CWC Draft

[DJellett]

The thing is, there can't be any monopolisation of talent because every player is more-or-less equal at this stage.

Let teams form themselves IMO, then for a potential second season allow for retentions and drafting or whatnot - by then some idea as to the development of each player will have emerged.

Not so if one group were to amass all the talent in any given area - eg all the players with majority batting attributes - robbing other sides of strength and creating an unfair allotment of players.

I see your point that all players are of basically the same ability at this stage, but each specializes in a different area. This is why an open draft is so critical in ensuring a level playing field.

 

[Dan]

Not so if one group were to amass all the talent in any given area - eg all the players with majority batting attributes - robbing other sides of strength and creating an unfair allotment of players.

If a team selects 10 batsmen then they're screwed for bowling anyway, especially given we're looking at 12 player squads. IMO no team with 7 decent bats is going to pass over a top quality bowler for another batsman.

At worst, one side may select all the wicketkeepers - so we allow any teams left without a wicketkeeper to edit a player's registration to make them keep.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think you can trust each team to organise themselves properly without throwing out balance.

 

[DJellett]

I think we misunderstand one another - if teams can be formed based on whatever alliances people generate, there is the potential for 6 batsmen rated 100, 1 keeper rated 100, 4 bowlers rated 100 to get together and form a team. Not only would this team be near unbeatable, there would only be, say hypothetically - 3 batsmen rated 100 and perhaps 2 bowlers rated over 80 - left for the two remaining sides to choose from. This is inherently unfair; whilst an open draft, taking alternating picks from the player pool to build a squad, allows fair spread of specialised talent and makes squad strength dependent on the drafting strategies and abilities of the team captain/vice-captain.

 

[DJellett]

I think you can trust each team to organise themselves properly without throwing out balance.

If the only objective is to play with mates in your team, then I'm sure a captain can nominate from your group and base their drafting policies around this.

 

[MrPrez]

I think we misunderstand one another - if teams can be formed based on whatever alliances people generate, there is the potential for 6 batsmen rated 100, 1 keeper rated 100, 4 bowlers rated 100 to get together and form a team. Not only would this team be near unbeatable, there would only be, say hypothetically - 3 batsmen rated 100 and perhaps 2 bowlers rated over 80 - left for the two remaining sides to choose from. This is inherently unfair; whilst an open draft, taking alternating picks from the player pool to build a squad, allows fair spread of specialised talent and makes squad strength dependent on the drafting strategies and abilities of the team captain/vice-captain.

Which is why the compromise sounds fair - be allowed to recruit say 4 other members on your own, and the rest go into a draft pot.

 

[Jarquis]

Jesus, why's it all about being as equal as possible. Forget dimming cricket, let's just give the match to whoever wins the toss if we are trying to turn games into 50/50 contests.

You're forgetting that all registrations are out of 100 so all lineups with have 1100 points of ability, regardless. So theres the equality you were after.

Should definitely give people the opportunity to chose who they play for/with. You'll lose the interest of some if you force them to play somewhere theyve got no interesting in doing.

 

[chaminda_00]

How about giving players the option of accepting contracts, if they reject they end the draft as free agents and sort their own contract out. Most likely with the people they want to play.

End of the day if you want this to last more then five minutes, it not about the quality for the players in each team. But the quality for forum members activity levels that make a strong team. The best teams have always been the ones who want to play together, as they generally keep the same sides each season and not have to fill gaps each season.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think you can trust each team to organise themselves properly without throwing out balance.

Not sure if this is a troll or not.

 

[Howe_zat]

Not sure if this is a troll or not.

Nope, being serious. Everyone's starting fresh here and everyone plays the same grade, so the only way teams can mess with the ideal is to pick unbalanced sides, and I don't think they would.

If the player pool is such that some sides are going to have to be unbalanced, a draft doesn't solve that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nope, being serious. Everyone's starting fresh here and everyone plays the same grade, so the only way teams can mess with the ideal is to pick unbalanced sides, and I don't think they would.

If the player pool is such that some sides are going to have to be unbalanced, a draft doesn't solve that.

It just seemed to all too relevant to another recent debate elsewhere, is all.

 

[Dan]

It just seemed to all too relevant to another recent debate elsewhere, is all.

