CW Draft League

[Himannv]

Graham Thorpe (not selected in the past two drafts)

 

[Himannv]

Ellyse Perry (female cricketer)

 

[Eds]

Monk >>> AZH >>> Blakus >>> Cevno

 

[Red]

Ian Redpath- Not selected in a previous draft.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Clause:Female Test Cricketer

Cathryn Fitzpatrick: World's fastest bowler

Cathryn Fitzpatrick | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Blakus]

I'm going to take Karen Rolton to finish of my team.

 

[Eds]

Cevno >>> KK >>> Eds.

 

[Cevno]

Belinda Clark

 

[Eds]

1. Archie Jackson
2. Saeed Anwar
3. Jacques Kallis (6)
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Douglas Jardine*
6. Clyde Walcott+
7. Keith Miller (2)
8. Kapil Dev (3)
9. Walter Robins (5)
10. Michael Holding (1)
11. Sydney Barnes (4)

12. Myrtle Maclagan

 

[watson]

kyear2 > Jager > watson


(Cevno, Michael and KK still with prior picks)

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Debbie Hockley (Female Test Cricketer) for my final pick please

Charter 77 Final Squad

1. WG Grace
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Bill Edrich
4. Sourav Ganguly (*)
5. Garfield Sobers
6. Doug Walters
7. Ian Botham
8. Bert Oldfield
9. Shane Bond
10. Clarrie Grimmett
11. Fazal Mahmood

12. Debbie Hockley

 

[Jager]

Everyone who's made all their picks to submit their final lineups too.

 

[Blakus]

Yeah sure

1.Bert Sutcliffe
2.Graeme Smith*
3.Rahul Dravid
4.Denis Compton
5.Everton Weekes
6.Michael Hussey
7.Alan Knott+
8.Ray Lindwall
9.Hedley Verity
10.Joel Garner
11.Neil Adcock
12.Karen Rolton

 

[Red]

Monk's 12

- Gordon Greenidge
- Enid Bakewell (6)
- Ian Chappell
- Vijay Hazare
- Frank Worrell (c)
- AB. DeVilliers (wk)
- Jack Gregory (3)
- Richie Benaud (4)
- Hugh Trumble (5)
- Fred Trueman (2)
- Waqar Younis (1)

12th- Ian Redpath


Are others just going to play their women as 12th "men" because they are women? Or are we judging them on the full weight of their ability as cricketers and giving them those attributes in this- meaning their talents would transfer fully in to this competition?

If the latter, I'll just play Redpath as the opener. But if the latter, it also makes the "choose a female" clause a bit redundant....

 

[Eds]

Yeah I'd play Redpath if I were you. Not sure how she'd manage against Holding, Garner, Ambrose...

 

[Red]

Yeah I'd play Redpath if I were you. Not sure how she'd manage against Holding, Garner, Ambrose...

That's my point, are we transferring their skills across and giving their career stats and achievements equal status with the men, meaning she (Bakewell) has an average of nearly 60? Or are we judging her as a women's cricketer playing against, as you say, Holding, Garner and Ambrose? In which case she'd struggle.

My point is, if their skills don't transfer across in to these teams, we might as well have all researched who's the best women fielder, or the best drinks waitress, or who has the best thighs in short shorts (for team morale)!

I'm not really fussed either way, but I'd probably have chosen someone else if the skills and achievements don't transfer and become comparable with the men's.....

 

[Eds]

It'd be based on how well we think they'd have played against these teams.

 

[watson]

The point of researching women cricketers is to learn something new. And learning something new is pretty cool. It makes us all more interesting people.

However, it is more than likely that all of the women cricketers would struggle against an ATG bowling attack when batting or an ATG batting line-up when bowling. They would be out of their depth in the same way that the Womens England Football team would be out of their depth against the Mens England Football team. But worse because there is no where to hide for an individual batsman or bowler at the crease. They are not a back row defender with 3 fellow defenders and a goalie beside them.

 

[Red]

The point of researching women cricketers is to learn something new. And learning something new is pretty cool. It makes us all more interesting people.

However, it is more than likely that all of the women cricketers would struggle against an ATG bowling attack when batting or an ATG batting line-up when bowling. They would be out of their depth in the same way that the Womens England Football team would be out of their depth against the Mens England Football team. But worse because there is no where to hide for an individual batsman or bowler at the crease. They are not a back row defender with 3 fellow defenders and a goalie beside them.

I don't disagree that they'd struggle (clearly), but basically what we're doing with that rationale is selecting them as 12th "men".

Far more interesting next time (if we did this type of clause in another draft) to select them to actually play a role in the team based on their performances in women's cricket, but transferring that across to this comp.

So my XII is...

Monk's 12

- Gordon Greenidge
- Enid Bakewell (6)
- Ian Chappell
- Vijay Hazare
- Frank Worrell (c)
- AB. DeVilliers (wk)
- Jack Gregory (3)
- Richie Benaud (4)
- Hugh Trumble (5)
- Fred Trueman (2)
- Waqar Younis (1)

12th- Ian Redpath

But if I wanted to win a real test against someone else's draft team...

Monk's 12

- Gordon Greenidge
- Ian Redpath
- Ian Chappell
- Vijay Hazare
- Frank Worrell (c)
- AB. DeVilliers (wk)
- Jack Gregory (3)
- Richie Benaud (4)
- Hugh Trumble (5)
- Fred Trueman (2)
- Waqar Younis (1)

12th- Enid Bakewell

 

[watson]

But if I wanted to win a real test against someone else's draft team...

I take that to be the underlying assumption behind all these Drafts.

When fellow CWers vote for their favourite team they are thinking foremost which team would most likely win an inter-team Test series. Or something like that.

It sounds all very pragmatic and un-idealistic I know. But if the goals and aspirations of this Draft were to be different from normal then they should have been stated from the get-up.