.B. Fry (1896).

@Michaelf7777777 now up with @AndrewB to follow.

 

[ataraxia]

Sorry about that. Anyhow Hayward and Fry are both very good players underrated on CW - it's good to see them selected straight after Ranji and Hill.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

George Hirst (1897) will be my next selection please

Charter 77 so Far

Phil Mead
Monty Noble (*)
George Hirst
S. F. Barnes

 

[Line and Length]

@AndrewB up next and @kingkallis is next.

JOJOXI and Fuller Pich complete Round 4 so I'll go to the randomiser for Round 5.