The first Cricket sheep thread

Blocked player list: Hadlee, Imran Khan, Warne, Pollock, Ntini, Murali, Akram, Saqlain, AB DeVilliers, Sangakarra, Alec Stewart, Clyde Walcott, Adam Gilchrist
 
Will Crappy get chance to submit choice for round 2 of criteria 2?
 
1 player (not mine) that i was sure would be blocked haasn't beeen. interesting. good night
Yeah, I think I know who you mean. I wanted to go for him tbh.
I am very disappointed with the block I gave. His batting average is wank (Worse than wank). I didn't think that part through before submitting. I just thought a very technically sound WK, without bothering to think ahead. :(

So many failures. Next round will be even more tough I presume.
Edit: Why do all these blocks come in pairs. I presumed atleast 3 would go for AbD or Gilly.
 
Yeah, I think I know who you mean. I wanted to go for him tbh.
I am very disappointed with the block I gave. His batting average is wank (Worse than wank). I didn't think that part through before submitting. I just thought a very technically sound WK, without bothering to think ahead. :(

So many failures. Next round will be even more tough I presume.
Edit: Why do all these blocks come in pairs. I presumed atleast 3 would go for AbD or Gilly.
4 of us went for ABD
 
Akshay FAIL(Hadlee)
Aldo FAIL(Hadlee)

Akshay FAIL(Clyde Walcott)
Aldo FAIL(Clyde Walcott)

Emoticon-UnSure-Suspicious-icon.png
@Akshay
 
Kind of knew that Sangakkara, Ab and Gilchrist were definitely going to be blocked but didn't expect Stewart to go as well in the first round
 
A bit of constructive criticism.

Let's try and avoid criteria's that are so specific where everyone's reading of the same sheet and it's pretty much down to luck which name you decide to pick up.
 
A bit of constructive criticism.

Let's try and avoid criteria's that are so specific where everyone's reading of the same sheet and it's pretty much down to luck which name you decide to pick up.
How would you suggest it be modified ?
 
How about we post all the criteria at the same time? Then it's up to you which criteria to meet in which round? You can still get sheep that way, but it would reduce some of the dumb luck involved.
 
The first criteria was fine. Second one is too specific and very limited in scope.
How can you say it is specific ? The criteria was a WK with atleast 20 catches in test matches overall. There's a tonne of players out there. If you don't get someone from the top tier in the first round, you can either try again or settle for some one else in Tier two.

If we needed a Wk in our team, how else would you frame that criteria ? I actually thought it was a lot more generic than the first one. That's my opinion anyways.

I agree that, there is a huge element of luck involved. But that's how drafts always work, don't they ?
 
How about we post all the criteria at the same time? Then it's up to you which criteria to meet in which round? You can still get sheep that way, but it would reduce some of the dumb luck involved.
Do you mean to say that the remaining 9 critieria's are all released at once and then, it is our wish to decide which criteria we use for that particular stage ?
That isn't a bad idea, will reduce the luck involved, and will make it very interesting for the participants to decide which criteria to give most importance to (Because by stage 11, that particular criteria may already have all it's best players either blocked/chosen).
I really like this idea, like a chess game. But the only problem is the paperwork it involves for @KM. And odds of landing sheep will go down drastically.
 
How can you say it is specific ? The criteria was a WK with atleast 20 catches in test matches overall. There's a tonne of players out there. If you don't get someone from the top tier in the first round, you can either try again or settle for some one else in Tier two.

If we needed a Wk in our team, how else would you frame that criteria ? I actually thought it was a lot more generic than the first one. That's my opinion anyways.

I agree that, there is a huge element of luck involved. But that's how drafts always work, don't they ?
Agreed. As generic a criteria as they come.
How about we post all the criteria at the same time? Then it's up to you which criteria to meet in which round? You can still get sheep that way, but it would reduce some of the dumb luck involved.
Too few sheep make a mockery of the sheep draft.
 
How can you say it is specific ? The criteria was a WK with atleast 20 catches in test matches overall. There's a tonne of players out there. If you don't get someone from the top tier in the first round, you can either try again or settle for some one else in Tier two.

If we needed a Wk in our team, how else would you frame that criteria ? I actually thought it was a lot more generic than the first one. That's my opinion anyways.

I agree that, there is a huge element of luck involved. But that's how drafts always work, don't they ?

