My idea

[aditya]

The whole fun of trading will be lost if this is implemented.And it will benefit those who dont trade much but for those who trade, like the Warwickshire team which was changed fully and was much better than before, a curse.

It will limit all the options of the manager and take the sheen out of the game.Trading which is the best part of WCC will become monotonous.

Its not charity if good teams give better player for a best player.A good teams get a better player but a team which is a bit weak get 3 to 4 good players who they can retain in their 11.And if we have to retain the good teams will have to retain a crap player who they have got with a best one.

It is a game and it should remain as a game.Too much of reality will spoil it.And in reality good teams get better and worse get worse.

If this is implemented then there shl be no draft which is not there in real.it is not compulsory for a team to drop 6 out of 16.if they want they can retain all.Will this be good for the game??I dont think so.So we shl not copy everything which is in real.Some things r fine.

 

[nibbs]

It is a game and it should remain as a game.Too much of reality will spoil it.And in reality good teams get better and worse get worse.

I don't quite understand that comment?!?!


Basically in every league in the world some teams are stronger than others, and it'll be like that forever in WCC. I don't know what the problem is though. Next season I think the divisions will have sorted themselves out and pretty much every team will be competing on an even playing field (ie with those in their divisions not ND competing with SA), with one or two exceptions

If Marcs idea is implemented, the good sides would just stop trading, so only minor crappy boring trades would happen. All would get screwy and messy. IMO, the 2 for 2 trades can benefit the small teams as they get two reasonably good players, and it should help with their building.

 

[marc71178]

When the game was started, the whole point was to make it as even to give everyone a chance.

The current scenario doesn't make it anywhere near even, which goes against the initial aims of the game (and the reasoning the uneven trading was scrapped)

It will limit all the options of the manager and take the sheen out of the game.Trading which is the best part of WCC will become monotonous.

It will not limit options, but it will mean managers have to plan their strategy a lot more, not just build a super team (which is what will happen if the status quo is maintained)

Its not charity if good teams give better player for a best player.A good teams get a better player but a team which is a bit weak get 3 to 4 good players who they can retain in their 11.And if we have to retain the good teams will have to retain a crap player who they have got with a best one.

That's the whole idea - it means the spread of skills are more even, which was the initial plan when we started the game. If you have to retain a crap player you have to judge if it's worth the trade or not.

I notice so many people were keen on a finance model, which would have done something similar to this in that you wouldn't be able to afford an awesome squad.

This is a much more simple way of going about it, yet people suddenly don't want it.

Ask yourself this, what fun will WCC be if there's 3 or 4 super teams in division 1 for each and 26 others?

 

[marc71178]

say i (colts) want umm Razzaq from TN, not i dont have a player good enough for a 1 to 1 trade so i offer to give 2 reaonable players for him and another ordinaruy player, so he might gain Singh and noffke for Razzaq and (someone crap) now he has gained 2 good players and i have gained an all rounder, both teams are better off. but i will probably not be able to retain the crap player compared to someone like Shewag or similar.

So you the manager has to make a judgement call. How badly do you want the good player. Enough to have to carry a player who weakens your back-up?

basically managers should be able to trade whoever they want into their squad and discard whomever they want from their squad into the draft

And hang the consequences of the game becoming lop-sided?

 

[marc71178]

isnt that the point of the draft??

The draft is to try and redistribute the unwanted players evenly.

At the moment you see more poor players than average dropped since a player will give up 2 of his good players for 2 poor ones, good ones that would otherwise be in the draft, thus weakening the draft.

 

[nibbs]

Ask yourself this, what fun will WCC be if there's 3 or 4 super teams in division 1 for each and 26 others?

This idea just doesn't make sense to me.

In WCC the standard of player in WCC is getting better by the season as more good rookies come in. SA and Karnataka can't get all these players, and over time these players would get distributed among most teams. In many sporting codes super teams always exist. One team will always be superior to another. A perfect even comptition would not be possible.

Why not have super powerS? When going up against a big side, its adds a bit more to the game. ie when I played Karnataka and beat, I got great joy, and happiness from it. If all teams are the same WCC could be staring down a boring, boring track...

This idea in my opinoin will probably mean the good team will hold onto their good players. Small teams will not be able make any decent trades because the good sides wouldn't be willing to do 2 for 2 trades because of the prospect of getting a donkey. So other than 1 or 2 draft picks smaller sides wont be able to make much ground on these called 'super powers'. So player movements would be limited, with big sides retaining the bulk of their awesome squads while the smalls would have to retain the bulk of poop squad.

As far I see, this idea could do WCC a lot more worse than good, and an even bigger gulf could develop. Keep it the way it is, its 16 times better than this idea.

