What do you consider when picking ATG openers?

[Red]

Why is this, Gilchrist kept exceptionally well to Warne, He wasn't quite as good as Knott, but he also would't be expected to be keeping to Underwood on a wet pitch either. At the time of his retirement he held the record for dismissals for a keeper. Not too shabby, also took some great grabs from Warne in the process. To me he is under rated as a pure keeper.

I agree. In actual fact, often is was the quicker bowlers that Gilchrist struggled to keep to (esp later in his career), rather than Warne. Thought his keeping to Warne was always very very tidy.

It's often forgotten that keeping to Warne is probably the toughest job that any keeper has had in cricket since pitches were covered. Keeping to a leggie means that you lose sight of the ball behind the batsman most of the time. Really difficult skill.

 

[Jager]

But for an ATG greatest XI, you'll have the Don at 3, then Sachin/Viv/Lara/Hammond etc at 4 and 5, then probably Sobers at six. Not really room for Dravid amongst that.

Sorry, I always do ATG XI's with Bradman excluded so it gets interesting - I completely forgot to consider him here

 

[kyear2]

I agree. In actual fact, often is was the quicker bowlers that Gilchrist struggled to keep to (esp later in his career), rather than Warne. Thought his keeping to Warne was always very very tidy.

It's often forgotten that keeping to Warne is probably the toughest job that any keeper has had in cricket since pitches were covered. Keeping to a leggie means that you lose sight of the ball behind the batsman most of the time. Really difficult skill.

Yup, and one Gilchrist managed to master.

 

[kyear2]

Sorry, I always do ATG XI's with Bradman excluded so it gets interesting - I completely forgot to consider him here

Do you really consider Bradman that much of an anomoly that you use any opportunity to exclude him? He was the best, but to the point that he was worth an extra batsman, I don't think so. I think that Sobers and possibly even Hammond, Imran and Warne as total cricketers were almost his equal (I acknowlede that I will get stick for this).
He was the best, and by some distance, but adjusting for modern rules, fielding, quality of bowling and DRS, the gap would not be so massive.
Just my opinon.

 

[Spark]

I think he's more making the point that the exercise is more fun if you exclude Bradman.

 

[Red]

I think he's more making the point that the exercise is more fun if you exclude Bradman.

For drafts yeh, but surely not when picking an ATG team!

 

[Jager]

I think he's more making the point that the exercise is more fun if you exclude Bradman.

Cheers Sparky, spot on

 

[kyear2]

I know that was the point, but why from all of the drafts. Was also making a point as to what I think is his value vs his percieved value.

Would also like to see him in more drafts, and if the draft order is set by the finishing position of the previous draft, then it would be an earned pick.

 

[Prince EWS]

I know that was the point, but why from all of the drafts. Was also making a point as to what I think is his value vs his percieved value.

Would also like to see him in more drafts, and if the draft order is set by the finishing position of the previous draft, then it would be an earned pick.

I'd probably participate in a lot more drafts myself if the goal didn't seem to be to impress everyone else with your side in order to 'win' the thing. If I think Briggs was better than Laker then I want to be able to make a pick reflecting that without the fact that I'd be in the minority see me get less votes. Those voting threads almost make the drafts seem like a quest for consensus.

Random thread to make that point in I know, but your post about winning a draft earning you a higher pick in the next week just made me think of it again.

 

[Jager]

I'd probably participate in a lot more drafts myself if the goal didn't seem to be to impress everyone else with your side in order to 'win' the thing. If I think Briggs was better than Laker then I want to be able to make a pick reflecting that without the fact that I'd be in the minority see me get less votes. Those voting threads almost make the drafts seem like a quest for consensus.

Random thread to make that point in I know, but your post about winning a draft earning you a higher pick in the next week just made me think of it again.

Interesting that you'd raise the point actually. I have had a few messages wondering about alternate ways to judge drafts - I also don't like the fact that some players I want to pick are not rated as highly by voters.

Not sure how to solve the problem though.

 

[watson]

I'd probably participate in a lot more drafts myself if the goal didn't seem to be to impress everyone else with your side in order to 'win' the thing. If I think Briggs was better than Laker then I want to be able to make a pick reflecting that without the fact that I'd be in the minority see me get less votes. Those voting threads almost make the drafts seem like a quest for consensus.

Random thread to make that point in I know, but your post about winning a draft earning you a higher pick in the next week just made me think of it again.

People participate for all kinds of reasons. Some people have competitive natures and will therefore choose players who are 'crowd -pleasers', and some people who are less competitive will choose players who are their personal favourites but unlikely to be understood by the majority of people.

Why not just appreciate the fact that people are chock full of funny needs and motivations, do what you want to do anyway because who cares what other people think, and simply ignore the voting thread because you've already had your fun?

 

[Prince EWS]

People participate for all kinds of reasons. Some people have competitive natures and will therefore choose players who are 'crowd -pleasers', and some people who are less competitive will choose players who are their personal favourites but unlikely to be understood by the majority of people.

Why not just appreciate the fact that people are chock full of funny needs and motivations, do what you want to do anyway because who cares what other people think, and simply ignore the voting thread because you've already had your fun?

I've tried that, but I'm too competitive and end up trying to win anyway, which takes the fun out of it for me completely. They're just not for me basically, unless the winner could be decided in a different way.

 

[Jager]

A jury maybe? Someone like Tangy would be a good judge but I am sure that'd be an annoyance to most people

 

[benchmark00]

I'll judge.

Anyone who gets MacGill and/or Cheeqs will be tough to beat.

 

[Jager]

 

[watson]

I've tried that, but I'm too competitive and end up trying to win anyway, which takes the fun out of it for me completely. They're just not for me basically, unless the winner could be decided in a different way.

The winner is currently decided by a democratic panel of experts. I'm not sure how we can improve on that.

The fact that I sometimes disagree with that panel is neither here nor there.

 

[kyear2]

Well said.

 

[kyear2]

An informative article I came across today. Just a statistical break down on Sunny's career vs the W.I.

Was Gavaskar really great against the fiery West Indies pace attack ? | Cric Ages