But here there aren't 10 runaway top batsmen and bowlers (...yet) - everyone's more-or-less equal still. Obvs would become a problem in S4 or so, when transfers start flying around and people have deviated from the original ability level, but in season one the teams will gravitate towards guys who want to play together anyway, IMO.

 

[DJellett]

But here there aren't 10 runaway top batsmen and bowlers (...yet)

There is exactly this, based on their points allocation.

 

[DJellett]

Jesus, why's it all about being as equal as possible. Forget dimming cricket, let's just give the match to whoever wins the toss if we are trying to turn games into 50/50 contests.

You're forgetting that all registrations are out of 100 so all lineups with have 1100 points of ability, regardless. So theres the equality you were after.

Should definitely give people the opportunity to chose who they play for/with. You'll lose the interest of some if you force them to play somewhere theyve got no interesting in doing.

Every sporting league in the world uses some checks and measures to maintain balance - without it the competition is void of any integrity. Interest will wane much, much more rapidly if results are predictable, the competition is not competitive, and players are marginalised by cliques.

Also - your point re: 100 points is actually incorrect, as not every player utilised the full 100 ability points; even if they had, there is still the possibilty for teams to stockpile specialists. See these numbers put together by Howe. There are, for example, 10 batsmen available in the competition. Only 6 of the batsmen are rated around 100 for batting. Under the suggested changes, all 6 of them could be playing for team 1; leaving team 2 and 3 with only limited, and inferior, batsmen to choose from.

 

[DJellett]

The points being raised are becoming more and more frivolous, and are preventing the rest of us from pressing on. It appears to be a relative minority who are lobbying so hard for these changes, and I am not willing to so drastically change the equation when I can see so many flaws in the new design.

If you want to participate in a draft league, and have the freedom to pick who you want when you want, there are games already established for this in a number of places on the forum. Alternatively any of you may feel free to set up another forum game with the same concept as this one - I will not feel challenged or aggrieved, and perhaps this is a way to get what everyone wants. However I simply do not have the time or desire to operate 2 leagues.

How about giving players the option of accepting contracts, if they reject they end the draft as free agents and sort their own contract out. Most likely with the people they want to play.

End of the day if you want this to last more then five minutes, it not about the quality for the players in each team. But the quality for forum members activity levels that make a strong team. The best teams have always been the ones who want to play together, as they generally keep the same sides each season and not have to fill gaps each season.

This is the only submission I am still willing to consider on this matter. My only concern is that if a large percentage of players were to turn down their offers, the draft would be rendered practically useless - and there is still the potential for a super-group to organise and conspire to bypass the draft. Can anyone think of any way to remedy this?

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, let them do it.

 

[chaminda_00]

This is the only submission I am still willing to consider on this matter. My only concern is that if a large percentage of players were to turn down their offers, the draft would be rendered practically useless - and there is still the potential for a super-group to organise and conspire to bypass the draft. Can anyone think of any way to remedy this?

I think in general you will find most people will accept any offer as they just want to play. It would only be a handful of people that might want to play with certain people. The other group that will reject the initial offer is guys that are in specialist positions like keeper, all rounders and spinners. For example if a side already had 2-3 spinners, but another side had only 1, you might reject the initial offer and try and join the other team.

With the lack of variety in sign ups, I would be very surprised if sides during the initial set up before super teams. Everyone base stats are pretty much all the same going off the sign ups.

The only issue you mentioned earlier in the thread is sides potentially stacking themselves up too many batsmen and bowlers. That would be easy to fix by having a limit on the types of players in each side. For example for squads of 16 you could have:
- Top Order (100 RT): Min 2, Max 3
- Middle Order (Specialist Batsmen - Below 100): Min 2, Max 3
- Keeper: Min 1, Max 2
- All Rounders: Min 2, Max 4
- Spinners (incl AR): Min 2, Max 3
- Fast Bowlers (incl AR): Min 3, Max 5

Just suggest you can do whatever you deem is required to get it up and running.

 

[Furball]

Every sporting league in the world uses some checks and measures to maintain balance

Absolutely no football league in Europe does this.

 

[Howe_zat]

Fortunately, none of us care about football.

 

[DJellett]

Absolutely no football league in Europe does this.

And look at the hole that has created for them - both competitively and financially.

They are currently trying to rectify their past mistakes, of not instituting such regulation, by means such as FFP etc; as most understand, even this will be limited in it's effectiveness because of the retrospective application of the rules (coupled with the inherent corruptability of the governing bodies, of course)