 

[marc71178]

But it won't necessarily stop these 2 for 2 trades since the manager doesn't have to use all 16 players during the season.

It's up to the manager to decide if he wants to strengthen his 1st XI, but weaken his back ups.

As for this idea of super powers not being a bad thing, why did we initially set it up to even the sides out?

You say that sides won't get a chance to get the good players, but the players initially traded will now go into the draft, which strengthens that considerably.

And, as I've already said, people wanted finance, which would've put exactly the same constraints on squads that this does, only this is a lot simpler way of doing it.

 

[nibbs]

k

well I don't like this, and if the poll results, so far, are anything to go by, I don't think this should be implemented.

 

[nibbs]

It's up to the manager to decide if he wants to strengthen his 1st XI, but weaken his back ups.

If these players choose to do this, who will the smaller teams trade with. The other smaller teams??? Where would that get them in bridging the gap???

 

[marc71178]

k

well I don't like this, and if the poll results, so far, are anything to go by, I don't think this should be implemented.

I put the poll in purely for indicative purposes, and you have to remember that at the end of the day the board will decide whether to implement it or not.

 

[marc71178]

If these players choose to do this, who will the smaller teams trade with. The other smaller teams??? Where would that get them in bridging the gap???

They can still trade with the big teams, but it is then actually a risk that the managers have to take since they may be stuck having to play one of the players in a crucial game.

The gap is bridged by there being better players available in the draft, which weaker teams get first go at.

 

[aditya]

I think as Blewy said this will be only implemented if majority of people agree to it so i think till now the majority is with no and i think it will be so.

And finance thing is totally different.By selling a player u will get money and not a player so that money can be used in anyway.

Suppose one of the weaker team sell their best player to a strong team.So the weaker team will get money which can be spend in anyway and the stronger teams gets the players they eant and no other crap.

I think the idea is not accepted by many so it should be dropped.As Paid's theory was not accepted by many so it was not looked on similar with this.

If majority doesnt want then i think the board shl consider it rather the implementing it for the few who want it.

 

[marc71178]

I think as Blewy said this will be only implemented if majority of people agree to it so i think till now the majority is with no and i think it will be so.

He said if there was enough support - that doesn't necessarily mean a majority, especially if the support comes from the board more (who if they weren't appointed to make a decision, what were they appointed for?)

And finance thing is totally different.By selling a player u will get money and not a player so that money can be used in anyway.

No, it's not that different, since people had to retain a 16 man squad under any finance method, and the budget limit would mean that people had to keep lesser players who cost less if they wanted to get the better players on the bigger wages (which is the same theory as this uses except there's no money involved)

Suppose one of the weaker team sell their best player to a strong team.So the weaker team will get money which can be spend in anyway and the stronger teams gets the players they eant and no other crap.

Except the key thing here is the need to maintain 16 players, which would've remained under any system of finance, meaning that teams would still have had to exchange players.

I think the idea is not accepted by many so it should be dropped.As Paid's theory was not accepted by many so it was not looked on similar with this.

It's been up a couple of hours, so obviously not all of the game have seen it. At the moment it isn't a landslide by any means.

Paid's theory was not accepted for one simple thing - it relied on 28 teams when WCC has 30!

If majority doesnt want then i think the board shl consider it rather the implementing it for the few who want it.

Don't quite follow this - the board will discuss this matter, and points raised on here (which seem to me to be outweighed by the fact they all seem to go against the initial ethos of WCC) and dependant on that outcome, we'll see if it's implemented or not, regardless of what is said on here.

 

[aditya]

Wht abt this

Suppose that i need a very good bat and no one will give me a very good bat for 1 player let it be a batsman bowler or allrounder.So i offer 3 good players a decent bat, a good bowl and a allrounder to the other manager for the bat.So now he will give me 2 crap players with his bat so then i will have to retain those crap players and also not trade them when i know they wont make my team.

If the rule is implemented then trade will be limited to 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 of similar kind of player which means no team can get to improve on their quality.

Take a eg that i want T Darden from Mumbai.Will the manager agree for 1 for 1 for him.No way.This means that he will not trade Darden.Similarly with other teams, many players will not be traded at all.

And i think everyone has to accept the fact that in a league always there are better, good and worst teams.

As someone said earlier that in the divisions all the teams r almost of same calibre.So this leads to good competition in a given division which is wht is needed with vb cup being an exception.

How will be able to trade if this is implemented.People will not be able to get wht they want a bat or bowl or allrounder which will make his team better.How a team will become better if similar players r traded?????

