Scorecard Draft II

[Himannv]

Been a while since the last draft now so thought I'd start up one. Ideally would prefer 12 participants so that everyone gets a chance of being first and last. One of the better drafts that we've had I reckon (well done to Joe for coming up with it) although we did get bogged down in the 1800's last time around.

How to play:

It's an all time test draft where each consecutive pick has to be a player that featured in a test the previous player played in, either in the same team or against.

Once the participants are all lined up and the order randomised, we'll start off with the latest Test being played, i.e. the last India - West Indies Test.

Participant 1 picks a player playing the Test, then Participant 2 picks a player that has played either with or against the player in a Test match at any point in time, providing a link to the appropriate scorecard as proof. It then carries on similarly in the pre determined order.

Example:

Participant 1 selects VVS Laxman and posts the scorecard: 2nd Test: West Indies v India at Bridgetown, Jun 28-Jul 2, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Based on the above scorecard, Participant 2 cannot select Dhoni, Dravid or Rampaul because they are all in the same scorecard posted by Participant 1.

Participant 2 selects Steve Waugh and posts the scorecard where both Waugh and Laxman played in: 3rd Test: India v Australia at Chennai, Mar 18-22, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Participant 3 selects Sunil Gavaskar and posts the scorecard that both Waugh and Gavaskar played in: 2nd Test: Australia v India at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 1985 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Rules:

- Any number of participants, 12 players can be picked, 12 hours between picks and 12 rounds.
- No Bradman.
- All players picked should have played a minimum of 10 tests.
- Players picked should have played at least 10 games after 1900.
- Only scorecards from post 1900 can be posted.
- The scorecards should be from ICC sanctioned Test matches involving Test nations only.
- If you miss your turn you have to make your pick from your allocated scorecard when you next come online. Other participants continue with the flow and the scorecards allocated to them.

 

[Jarquis]

In. Won't the 10 Test rule screw us towards the 19th century? Or is that what we did last time too?

 

[weeman27bob]

In please.

 

[Cevno]

In

Though would maybe better keeping it after 1900.

 

[Furball]

In.

 

[Himannv]

In. Won't the 10 Test rule screw us towards the 19th century? Or is that what we did last time too?

We did that last time as well and we did get screwed when we got to the 19th century until someone sacrificed his pick to get us back to the 1900's. I cant think of anyway to stop that though. Picking a player with <10 games might leave the next guy to struggle to find quality picks.

 

[Himannv]

In

Though would maybe better keeping it after 1900.

Hmm, this is a decent idea. Player should not have played games before 1900. It does rob us of Grace and Trumper and a few others though. What do you all think?

 

[weeman27bob]

Hmm, this is a decent idea. Player should not have played games before 1900. It does rob us of Grace and Trumper and a few others though. What do you all think?

It would seem sensible really. Quite a lot of the great players who played in the 1890's played post-1900 anyway, so it shouldn't be too much trouble.

 

[weldone]

In

 

[Jarquis]

Nah, part of the fun is finding decent pre1900 picks and picking scorecards to shaft others

 

[Himannv]

It would seem sensible really. Quite a lot of the great players who played in the 1890's played post-1900 anyway, so it shouldn't be too much trouble.

Yep, I think that should be fine. Added to rules.

 

[Howe_zat]

In.

 

[Himannv]

Nah, part of the fun is finding decent pre1900 picks and picking scorecards to shaft others

Yeah I remember doing tons of reading last time. No I think we'll do it without the pre 1900 players this time around. Got a bit too tough in the last one.

 

[Himannv]

In so far:

01. Himannv
02. Marcuss
03. weeman27bob
04. Cevno
05. GingerFurball
06. weldone
07. Howe_zat

 

[weldone]

I am personally for selecting the 19th century players too, but will go with the majority opinion here.

 

[Howe_zat]

Can we take it in turns to go first (moving one place up in the order each round); rather than have randomised rounds and reverse? The latter favours people who happen to get picked nearer the ends.

 

[weeman27bob]

Can we take it in turns to go first (moving one place up in the order each round); rather than have randomised rounds and reverse? The latter favours people who happen to get picked nearer the ends.

I'm very much for this, even if it turns out for some reason it doesn't work, I've always wanted to see it in action.

Not that I think it'll go wrong or anything.

 

[weldone]

Can we take it in turns to go first (moving one place up in the order each round); rather than have randomised rounds and reverse? The latter favours people who happen to get picked nearer the ends.

Support this.

In other words:
Round 1: Drafter 1, Drafter 2...Drafter 12
Round 2: Drafter 2, Drafter 3...Drafter 1
...
Round 12: Drafter 12, Drafter 1...Drafter 11

 

[marc71178]

In, but can we clarify the 1900 rules - is it they can't have played any games before 1900 or they can't have played all their games before 1900?

 

[salman85]

In