The first Cricket sheep thread

Akash said:
How do you answer that subjectively though? Is it actually even true? And why does it only work one way? If we're discrediting the batsmen of today because the pitches are supposedly not as good then why is no one discrediting the bowlers who played back then for bowling on friendly wickets?
Click to expand...
You can make an argument that bowlers are underrated now, I'd certainly agree with that. Or that past bowlers are over-rated compared to those nowadays. I especially doubt bowlers that were historically good at choking the runs could replicate that in today's world with the modern pitches and all the new shots batsmen have invented.

Ijazz17 said:
I know you mentioned Wasim and Sachin, but even those two were slated several times in their career. I remember especially Sachin being targeted by journalists the world over and from India for his perceived "Lack of Important Match winning contributions". The BBC even went onto claim he was the 28th best cricketer of all time and justified their reasoning. That simply put, wouldn't have happened 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
Historical players got plenty of criticism back in their day, too, it's just that no one would take it seriously now. Just like Sachin being ranked 28th would be scoffed at by most people. Heck, back then selection committees had way less scrutiny so often their half-assed personal agenda fueled reasons for omitting players would be taken as gospel. Not to mention the general disdain for professional cricketers that hindered the game for decades.
 
Akshay said:
You can make an argument that bowlers are underrated now, I'd certainly agree with that. Or that past bowlers are over-rated compared to those nowadays. I especially doubt bowlers that were historically good at choking the runs could replicate that in today's world with the modern pitches and all the new shots batsmen have invented.
Click to expand...

Agreed with the bit in bold. Batsmen don't really respect bowlers these days. I very much doubt the likes of McGrath and Pollock would have been allowed to run in bow on a good length these days. Hell, even someone as good as Steyn tends to get clobbered in ODI's.
 
Akshay said:
Historical players got plenty of criticism back in their day, too, it's just that no one would take it seriously now. Just like Sachin being ranked 28th would be scoffed at by most people. Heck, back then selection committees had way less scrutiny so often their half-assed personal agenda fueled reasons for omitting players would be taken as gospel. Not to mention the general disdain for professional cricketers that hindered the game for decades.
Click to expand...
Maybe they did, I really don't know. But it certainly isn't comparable with the levels of criticism today. Even half-knowledgeable idiots like me have the audacity to criticize some players because of one bad shot.

Partially agree with the selection committees comment, but only partially because, because I read that for the likes of Hammond, Trueman, the commitee let go of their ego to pick them because they felt England needed them to have any chance of winning at all. So, it went both ways really back then, maybe not equally, but there were times when the board's did do what was best for the team.
And I still think there is enough of agenda fuelled reasons even in today's board members. They've probably just learnt to hide it better.
 
Akash said:
How do you answer that subjectively though? Is it actually even true? And why does it only work one way? If we're discrediting the batsmen of today because the pitches are supposedly not as good then why is no one discrediting the bowlers who played back then for bowling on friendly wickets?
Click to expand...

I am going to take up a self-assignment on this next, as I pointed in this thread today, somewhere. Will try to take multiple factors into account and work out how both batting and bowling averages should be adjusted. :D
 
The Man Himself said:
I am going to take up a self-assignment on this next, as I pointed in this thread today, somewhere. Will try to take multiple factors into account and work out how both batting and bowling averages should be adjusted. :D
Click to expand...
Good luck with it. Sounds intimidating as it is... :nervous:
 
Ijazz17 said:
Partially agree with the selection committees comment, but only partially because, because I read that for the likes of Hammond, Trueman, the commitee let go of their ego to pick them because they felt England needed them to have any chance of winning at all. So, it went both ways really back then, maybe not equally, but there were times when the board's did do what was best for the team.
And I still think there is enough of agenda fuelled reasons even in today's board members. They've probably just learnt to hide it better.
Click to expand...
There is definitely still some of that, like England's treatment of KP and the West Indies board in general. But I don't think boards can get away with more blatant transgressions like dropping a bowler right after he takes a 10 wicket haul or a batsman after a century, as there are instances in the past.
 
The Man Himself said:
Next draft should be ODI draft. More people will be aware of most players :D I think @Akshay had said something about hosting it. Maybe it can be started somewhere in March. Immediately it will be overkill.
Click to expand...

I'd be up for that :)

Maybe have a world cup format too.

