D(r)aft idea?

[AndrewB]

Apologies from a relative newcomer if this has been done before (I couldn't see it with a quick search), or rejected for being a terrible idea before, or is just a terrible idea...

- Pick the best team of Test cricketers you can, with the restriction that they must have played less than 100 Tests in total.

Alternatively:

- Pick the worst team of Test cricketers you can, with the restriction that they must have played at least 200 Tests in total.

 

[Howe_zat]

I remember playing one similar to the former but not the latter

 

[WalkingWicket]

First one sounds better - having an average of just 9 tests per player would make things tricky indeed. Would probably have to be limited to only a handful of drafters though.

 

[AndrewB]

Apologies from a relative newcomer if this has been done before (I couldn't see it with a quick search), or rejected for being a terrible idea before, or is just a terrible idea...

- Pick the best team of Test cricketers you can, with the restriction that they must have played less than 100 Tests in total.

Alternatively:

- Pick the worst team of Test cricketers you can, with the restriction that they must have played at least 200 Tests in total.

A possible improvement to the second suggestion (or maybe it just makes it complicated) - only count Tests in which their team won (or maybe ones in which their team didn't lose) - so it's not just a case of picking "X who played for Y for a few years despite being pretty hopeless because all their players were pretty hopeless then".

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

The more complicated the better!

 

[watson]

I like the first idea with a budget of 100 Tests, except that it should be 200 Tests.

 

[MrPrez]

The first one seems really interesting.

 

[longranger]

Agree with the first idea, but revising it to 200 Tests may be better. In for it.

 

[mr_mister]

They both sound interesting

 

[Red]

i'll play

 

[AndrewB]

On reflection, I think I agree with the comments that "up to 200 Tests" would probably be better for a Draft thread - "up to 100 Tests" would be OK if you were just picking one team to fit it (or if only 3 or 4 people were taking part).

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Agree the 100 test limit would only work for a few drafters

 

[jimmy101]

If this thread ends up turning into a draft I'll join in.

Also agree with the 200 Test rule.

 

[mr_mister]

I'll join too

 

[AndrewB]

There seems to be enough support for this to be a draft - would now be a good time to start it, or would it clash with the reverse "debuts/retirements" draft that I think was proposed?

Also, before I launch a draft, is there more to it than announcing the draft rules and giving the order of selection for each round?

 

[Red]

There seems to be enough support for this to be a draft - would now be a good time to start it, or would it clash with the reverse "debuts/retirements" draft that I think was proposed?

Also, before I launch a draft, is there more to it than announcing the draft rules and giving the order of selection for each round?

Just go for it mate

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I'll have a go

 

[watson]

IMO If we are going to keep the cut-off at 200 Tests then the max number of particpants should be no more than 8-9.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'll play if there's room

 

[jimmy101]

Don't worry about the reverse debuts/retirements draft Andrew mate. I'll just launch it sometime after this draft.

I have a question though. Are we allowed to select players who played zero Tests?