Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Some of us already had the idea. Check my squadShhh.. You're going to give people ideas!!!
![Tongue :p :p](/forum/images/smilies/original/tongue.gif)
Some of us already had the idea. Check my squadShhh.. You're going to give people ideas!!!
Pre-war era and the nineteenth century are not synonymous though...(just like post-war era and the twenty-first century aren't)...Real men balance teams in 11 rounds.I don't get it. When the draft started, people were all snobby and couldn't wait to get to the Pre War era. Now that we've been there, people realise it wasn't all that flash and they'd prefer to make an extra pick from more conventional and well known eras.
Those who waited for a nice time to make a pick ? >.>Pre-war era and the nineteenth century are not synonymous though...(just like post-war era and the twenty-first century aren't)...
However, I don't mind keeping it to 11 rounds. But given an option now, I'll definitely prefer a twelfth pick for myself (for obvious reasons). Though I understand that mightn't be fair on some, especially those who played extremely well to get Bradman and Marshall in the same team.
Or Gilchrist, for that matter.Pre-war era and the nineteenth century are not synonymous though...(just like post-war era and the twenty-first century aren't)...
However, I don't mind keeping it to 11 rounds. But given an option now, I'll definitely prefer a twelfth pick for myself (for obvious reasons). Though I understand that mightn't be fair on some, especially those who played extremely well to get Bradman and Marshall in the same team.
So you gave up already?Those who waited for a nice time to make a pick ? >.>
So whats the problem? Joe handing Bradman to me or me picking O'Reilly without reading the rules properly?Poor you! Having to pick Faulkner!
Oh and yeah, great drafting from kingkallis, not like Joe handed him it on a silver platter, intentionally.
In terms of years? YES.They're close enough.
Someone was going to get Bradman sooner or later. It would've been a farce if we all danced around refusing to select players like Miller or Hutton or Sutcliffe just so no one could choose the Don.Poor you! Having to pick Faulkner!
Oh and yeah, great drafting from kingkallis, not like Joe handed him it on a silver platter, intentionally.
A good pick mate! Adcock unfortunately did not get much support from others...Neil Adcock
2nd Test: England v South Africa at Lord's, Jun 23-27, 1960 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
One of the more overlooked of the great fast bowlers.
1. Gavaskar
2.
3.
4. Harvey
5.
6.
7.
8. Davidson
9. Warne
10.
11. Adcock
My first 2 picks were actually intended to get more marks in the 'X Factor' ratings by marc71178...Or Gilchrist, for that matter.
Agreed...Someone was going to get Bradman sooner or later. It would've been a farce if we all danced around refusing to select players like Miller or Hutton or Sutcliffe just so no one could choose the Don.
Come on mate! Just say you are 'jealous'No, I was just pointing out it was hardly "great drafting".