16 of us participated in this draft.
We could have 4 groups of 4. Standard 3 points for the win, top two from each group progress to the quarter finals.

Would that work well?
 
Ijazz17 said:
No, not off the field. Even on the field. For the past 20-25 years, cricket has been analyzed and over analyzed to the point of redundancy. If a player has a bad game, it comes out in all the papers. If he has a weakness, it's highlighted to infinite means. If he does something even slightly unnatural, it defines him for the rest of his career. In that way, players of the previous generation were more fortunate. If they had a bad game, there wasn't so much of a furore. Weakness's were not even analyzed to the insane depths they are now. Any deviation personality wise from the norm was seen as a breath of fresh air.

I know you mentioned Wasim and Sachin, but even those two were slated several times in their career. I remember especially Sachin being targeted by journalists the world over and from India for his perceived "Lack of Important Match winning contributions". The BBC even went onto claim he was the 28th best cricketer of all time and justified their reasoning. That simply put, wouldn't have happened 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, agree with all of that mate.
 
Boycott said:
I'd be up for that :)

Maybe have a world cup format too.

16 of us participated in this draft.
We could have 4 groups of 4. Standard 3 points for the win, top two from each group progress to the quarter finals.

Would that work well?
Click to expand...

Ya it can. I just hope the more matches it will result in (group stage) won't mean drop of interest towards later stages. The one played in 2013, iirc had 12 teams in group format and 1 progressed to semi. Don't remember. @Aldo might.
 
Announcement:

OK, so to ensure good time for discussion for final, @Aldo will put up thread later tonight along with @Skills write up. It will mean more time available for discussion as Friday evening will mean less people will be around tomorrow. When to add poll is choice of these two. Either they can tag a mod tonight only and get poll up or I can tag Rado_N tomorrow day time so that poll will be active till Saturday. Choice up to the finalists.
 
Really like the concept of Billy No Mates draft. Whilst in cricket it may be difficult but worth considering for incorporating it in some manner in a future draft. Probably not more than 2 pairs of players who played for the same team in the same match.

Also, there should be some cap on the number of players from a single team, say maximum 3 players from one country.
 
Oh yes, been fantastic. Extra points to TMH for taking over when KM needed help and doing such an immense job!
 
Thanks lads. Its difficult to organise a cricket draft because the options are load less. Think @The Man Himself did a ridiculously good job.
 
Someone get the next draft up and running. Only interesting thing the caf has to offer these days.
 
I was thinking of a new draft format.

  • You pick 3 players at a time via PM to the mod
  • Each player you assign a value from 1-3 (3 being most valuable).
  • If nobody else selects all of those players you get them all
  • If 2 or more players select the same guy, the one who assigned the highest value gets to keep him
  • If all players assign the same value to that player, they're blocked from the draft
  • You can attempt to steal a player from someone else in the next round, by assigning them a higher value (you will not know what value was assigned to the player by the original drafter)
  • You can defend a player you already have by assigning them a higher value in a subsequent round
  • We continue until everyone has 12 players.
I wouldn't mind running it.
 
Aldo said:
Sounds fine (hierarchy-sheep format) except you shouldn't lose a player once securing it.
Click to expand...

Varun said:
Yup.
Click to expand...

That's the rule I like. I like the idea of people fecking each other over.

Could make it harder to steal, by not revealing the actual teams right until the end. All the blocked and picked players are revealed after each round, but not who they have been selected by.
 
Skills said:
I was thinking of a new draft format.

  • You pick 3 players at a time via PM to the mod
  • Each player you assign a value from 1-3 (3 being most valuable).
  • If nobody else selects all of those players you get them all
  • If 2 or more players select the same guy, the one who assigned the highest value gets to keep him
  • If all players assign the same value to that player, they're blocked from the draft
  • You can attempt to steal a player from someone else in the next round, by assigning them a higher value (you will not know what value was assigned to the player by the original drafter)
  • You can defend a player you already have by assigning them a higher value in a subsequent round
  • We continue until everyone has 12 players.
I wouldn't mind running it.
Click to expand...
In.

Wouldn't mind some examples on the bolded
 
What I worry about the format Skills proposed is, if it is ODI draft, the no. of good players who will get blocked from a relatively smaller pool compared to Tests. As we found in recent draft, blocked players meant we had to let go debut year' criteria and include everyone ever played. That format Skills is proposing can be fun while drafting but at end there is risk of many good players getting blocked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.