Taboo Draft

[Eds]

Yeah, agree with this. There was a somewhat high luck aspect to the draft to begin with and balancing the team was the main challenge.

Yeah, the challenge is in balancing your side but players haven't actually been split into their right categories. And even so, there should be an opportunity to go batsman heavy if that's what you wanted to do, just as you should be able to go with 9 specialist bowlers if that's what you wanted. That's what's so good about these drafts.

 

[weeman27bob]

Yes definitely or just continue as is. People have made picks in accordance to the current rules.

I don't care really if my team ended up having 3 batsman, 3 wicket keepers, 2 all rounders and 3 bowlers..Its a taboo draft, you can't expect to have the perfect 6 ATG batsman, 1 wk 1 amazing all rounder and 3 ATG bowlers..

Was there a plan to have some sim aspect to the draft?

Personally I'd love to see a team of five spinners and batsmen go up against four wicket keepers and seven all rounders.

 

[Jarquis]

We're all playing with the same rules. Get on with it IMO

 

[uvelocity]

We're all playing with the same rules. Get on with it IMO

this

managed 1 pick in 16 hours ffs

 

[Eds]

Will pick once Joe's made a decision. If it is my pick at all.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I've had a think in the shower. I'm inclined towards continuing as it is, the rules are the same for everybody. I didn't think of the all-rounder shortage issue at the start, and in restrospect this draft would have been more suited to a lesser number of participants where it wouldn't have been that great an issue.

I've done a bit of tinkering with the statsguru filters, and as much as I can gather, lowering the batting average requirement for all-rounders to 17 increases the all-rounder pool by only a few (of which I'd say 8 or 9 would be considered all time draft-level picks), which includes the likes of Warne, Wasim and Marshall.

There can be no complaining about luck playing its part in the draft; that aspect was apparent before we started. Yes, most teams are going to come out horribly deformed; but that's what will make this draft different to most drafts. The overall quality of the teams won't be the greatest either - 21 teams multiplied by 12 players will ensure that. The winner here probably won't be the one with the most well-balanced side, but rather the one who played the odds well, knew whom to pick towards the end, had his share of luck and ended up with the least mangled side - and that's a perfectly acceptable outcome in my opinion.

I'm inclined towards continuing as we are. If the majority of participants want a change, it'll have to be a reboot of the draft, and not something that takes effect mid-way. Either way, the drafting can continue.

 

[marc71178]

Keep it going as is - rules were clear before entering and it's all meant to be a bit of fun anyway.

 

[Eds]

I think the main thing is the lack of batsmen possibly available, for me. As you say, luck is a key part of this, but when the absolute maximum available is 4.5 batsmen each, and we've already gone some way to ensuring the maximum won't be reached, I think it's completely different from being unlucky.

Maybe just re-start Round 3, splitting opening batsmen and middle order batsmen and carry on, if you don't want to re-start? I'd prefer to start everything again with new requirements and just treat this as a trial thus far, though. Obviously not my decision, though.

 

[Jarquis]

Well you'll have an unbalanced team. Just like everyone else. Deal with it.

 

[Jager]

It could be extremely amusing seeing people finish up with deformed teams. If Joe is happy to restart, then I will not complain at all, but we could be ruining a bit of fun by taking things too seriously

 

[kyear2]

Well just carry on as is and treat this as a learning experience and just plain fun.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, lets get on with it IMO.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I can see that Eds has a valid point about the batsman problem. I propose a vote.

Vote in favour of either

(1) Continuing as is.

OR

(2) Restart with two categories of batsmen - Openers and Middle order.

 

[Eds]

Are we splitting up openers and middle-order batsman? It's not like it'll effect too many of the previous picks (surely?) and it makes much more sense in the future of the draft. I know it's only fun etc. but surely it's more fun when you aren't forced into picking dire players?

EDIT: (2). Maybe make another option suggesting that we just re-start Round 3 with the new batsman splitting?

Will make my pick in a second.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I also don't see the point in splitting the all-rounders into batting and bowling all-rounders. It makes it easier to pick an all-rounder, but doesn't actually solve the all-rounder shortage problem.

 

[Eds]

I also don't see the point in splitting the all-rounders into batting and bowling all-rounders. It makes it easier to pick an all-rounder, but doesn't actually solve the all-rounder shortage problem.

I was suggesting the requirements be loosened, and because these requirements are less stringent, some of the players classed as all-rounders are completely different from each other (eg. Jacques Kallis and Wasim Akram). Makes sense to split them. Although the main problem is the batsmen.

 

[Jarquis]

Continue as we are ffs.

 

[G.I.Joe]

To add to the restarting proposal, if we go through with it, the draft order for rounds 1 to 4 will be the same as now.

 

[Cevno]

(1)

 

[G.I.Joe]

EDIT: (2). Maybe make another option suggesting that we just re-start Round 3 with the new batsman splitting?

Could be objections from people who couldn't pick a batsman in the first two rounds (cf. Brian Lara).