The difference between the two rounds is there are loads of excellent bowlers that have taken ten wicket hauls even if the total list of players that satisfy the criteria is about the same or even less. About half the wicketkeepers that satisfy the criteria have barely played 20 odd tests and about the same number average less than 25 and are basically shite and no one in their right minds would pick them.

There's various ways to pick a keeper. You didn't have to pick a bowler in the last round whereas you pretty much have to pick a WK this one. In fact me and Akshay strongly considered going for a non-bowler...
 
Did everyone think that De villiers
The difference between the two rounds is there are loads of excellent bowlers that have taken ten wicket hauls even if the total list of players that satisfy the criteria is about the same or even less. About half the wicketkeepers that satisfy the criteria have barely played 20 odd tests and about the same number average less than 25 and are basically shite and no one in their right minds would pick them.

There's various ways to pick a keeper. You didn't have to pick a bowler in the last round whereas you pretty much have to pick a WK this one. In fact me and Akshay strongly considered going for a non-bowler...

I agree with this. Test nations don't tend to chop and change Wkeepers, which means the pool Is quite shallow for this criteria, those who passed on the previous round did very well.
 
Did everyone think that De villiers


I agree with this. Test nations don't tend to chop and change Wkeepers, which means the pool Is quite shallow for this criteria, those who passed on the previous round did very well.

I feel that it's the risk analysis part of a sheep draft, now that the big boys have been blocked you will see that the difference between most of the keepers left isn't huge and so it's unlikely to impact your team in a massive manner
 
The criteria is fine. It's a sheep draft, there are meant to be sheep. It's up to you whether to take a risk or not. Can't pick a legend every round.
 
The criteria is fine. It's a sheep draft, there are meant to be sheep. It's up to you whether to take a risk or not. Can't pick a legend every round.
I just went for someone I've always loved reading about, I wasn't even expecting the criteria to be all time one, still got blocked. :(
 
A round was necessary for Wicket Keepers or else you'd have got teams without keepers(if the criteria didn't match). IMO It's a pretty generic and considering i've removed the year limit in this, there are a lot of good options here.
 
The difference between the two rounds is there are loads of excellent bowlers that have taken ten wicket hauls even if the total list of players that satisfy the criteria is about the same or even less. About half the wicketkeepers that satisfy the criteria have barely played 20 odd tests and about the same number average less than 25 and are basically shite and no one in their right minds would pick them.

There's various ways to pick a keeper. You didn't have to pick a bowler in the last round whereas you pretty much have to pick a WK this one. In fact me and Akshay strongly considered going for a non-bowler...
That is all fine. But at some point a criteria will come where you do have to picket a keeper right ? What could be more generic than asking for a wicket keeper with just 20 catches to his name. That was my point.
 
How can you say it is specific ? The criteria was a WK with atleast 20 catches in test matches overall. There's a tonne of players out there. If you don't get someone from the top tier in the first round, you can either try again or settle for some one else in Tier two.

If we needed a Wk in our team, how else would you frame that criteria ? I actually thought it was a lot more generic than the first one. That's my opinion anyways.

I agree that, there is a huge element of luck involved. But that's how drafts always work, don't they ?
Personally think it would have been more interesting if there wasn't a WK criteria, so it was up to each drafter to figure out where they would squeeze their WK from. Maybe you give up a batsman criteria slot to go get one, maybe you try to find a WK who also happened to bowl at some point, etc. Criteria that let you consider filling different positions are more rewarding, imo.
 
At this pace, it will take 22 days just to complete the drafting. Can see the game dying out at this pace.
 
What do you guys propose then?
 
Should I give out three criteria at one time then?
 
Not like football,It's difficult job to come up with proper criteria, l'm still wondering how he's would come up with 11different criteria.
 
Should I give out three criteria at one time then?
Depends on how well you have planned the criterias. If they are planned to get a good balance, one at a time is the way to go, the game needs sheep to be fun otherwise we might as well have done a snake draft. Just shorten the time limits, 10-12hrs for 1st round, 6-8 for the next 2.
 
Depends on how well you have planned the criterias. If they are planned to get a good balance, one at a time is the way to go, the game needs sheep to be fun otherwise we might as well have done a snake draft. Just shorten the time limits, 10-12hrs for 1st round, 6-8 for the next 2.

No that's BS for people in non-Indian time zones.
 
Shortening the time limit is a no-go. I could just reduce the number of rounds then. 2 instead of 3, if everyone has a problem with this format!

@Akshay and @MJJ pick!