Reverse Alphabetic Draft

[stephen]

It's hard with some of the old timers because despite being bloody fantastic cricketers, it's basically a popularity contest in the judging, so picking a bloke who played over a hundred years ago turns a lot of potential voters away. The golden era to pick from IMO is the 80s and 90s players. There's still a lot of nostalgia around them and a lot of modern players talk in reverence about them so they're quite popular. A decade ago picking blokes from the 70s was the thing to do.

But honestly unless you're in your 60s you probably don't remember much about any cricket before the 70s, you're going on highlights, statistics and writing. Sure, Sobers is the second bloke picked behind Bradman, but how much footage of him have you really watched? How many people on this board actually saw him live? And how many of those people would still have a clear memory about his technical strengths and weaknesses?

 

[Pothas]

Think I tend to pick more modern players than most.

 

[kingkallis]

It's hard with some of the old timers because despite being bloody fantastic cricketers, it's basically a popularity contest in the judging, so picking a bloke who played over a hundred years ago turns a lot of potential voters away. The golden era to pick from IMO is the 80s and 90s players. There's still a lot of nostalgia around them and a lot of modern players talk in reverence about them so they're quite popular. A decade ago picking blokes from the 70s was the thing to do.

But honestly unless you're in your 60s you probably don't remember much about any cricket before the 70s, you're going on highlights, statistics and writing. Sure, Sobers is the second bloke picked behind Bradman, but how much footage of him have you really watched? How many people on this board actually saw him live? And how many of those people would still have a clear memory about his technical strengths and weaknesses?

I somehow don't agree with this as I have won drafts by picking Macartney, Trumper, Larwood, Benaud, Cowdrey, Faulkner more often than anyone else. People on CW often votes for properly picked complete teams rather than the favorite drafters or players. Marshall, O'Reilly, Bradman, Hughes are my favorites for drafts though. Many people have lost the drafts despite picking Bradman and Sobers or Bradman and any other legend in their team.

 

[stephen]

I somehow don't agree with this as I have won drafts by picking Macartney, Trumper, Larwood, Benaud, Cowdrey, Faulkner more often than anyone else. People on CW often votes for properly picked complete teams rather than the favorite drafters or players. Marshall, O'Reilly, Bradman, Hughes are my favorites for drafts though. Many people have lost the drafts despite picking Bradman and Sobers or Bradman and any other legend in their team.

I was thinking to myself the other day that Gilchrist feels like fools gold in a draft. I've often seen players pick him first pick but rarely have I seen a side with him in it win a draft. I don't know if it's because of the opportunity cost of picking a more exciting role or what it is, but a guy who has a 20% higher batting average than his nearest full time rivals should pay off more than it seems to. People love voting for Marshall though. I swear he's in every second winning side. I know he's the GOAT quick, but the difference between him and say Lillee is 3 runs per wicket. It's decent, but it's less than the advantage Gilchrist has over Knott (for example).

Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe and Gavaskar are all massive draft picks. The averages of openers drops to somewhere in the mid-high 40s after those 4 and so you're looking at a pretty huge gap between those guys and the next batch (I know Hayden averaged north of 50 but people treat him as though his batting average was five runs lower in drafts). Grace and Trumper are a bit immune to this effect. People seem to view these two guys as being about the equivalent of openers averaging 50 or so (at a guess).

I do think the players matters in drafts. Ponting appears to be underrated in drafts. Younis Khan is another who is underappreciated (for whatever reason) in drafts. I don't know why.

 

[trundler]

Botham is hard to fit into these teams generally because he looks like he weakens whatever discipline he's chosen primarily for. Kallis/Sobers/Hadlee/Imran are probably the most valuable picks. Anyone who gets 1 of the big 4 openers or Warne/Murali has a huge advantage too.

 

[kingkallis]

I was thinking to myself the other day that Gilchrist feels like fools gold in a draft. I've often seen players pick him first pick but rarely have I seen a side with him in it win a draft. I don't know if it's because of the opportunity cost of picking a more exciting role or what it is, but a guy who has a 20% higher batting average than his nearest full time rivals should pay off more than it seems to. People love voting for Marshall though. I swear he's in every second winning side. I know he's the GOAT quick, but the difference between him and say Lillee is 3 runs per wicket. It's decent, but it's less than the advantage Gilchrist has over Knott (for example).

Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe and Gavaskar are all massive draft picks. The averages of openers drops to somewhere in the mid-high 40s after those 4 and so you're looking at a pretty huge gap between those guys and the next batch (I know Hayden averaged north of 50 but people treat him as though his batting average was five runs lower in drafts). Grace and Trumper are a bit immune to this effect. People seem to view these two guys as being about the equivalent of openers averaging 50 or so (at a guess).

