-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Auction draft II - ODI voting thread
- Thread starter marc71178
- Start date
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
I'll write a analysis on each team's strength and weakenesses probably with reserves later .
And have to say that the teams which have the most strength here in one department,have a striking weakness in some other.
I know the voting mostly goes with star power in teams ,but for me balance both in terms of bowling options ,batting options,fielding is paramount.
You also need to have both good spinning options as well as fast bowling options for all conditions. A good top order,middle order and a lower order. Rather than a excellent top order and a mediocre middle order.
And have to say that the teams which have the most strength here in one department,have a striking weakness in some other.
I know the voting mostly goes with star power in teams ,but for me balance both in terms of bowling options ,batting options,fielding is paramount.
You also need to have both good spinning options as well as fast bowling options for all conditions. A good top order,middle order and a lower order. Rather than a excellent top order and a mediocre middle order.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
You'd rather I vote for a team I don't think is the best then? What next, the swimsuit round and expressing a desire for world peace?
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Marc's ratings part 4 - batting depth
Next in my list is the depth of the batting - this takes into account the quality and how deep it goes. From best to worst I rank them as follows:
G.I.Joe - Having already highly rated the top 6, seeing Cairns, Morkel, Lee as 8, 9, 10 is for me the depth a team needs.
Noble One - Whilst they lack in the lower-middle order, they follow it up with a 7 and 8 who could quite easily be switched with the current 5 and 6, and then have Harvey at 9, who is no slouch himself.
Cevno - Another who's order could be switched - Flintoff who comes in at 8 has multiple ODI tons.
Blakus - Thorpe at 7 is an extravagance, but he's comfortably better than any of the other players named in that position. Oh yes, and AA got a ton at Lords (may have been in Tests, but he's AA so that doesn't matter for me!)
weldone - As with the SA side of the 90s and early 00's, Boucher and Pollock are a dangerous pairing to follow the main batsmen.
Himannv - Another case where come the end of their careers this side could be higher up the order, but for me, Mathews and Shakib aren't quite dependable enough as yet when compared to other teams.
Pskov - The presence of Saqlain at 9 and Akram at 8 means this team doesn't have sufficient late order batting for me.
Somerset - 3 rabbits here as well, meaning Shastri and Warne isn't deep enough to compete with the better sides.
Pothas - An already unproven lower-middle order isn't helped by having Hogg at 8 and Bond at 9.
honestbharani - Gillespie may have made more test double-hundreds than Kallis, but if he's batting 8 then there's too much for the top order to do.
Next in my list is the depth of the batting - this takes into account the quality and how deep it goes. From best to worst I rank them as follows:
G.I.Joe - Having already highly rated the top 6, seeing Cairns, Morkel, Lee as 8, 9, 10 is for me the depth a team needs.
Noble One - Whilst they lack in the lower-middle order, they follow it up with a 7 and 8 who could quite easily be switched with the current 5 and 6, and then have Harvey at 9, who is no slouch himself.
Cevno - Another who's order could be switched - Flintoff who comes in at 8 has multiple ODI tons.
Blakus - Thorpe at 7 is an extravagance, but he's comfortably better than any of the other players named in that position. Oh yes, and AA got a ton at Lords (may have been in Tests, but he's AA so that doesn't matter for me!)
weldone - As with the SA side of the 90s and early 00's, Boucher and Pollock are a dangerous pairing to follow the main batsmen.
Himannv - Another case where come the end of their careers this side could be higher up the order, but for me, Mathews and Shakib aren't quite dependable enough as yet when compared to other teams.
Pskov - The presence of Saqlain at 9 and Akram at 8 means this team doesn't have sufficient late order batting for me.
Somerset - 3 rabbits here as well, meaning Shastri and Warne isn't deep enough to compete with the better sides.
Pothas - An already unproven lower-middle order isn't helped by having Hogg at 8 and Bond at 9.
honestbharani - Gillespie may have made more test double-hundreds than Kallis, but if he's batting 8 then there's too much for the top order to do.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
weldone has plans for one - with my forthcoming life upheaval and next few months of weddings etc. I don't intend running my next one till October time (although I want to enter weldone's) so that should give weldone's one time to run hopefully!
