Draft League Season 5 Voting Thread

[Dan]

Thought I'd poll a little better, 8 world class players in there.

From what I've found, it isn't so much about the number of ATG players - it's about the strength of your worst.

Most draft sides have 6 or 7 really gun players in them, some more than others, but it's the bottom two or three - the number 6 batsman, the fourth bowler, the part time option - that define things. And IMO despite the quality of 10/11ths of the team, Fawad Alam is letting you down.

 

[Blakus]

And sometimes it can be as simple as not liking certain players. I don't vote for teams that have players banned for match fixing for instance.

 

[kyear2]

I do find your comment interesting kyear and I'm not going to question your perception, because it's your perception.

But how do you know that the batsman would put you to sleep when it is highly unlikely that you have seen any of them bat in real life or on TV, with the exception of Boycott?

Also, I doubt very much whether you can quote their respective Strike Rates off-hand. But even if knew that they were all in the mid-30s doesn't mean that any of those batsman couldn't play an attactive attacking role if asked by their captain. Bradman himself commented that Hazare had all the shots, but restricted himself because he had to prop up the weak Indian middle-order.

I had said previously that I loved your team, just could only vote for three and all of the top five were pretty much equal, I liked Monk's the most and the other two votes went to the two teams that were closed the relegation, I really liked all five of the teams I mentioned earlier. That being said Hanif and Boycott were not known for setting the world on fire with their strike rates.

 

[Himannv]

As you can see Himannv there's not a lot of difference in the stat's between Prasanna and Saqlain (the only two viable choices in the 9th Wicket clause).

However, I will say that a sub-70 strike rate is pretty damned good for an off-spinner, and quite close to Laker's benchmark of 62.3.

Again, I find it very interesting how people form their opinions, and I don't discount myself from mixing the rational with the emotional either.

Yeah, not much difference. I don't really look at stats much though, so my opinion is based off the belief that Prasanna is the best among the spinners who played for India during that time and hence he's a more worthwhile pick while it's clear that Tests aren't really the format that Saqlain thrives in.

Anyway, all that is besides the point since I've voted for your team. I rate it quite highly on the whole.

I would say my opinion is mostly emotional though although I do look at rational side on occasion.

 

[kyear2]

Spinners are so hard to judge because the early ones were assisted by poor/ wet pitches and sometimws weak opposition. The spinners from the 50's and the 60's outside of England had to deal with some flat wickets and Ramadin and Valentine after some initial success were over bowled and mis managed. The Indian spinners of the quartet also had to contend with some flat pitches and poor catching and fielding. Due to the fast bowling emergence of the 70's -90's there was a slow down of quality spinners until the emergence of Warne, Murali and to a lesser extent Kumble which makws what they have accomplished and their stats so impressive.

 

[watson]

What those Indian spinners did in the 60s-70s was great, but none of them actually changed the way the game is played. Saqlain is also one of those rare cricketers whose legacy will live through generations of bowlers to come because he was the first to use the Doosra. We take it for granted now, but when Saqlain first used the delivery it was revolutionary. That fact has to mean at least something when judging a player.

 

[kyear2]

What those Indian spinners did in the 60s-70s was great, but none of them actually changed the way the game is played. Saqlain is also one of those rare cricketers whose legacy will live through generations of bowlers to come because he was the first to use the Doosra. We take it for granted now, but when Saqlain first used the delivery it was revolutionary. That fact has to mean at least something when judging a player.

Agree fully, I was more drifting to the point that some of the superb averages of some of the early spinners are a bit exagerated, and with adjustment to more modern conditions may have been a bit closer to 30 and more comparable to the Indian quartet, Saqlain, Gibbs ect. This highlights even more the brilliance of Murali and Warne, especially Warne when one looks at his home and away averages and relative lack of minnows he played againts and why for me his is one of the top two or three bowlers ever to play the game.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Well done guys; voted for Monk, Kyear and Watson