All-time Australia XIs - A re-run

[Qlder]

After the first tie in the voting spots between those 3 Ataraxia used his vote to tie break and nominate Cowper. That vote was for spots 3-5 only. As he wasn't sure who the second batsman he wanted among Redpath and Hughes, he again conducted the voting but after another tie he voted for Redpath. The next time he opened the voting for the position of no 6, in which Symmonds and Lehmann tied again. So in this round they are competing for the no 6 position. The votes were for different positions, and people had the option for voting for both Redpath and Hughes, but no one did that instead choosing these two. It's fair imo.

I know all that, but no-one voted Hughes or Redpath at #6 because there was a clear vote for Hughes or Redpath before that. You've also pointed out Ataraxia could have picked Hughes at #3 or #4 but chose not to both times, so he obviously doesn't rate Hughes

Can anyone honestly say they'd rather have Lehmann or Symonds over Kim Hughes in the team. If so, then fair enough

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know all that, but no-one voted Hughes or Redpath at #6 because there was a clear vote for Hughes or Redpath before that. You've also pointed out Ataraxia could have picked Hughes at #3 or #4 but chose not to both times, so he obviously doesn't rate Hughes

Can anyone honestly say they'd rather have Lehmann or Symonds over Kim Hughes in the team. If so, then fair enough

I will have Lehmann over Hughes in the team.

 

[Qlder]

I will have Lehmann over Hughes in the team.

Of course you will, you never saw Kim Hughes play and Stats win (fair enough though and that's why I'm out)

 

[capt_Luffy]

Of course you will, you never saw Kim Hughes play and Stats win (fair enough though and that's why I'm out)

Well, I don't really what can I say to you really..... It's I think is obvious that Ataraxia preferred Redpath and Cowper, he was totally allowed to do so. The other spot at 6 for which these two are competing, no one even voted Hughes in.

 

[Qlder]

Well, I don't really what can I say to you really..... It's I think is obvious that Ataraxia preferred Redpath and Cowper, he was totally allowed to do so. The other spot at 6 for which these two are competing, no one even voted Hughes in.

No need to say anything. I was just explaining why I'm out after being asked to vote.

And I already explained why no-one voted Hughes at 6, he was already in the other vote for 4. Even I picked Symonds at 6 but I would never pick him ahead of Hughes in a direct vote

 

[ataraxia]

• name the remaining two members of the side
  • if you wish to pick both Redpath and Hughes, you may do so by picking your less preferred batter in one of these two slots

You may indicate that any of these picks are conditional on the result of any other (e.g. "pick Ashwin – but if India select 4 #11s again, pick Jadeja")

@Qlder I clearly gave the option to pick one of Redpath and Hughes at #6. Equally, that you voted Hughes at #4 did not preclude you from saying "if Redpath is selected, I vote Hughes for #6". However, there is a realistic chance that Hughes could beat out Lehmann/Symonds (that had slipped my mind as I was unwell) so that vote is altered to include Hughes as a choice. @Teuton @Bitmap

But next time if you see something potentially going badly with the voting just include a conditional or two.

 

[Line and Length]

I'm with @Qlder on this. We were voting between Redpath and Hughes to bat at 4 with the openers and Cowper nominated for 1-3. (" Hmm. That's not particularly conclusive. I'm opting for Cowper on the basis of FC record and bowling ability, but we'll have a runoff between Redpath and Hughes.") Now we have an arbitrary selection of Redpath and a vote between Cowper and Redpath for #3 spot while Hughes is apparently discarded. Redpath was unsuited for #4 so this exercise has become totally flawed and I, too, am out.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm with @Qlder on this. We were voting between Redpath and Hughes to bat at 4 with the openers and Cowper nominated for 1-3. (" Hmm. That's not particularly conclusive. I'm opting for Cowper on the basis of FC record and bowling ability, but we'll have a runoff between Redpath and Hughes.") Now we have an arbitrary selection of Redpath and a vote between Cowper and Redpath for #3 spot while Hughes is apparently discarded. Redpath was unsuited for #4 so this exercise has become totally flawed and I, too,

What would you prefer I have done?