I'll aim to post my other 6 rankings over the next few days - laptop switch permitting.
I'll aim to post my other 6 rankings over the next few days - laptop switch permitting.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Marc's ratings part 5 - pace bowling
The first bowling category I'm going to look at is the strength of team's pace attacks. From best to worst I rank them as follows:
Pothas - As if it wouldn't be bad enough with Holding, McGrath and Bond coming at you, having Botham at 2nd change makes this pace attack formidable.
Pskov - 2 greats of the 80s added to the best left-arm quick in ODI history - this lot would be tricky to face.
Noble One - 5 front-line seamers to choose from, so quantity makes up for a slight lack in quality from Klusener and Harvey.
B]honestbharani[/B] - Another 4-prong attack which would work well together, and allow Waqar the chance be used when most useful.
weldone - Only 3 seamers here, and the consistency of Vaas does slightly detract from the sheer class of Ambrose and Pollock.
Cevno - Another 3 man seam team, loses out to weldone because the 3 are all behind weldone's top 2.
Himannv - Suffers from the same problem as weldone, with Mathews as 1st change.
Blakus - The back-up of Agarkar and Kallis makes this a solid quartet, albeit not spectacular enough to be higher up.
G.I.Joe - Unlike Noble One's 5 men, G.I.Joe suffers from a relative lack of star quality, only Lee really being able to compete with the best.
Somerset - Even assuming Sobers is the 3rd seamer, this side is weaker than the rest for me.
The first bowling category I'm going to look at is the strength of team's pace attacks. From best to worst I rank them as follows:
Pothas - As if it wouldn't be bad enough with Holding, McGrath and Bond coming at you, having Botham at 2nd change makes this pace attack formidable.
Pskov - 2 greats of the 80s added to the best left-arm quick in ODI history - this lot would be tricky to face.
Noble One - 5 front-line seamers to choose from, so quantity makes up for a slight lack in quality from Klusener and Harvey.
B]honestbharani[/B] - Another 4-prong attack which would work well together, and allow Waqar the chance be used when most useful.
weldone - Only 3 seamers here, and the consistency of Vaas does slightly detract from the sheer class of Ambrose and Pollock.
Cevno - Another 3 man seam team, loses out to weldone because the 3 are all behind weldone's top 2.
Himannv - Suffers from the same problem as weldone, with Mathews as 1st change.
Blakus - The back-up of Agarkar and Kallis makes this a solid quartet, albeit not spectacular enough to be higher up.
G.I.Joe - Unlike Noble One's 5 men, G.I.Joe suffers from a relative lack of star quality, only Lee really being able to compete with the best.
Somerset - Even assuming Sobers is the 3rd seamer, this side is weaker than the rest for me.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Marc's ratings part 6 - spin bowling
Next in line is the quality of spinners, from best to worst I rank them as follows:
Somerset - A 3 prong attack spearheaded by Warne and containing the relatively unreadable Mendis is the strongest spin team for me.
Himannv - The only other team with more than 1 frontline spinner, and with Murali backed up by a more than capable Shakib, that puts this team as next best for me.
Pskov - As we're now comparing single spinners I had to rank them directly - Saqlain's formidable record puts him 3rd.
Cevno - Qadir strikes me as more of a wicket-taking bowler than a container, and I prefer that sort of bowler.
weldone - Kumble falls down for his relative lack of wickets, hence in the middle of the pack for me.
Noble One - If treated as what he should be thought of, Afridi would probably get more respect from the general cricket public. His batting seems to stop that happening though.
Pothas - Hogg was surprisingly effective for one reason or another, more than likely owing to the team he played in.
Blakus - The cult of Swanneh isn't enough for him to seriously challenge others in this draft, yet.
honestbharani - Price doesn't concede many runs, but then again he doesn't get many wickets.
G.I.Joe - In the absence of any other realistic options, I've called Harris a spinner, and also the worst one almost by default.
Next in line is the quality of spinners, from best to worst I rank them as follows:
Somerset - A 3 prong attack spearheaded by Warne and containing the relatively unreadable Mendis is the strongest spin team for me.