 

[marc71178]

Suppose that i need a very good bat and no one will give me a very good bat for 1 player let it be a batsman bowler or allrounder.So i offer 3 good players a decent bat, a good bowl and a allrounder to the other manager for the bat.So now he will give me 2 crap players with his bat so then i will have to retain those crap players and also not trade them when i know they wont make my team.

Who said anything about not trading them?

At the moment a manager can easily build up his squad at the expense of players he doesn't want to keep anyway.

If he's made to keep the players he brings in, it means the manager can't easily improve his squad and make the game less equal.

A manager can then decide whether to gamble on 5 stars and 3 poor reserves or to play safe with 3 stars and a solid squad of backups.

 

[aditya]

Who said anything about not trading them?

At the moment a manager can easily build up his squad at the expense of players he doesn't want to keep anyway.

If he's made to keep the players he brings in, it means the manager can't easily improve his squad and make the game less equal.

A manager can then decide whether to gamble on 5 stars and 3 poor reserves or to play safe with 3 stars and a solid squad of backups.

So u mean all the managers should not be given the chance to improve their squad??So no team will get better.Everything will be stagnant.

Now also there is nothing for the team which wins the respective division and with this it will be totally baised for the weak teams and all the good teams will suffer.

 

[marc71178]

So u mean all the managers should not be given the chance to improve their squad??So no team will get better.Everything will be stagnant.

Where have I said that? Managers will still improve via getting better players in the draft, but it's whether a manager wants to keep more star players and more donkeys or a group where their all more equally skilled.

As it stands the unequal trade rule is being bypassed, and if that's the case, why was the rule brought in in the first place?

Now also there is nothing for the team which wins the respective division and with this it will be totally baised for the weak teams and all the good teams will suffer.

At the moment, is there anything for the team that wins a division then, because I've never seen it.

How will this be totally biased for weak teams anyway and all the good teams suffer? That comment makes no sense.

 

[Sriram k]

Whatever the points for or against it do u agree Marc tht the amount of trading will decrease by a HUGE amount because of the rule??

Its trading thts the best part abt the game for many ppl....
If u cut it down to very low levels ppl cud easily lose interest.
Ur point abt ethos and all could be debated on and on but the fact remains tht it will decrease interest a great deal....

Maintaining the FUN factor in the game is I think much more important than anything else.For many managers this is what this rule undermines.

If it is implemented I think it will be a very risky 1.I dont think GB would want to compromise on the interest for the sake of ethos or reality in wcc.

Finally I wud like it if there was an open poll....From the opinions in this thread heres wht I guage...

"Never ,Dont implement this "...: Voiced by...

Aditya
Nibblet
Age Master
Lord of Darkness
Rich
Me!


"50 - 50 "::
GB

" Implement it .It will improve wcc " :
Voiced only by marc till now though there have been 6 yes in the poll.



Sriram

 

[Sriram k]

As it stands the unequal trade rule is being bypassed, and if that's the case, why was the rule brought in in the first place?

It was brought in so tht there wudnt be cases where 1 team had 25 players in the squad and had a retaining problem.Just so tht each team contributes an equal 6 players in the draft.


Sriram

 

[Rich2001]

Like I've said to Sriram and Marc, iam sitting on the fence as I can see valid points in both sides, however at present iam feeling that there isn't a need for a change.

Like alot of the stuff people have said already so wont repeate it however I would like to bring up a couple more points, that I would be intrested in the reply.


- You say that this is creating a massive gulf between sides, however I must say iam not seeing it.

NSW - arguble the strongest team in the game at the very start are now lingering in D2 and mid table in D1 in the other form.

Mumabi - Were also very very strong, they ruled WCC last season yet due to trades and forcing them to drop certain players they (Sorry Sriram) are probley one of the worse sides in D1 in both forms this season, seems hard to say a gulf is there, where a team rules one season and the newxt they are facing demotion.

I also note that a team hasn't run away with WCC yet, nobody has ruled for more than a season at the most, bar QLD (OD Champs 1 & 2) Now where are they????


I also feel that the great for good and weak trades aren't that bad you say that the Stronger sides get stronger but that isn't always the case.

Lets use Mumbai and Hamps as a example Mumbai took S Graham who was one of the best players in the game on paper, yet look this season, he has failed to deliever in stlye avg like 22 in one form, yet the players Hamps got for him have been the 3 stars of Lord's side this year and could well single handly get him promoted as a result. Also it's a bigger risk for a stronger side to go for just one top player as what happenes if in week 1 he gets a long term injury.. at least the "weaker" if he picks up a injury he has the 2nd quality player in which he got as a result... and as they say 2 is better than 1.