 

[Line and Length]

Perhaps if you had looked at usual Test batting positions when deciding between Redpath and Hughes for # 4 your decision to opt for Redpath might have been different.
Redpath was primarily an opener/# 3 - 68.4% of his innings were in these spots with almost 50% being as opener. He only had 10.9% of his innings at # 4.
Hughes (who played 4 extra Tests) was primarily used at 4 or 5 - 80.6 % of his innings with 51.6% at the # 4 spot we were voting for.

 

[ataraxia]

I did, and no it wasn't.

 

[Line and Length]

Also, the decision to ask for votes between Cowper and Redpath for the # 3 spot was over-riding the vote result for # 3 held earlier. Cowper declared # 3 and was best suited for this spot based on usual Test batting position. (45.6% of innings @ 3 compared with Redpath's 19.2%).

 

[Line and Length]

I did, and no it wasn't.

Well that's your decision and I'll maintain my choice to opt out of a system made flawed by what @Qlder and I have described.

 

[ataraxia]

Also, the decision to ask for votes between Cowper and Redpath for the # 3 spot was over-riding the vote result for # 3 held earlier. Cowper declared # 3 and was best suited for this spot based on usual Test batting position. (45.6% of innings @ 3 compared with Redpath's 19.2%).

I did so in agreement with you and the result of the previous exercise that Cowper was better suited to #3 than #4. Two people putting Cowper over Redpath does not a consensus make. Batting positions being amended after the fact were common the last time this task was done as well – you were under the wrong impression if you thought the batting positions you provided were to be set in stone.

I'm with @Qlder on this. We were voting between Redpath and Hughes to bat at 4 with the openers and Cowper nominated for 1-3. (" Hmm. That's not particularly conclusive. I'm opting for Cowper on the basis of FC record and bowling ability, but we'll have a runoff between Redpath and Hughes.") Now we have an arbitrary selection of Redpath and a vote between Cowper and Redpath for #3 spot while Hughes is apparently discarded. Redpath was unsuited for #4 so this exercise has become totally flawed and I, too, am out.

Your beef seems to be with the voters rather than the management.

I wish to emphasise that I could have unilaterally chosen Cowper and Redpath the first time of asking without giving the choice. Would you have complained then?

 

[Qlder]

I wish to emphasise that I could have unilaterally chosen Cowper and Redpath the first time of asking without giving the choice. Would you have complained then?

Yes you could have, but that would just prove your deciding vote is too powerful.

Cowper clearly got the most votes at #3 and Hughes the most votes at #4 so that would have been a better tie-breaker than picking Cowper for his FC record (why ask for batting position in vote if you then don't use it)

The initial votes:
D Jones 9 (6x at #5; 3x at #4)
Cowper 4 (all at #3)
Redpath 4 (2x at #3; 2x at #4)
K Hughes 4 (all at #4)
A Jackson 3 (all at #3)
Lehmann 3 (all at #5)

 

[Line and Length]

"Your beef seems to be with the voters rather than the management."

Incorrect. Voters are exercising their democratic right and I respect that. It's management's interpretation of the votes where I have a 'beef'.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Imo @ataraxia you had one vote like we all do. It's specifically to break tie breakers. I didn't got the point of asking for re-votes really.

 

[ataraxia]

"Your beef seems to be with the voters rather than the management."

Incorrect. Voters are exercising their democratic right and I respect that. It's management's interpretation of the votes where I have a 'beef'.

Then what is your problem with the selection of Redpath over Hughes?

Imo @ataraxia you had one vote like we all do. It's specifically to break tie breakers. I didn't got the point of asking for re-votes really.

Simply – a lack of a majority.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Then what is your problem with the selection of Redpath over Hughes?


Simply – a lack of a majority.

Yeah, and if you had voted then one of them (or two in this instance) would had majority. I think it was the reason why the administrator doesn't votes.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I understand if there is some annoyance over this, but

(a) it was very good of ataraxia to step up and manage this (just as it was very good of cric addict earlier, and NuFan initially)

And


(b) does it really matter that much between a possible incorrect middle order slot in Aus F or Aus G?

 

[honestbharani]

I understand if there is some annoyance over this, but

(a) it was very good of ataraxia to step up and manage this (just as it was very good of cric addict earlier, and NuFan initially)

And


(b) does it really matter that much between a possible incorrect middle order slot in Aus F or Aus G?