Himannv - The only other team with more than 1 frontline spinner, and with Murali backed up by a more than capable Shakib, that puts this team as next best for me.
Pskov - As we're now comparing single spinners I had to rank them directly - Saqlain's formidable record puts him 3rd.
Cevno - Qadir strikes me as more of a wicket-taking bowler than a container, and I prefer that sort of bowler.
weldone - Kumble falls down for his relative lack of wickets, hence in the middle of the pack for me.
Noble One - If treated as what he should be thought of, Afridi would probably get more respect from the general cricket public. His batting seems to stop that happening though.
Pothas - Hogg was surprisingly effective for one reason or another, more than likely owing to the team he played in.
Blakus - The cult of Swanneh isn't enough for him to seriously challenge others in this draft, yet.
honestbharani - Price doesn't concede many runs, but then again he doesn't get many wickets.
G.I.Joe - In the absence of any other realistic options, I've called Harris a spinner, and also the worst one almost by default.
Cruxdude
International Debutant
Me too.
Somerset
Cricketer Of The Year
Pleased to see my side's strongest point reflected upon in Marc's ratings.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Mendis is so found out..Pleased to see my side's strongest point reflected upon in Marc's ratings.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Say wot!?? I have no problems being ranked last in the category, expected it too. But Harris isn't my spinner - Richards/Sehwag/Waugh are!
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Marc's ratings part 7 - back-up bowling
These are the one's you wouldn't be expecting to bowl 10 overs every game. From best to worst, I rank them as follows:
Cevno - 4 different options here, spearheaded by Chris Gayle and the in my mind under-rated Gregg Chappell.
Himannv - Another one with 4 options, would be particularly handy on turning wickets here.
G.I.Joe - Waugh can bowl a bit of seam-up or off spin, and Sehwag and especially Richards add more under-rated spin.
Pskov - Kemp is almost a front-line bowler, and Symonds variety adds to the options here.
weldone - Jayasuriya and Waugh could arguably be higher up the list, but for me Waugh didn't bowl enough in the majority of his career.
Blakus - Only really Hooper is a part-time bowler, but his off-spin was quite a consistent weapon when other things had been tried and didn't work.
Noble One - As a seam bowler, I possibly don't rate Ganguly very high because of having to bowl so much in the sub-continent. Smith just doesn't seem to bowl, which is a bit of a surprise for me.
honestbharani - Getting into the realms of the weak here, and it's only because of the number of options that I put this one above the bottom 2, although in truth Ponting, Chanderpaul and Hussey wouldn't worry any top batsman (or for that matter many tailenders)
Pothas - See the above comments for Trescothick and Yuvraj.
Somerset - For the 2nd time, Somerset gets a last place because of Michael Vaughan.
These are the one's you wouldn't be expecting to bowl 10 overs every game. From best to worst, I rank them as follows:
Cevno - 4 different options here, spearheaded by Chris Gayle and the in my mind under-rated Gregg Chappell.
Himannv - Another one with 4 options, would be particularly handy on turning wickets here.
G.I.Joe - Waugh can bowl a bit of seam-up or off spin, and Sehwag and especially Richards add more under-rated spin.
Pskov - Kemp is almost a front-line bowler, and Symonds variety adds to the options here.
weldone - Jayasuriya and Waugh could arguably be higher up the list, but for me Waugh didn't bowl enough in the majority of his career.
Blakus - Only really Hooper is a part-time bowler, but his off-spin was quite a consistent weapon when other things had been tried and didn't work.
Noble One - As a seam bowler, I possibly don't rate Ganguly very high because of having to bowl so much in the sub-continent. Smith just doesn't seem to bowl, which is a bit of a surprise for me.
honestbharani - Getting into the realms of the weak here, and it's only because of the number of options that I put this one above the bottom 2, although in truth Ponting, Chanderpaul and Hussey wouldn't worry any top batsman (or for that matter many tailenders)
Pothas - See the above comments for Trescothick and Yuvraj.
Somerset - For the 2nd time, Somerset gets a last place because of Michael Vaughan.