CW All-Time XI Openers

[smash84]

The 2nd discipline doesn't matter much assuming the all-time XI plays against a high quality opposition (even PEWS, whose favorite cricketer is Imran, agrees on this).

And if it doesn't play against a high (equivalent) quality opposition, why bother making an all-time XI?

I don't think PEWS's favorite cricketer is Imran.

I am not sure he will agree with you on this.

As I mentioned in another thread that if you have two players of comparable strength in one discipline then will you go for the one who brings more to the side with his second discipline or not?

 

[weldone]

I don't think PEWS's favorite cricketer is Imran.

My mistake, I meant the cricketer he rates most highly.

I am not sure he will agree with you on this.

He does.

 

[smash84]

from what I understand of PEWS's theory it is that when you have players of comparable quality then you look at the other discipline to see how much value the player brings to the team.

Would you care to elaborate if you think he thinks otherwise?

 

[ankitj]

Wouldn't that give a weirdly balanced team though ?

Only if voters have malicious intent. As the partial team is published after every round, the voters will vote for the department left in imbalance. After 10 non-wicketkeepers, voters should automatically vote for a wicket-keeper, even if their favourite batsman or bowler hasn't made it yet.

 

[weldone]

from what I understand of PEWS's theory it is that when you have players of comparable quality then you look at the other discipline to see how much value the player brings to the team.

Would you care to elaborate if you think he thinks otherwise?

He thinks that as the quality of cricket becomes higher and higher (from FC to test cricket to imaginary all-time matches) the importance of 1st discipline increases and the importance of 2nd discipline reduces.

So, for example while comparing Sobers and Kallis as test match cricketers he will consider both their batting and bowling, because their bowling was useful in test cricket. But while comparing them for his all-time team he will compare primarily on the basis of their batting because their bowling won't be a big factor against a hypothetical super-strong XI whom the all-time XI will play. In fact, they will both get hammered most of the times even if they get 4-5 overs of bowling per day.

 

[weldone]

Only if voters have malicious intent. As the partial team is published after every round, the voters will vote for the department left in imbalance. After 10 non-wicketkeepers, voters should automatically for a wicket-keeper, even if their favourite batsman or bowler hasn't made it yet.

Good idea

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't think PEWS's favorite cricketer is Imran.

I am not sure he will agree with you on this.

As I mentioned in another thread that if you have two players of comparable strength in one discipline then will you go for the one who brings more to the side with his second discipline or not?

My mistake, I meant the cricketer he rates most highly.


He does.

from what I understand of PEWS's theory it is that when you have players of comparable quality then you look at the other discipline to see how much value the player brings to the team.

Would you care to elaborate if you think he thinks otherwise?

He thinks that as the quality of cricket becomes higher and higher (from FC to test cricket to imaginary all-time matches) the importance of 1st discipline increases and the importance of 2nd discipline reduces.

So, for example while comparing Sobers and Kallis as test match cricketers he will consider both their batting and bowling, because their bowling was useful in test cricket. But while comparing them for his all-time team he will compare primarily on the basis of their batting because their bowling won't be a big factor against a hypothetical super-strong XI whom the all-time XI will play. In fact, they will both get hammered most of the times even if they get 4-5 overs of bowling per day.

Alternatively, we could think for ourselves?

 

[Spark]

Slightly weirded out to see PEWS's philosophy being analysed in a thread he hasn't even posted in.

 

[uvelocity]

ffs robots don't have philosiphies, they have algorithms

 

[weldone]

Alternatively, we could think for ourselves?

lol, I do.

 

[Ikki]

ffs robots don't have philosiphies, they have algorithms

 

[Cevno]

Only if voters have malicious intent. As the partial team is published after every round, the voters will vote for the department left in imbalance. After 10 non-wicketkeepers, voters should automatically vote for a wicket-keeper, even if their favourite batsman or bowler hasn't made it yet.

The wicketkeeper is a obvious area and shouldn't be as much of a problem, as say voting between the players you rate most versus the players who fit into the team best.
For example if the team has 4 bowlers who can't bat, i'd probably prefer Sobers over Imran for extra batting but if we have Hadlee at 8 & say a Akram/Pollock or even Warne at 9, then I'll go for a Imran clearly.

 

[GIMH]

Who gives a **** about Prince EWS? Seriously, bad enough we have to read his drivel without others regurgitating it unprovoked.

 

[smash84]

Alternatively, we could think for ourselves?

I do and I dare say that PEWS thinks along the same lines in this case that I have referred above

ffs robots don't have philosiphies, they have algorithms

Who gives a **** about Prince EWS? Seriously, bad enough we have to read his drivel without others regurgitating it unprovoked.

 

[weldone]

For example if the team has 4 bowlers who can't bat, i'd probably prefer Sobers over Imran for extra batting but if we have Hadlee at 8 & say a Akram/Pollock or even Warne at 9, then I'll go for a Imran clearly.

That's what Ankit was suggesting. Select players one-by-one, and select your next player according to your existing team so far.

For example, the first poll will be to decide who should be the first player you'll select in your XI.

Supposing that Bradman wins this, the next poll will be to select your 2nd player 'assuming that you already have Bradman in the team'. Some will vote for Marshall, some for Sobers etc etc...suppose Sobers wins this.

The 3rd poll will be to select the 3rd player 'given that we already have Bradman and Sobers in the team'. People will probably think that now we should concentrate a little on bowling. So, select a bowler, say Marshall....and it'll go on...

I personally find Ankit's idea very good.

 

[Jager]

I personally find Ankit's idea very good.

I'm assuming we'll wait until this one is finished, but does anyone want to run it that way? Would be much more accurate. Plus take out Bradman, Sobers, Warne and Murali

 

[weldone]

I'm assuming we'll wait until this one is finished, but does anyone want to run it that way? Would be much more accurate. Plus take out Bradman, Sobers, Warne and Murali

I can do it if there's enough interest. Obviously won't exclude those 4

 

[Jager]

But if you do, it leaves a whole lot more slots open for discussion

 

[ankitj]

I'm willing to run this as well but best to wait for this to finish and give it some time to have renewed interest in another world XI.

And yeah, as weldone says above, this methodology will also self select the most popular composition in terms of number of all rounders etc.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm flattered guys.