I do think the players matters in drafts. Ponting appears to be underrated in drafts. Younis Khan is another who is underappreciated (for whatever reason) in drafts. I don't know why.

A draft team is all about drafting 11 good players. If you can slot in 6 ATGs, you are going to see your team in Top 3 without any doubt. I have never paid any attention to an individual player. Once hb gave me Bradman in a platter and I picked Hammond but then corrected my pick because I had a strategy in my mind and Bradman was not the part of it at that point of time.

 

[stephen]

I don't mind pairing Botham with another all rounder and running 5 bowlers, but that's usually the only way he gets in for me. Kapil is the other one that feels like he weakens any team he's picked for, unless he can be paired with another all rounder. I don't really like drafting either of those two guys as part of a four man attack. The same is mostly true for Miller, since it always feels like you need him as a part of a five man attack due to his low WPM rating. He often feels really hard to fit into a side, no matter how great he was. Imran, Pollock and Hadlee are all different because they're good enough to command a place in a side on their primary skill alone while their batting is a bonus (though Pollock really can't spearhead your attack in an open draft like this).

Personally I don't like when people pick Walcott, Sanga or de Villiers and make them keep. It feels somehow wrong and I usually subconsciously penalise players who do it (even though I've done it myself).

 

[trundler]

For the record Trumper averages 69.38 at 5 with a highest score of 214 in 10 innings. To go with with an overall average of 53.07 in the middle order. That's not an out of position pick, folks.

I may have a bit of a problem.

 

[AndrewB]

Dennis Amiss

 

[stephen]

For the record Trumper averages 69.38 at 5 with a highest score of 214 in 10 innings. To go with with an overall average of 53.07 in the middle order. That's not an out of position pick, folks.

I may have a bit of a problem.

He was a sticky track bully and on sticky wickets teams often sent the tail enders in first. I imagine that there was a significant amount of that going on. He opened far more often than he batted down the order. I imagine there was prestige associated with opening before WWI, since the best batsmen from the era all seemed to do it.

 

[trundler]

He was a sticky track bully and on sticky wickets teams often sent the tail enders in first. I imagine that there was a significant amount of that going on. He opened far more often than he batted down the order. I imagine there was prestige associated with opening before WWI, since the best batsmen from the era all seemed to do it.

It's 1600 vs 1400 runs though. 52 innings opening, 31 innings in the middle order.

 

[ankitj]

Hashim Amla

 

[ankitj]

Len Hutton
Roy Fredericks
Hashim Amla
Denis Compton
KS Ranjitsinhji
Clive Lloyd *
Jonny Bairstow +
Joel Garner (2)
Fred Trueman (1)
Brian Statham (3)
Muttiah Muralitharan (4)

 

[trundler]

On a good day that batting order is gonna get 500-2.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I like picking Sanga as a keeper.

He's a keeper first for me.

 

[ankitj]

Reeling under withdrawal syndrome now that the draft is over.

 

[ankitj]

Len Hutton
Roy Fredericks
Hashim Amla
Denis Compton
KS Ranjitsinhji
Clive Lloyd *
Jonny Bairstow +
Joel Garner (2)
Fred Trueman (1)
Brian Statham (3)
Muttiah Muralitharan (4)

Good team overall. Gun bowling attack and a very capable batting lineup. Lack of 5th bowling option only deficiency, but with an ATG attack it won't matter.

Along the way I made few mistakes in the draft. For example picking Garner instead of Greenidge which put me at the end of the queue. I should have had a go at Ambrose. There were enough good backups -- Bond, Bishop, Adcock, Anderson.

 

[trundler]

I was reluctant to make picks that would make me jump ahead in the queue at the cost of some quality. Almost picked Greig so I could get an early crack at D but decided against it. Probably should've picked Inzimam though. Thought he was a step down at the time. Sorta content with my attack now — all 3 guys can hit 150 and my backup bowlers are very decent too.

 

[stephen]

I was reluctant to make picks that would make me jump ahead in the queue at the cost of some quality. Almost picked Greig so I could get an early crack at D but decided against it. Probably should've picked Inzimam though. Thought he was a step down at the time. Sorta content with my attack now — all 3 guys can hit 150 and my backup bowlers are very decent too.

That core tension of whether to pick a bloke who would send you to the back of the queue vs the one who is slightly worse but will give you prime position next time was what I think made the draft so tight.

 

[AndrewB]

Just realised I hadn't given my team's batting order:

Matthew Hayden
Dennis Amiss
Kane Williamson
Steve Smith
Keith Miller (3)
Aubrey Faulkner (6)
Mike Procter (1)
Alan Knott+
Hedley Verity (5)
George Lohmann (4)
Sydney Barnes (2)