ODI Debut Chronology draft

[trundler]

There's about a thrice as longer period to choose from with test cricket so we might have to think of a way to make it tighter and quicker first.

 

[Pothas]

Make it post-war. Think that would work fine.

 

[ankitj]

Make it mandatory to have a gap of 3 years between debut of 2 successive picks.

Although as I said before, it doesn't really matter. You almost never get to pick 2 very good player from 2 successive buckets in this format. In the standard format on the other hand if you get a double pick you can pick 2 players very close to each other in debut date.

 

[trundler]

The problem would be somebody jumping ahead to say.. 1 January 1908 without getting sufficiently penalized for it since there would still be plenty of great players on offer latter on.

 

[stephen]

The problem would be somebody jumping ahead to say.. 1 January 1908 without getting sufficiently penalized for it since there would still be plenty of great players on offer latter on.

The main thing I wanted to do in the alphabet draft by forcing players to move ahead was to make sure that the draft actually moved ahead and one person didn't just draft three people in a row. It turned out that it wasn't really necessary, players loved jumping ahead at times. But what it did do was force some ATG players to get skipped over because you couldn't pick two players with the same initial.

I think a chronological draft in this format for tests would work best if there was a restricted time period for the draft. I felt that the time period for this draft didn't work quite so well because we ran into a situation where people were drafting current players and it's very difficult to compare current players with retired players (given that people mostly pick based on overall record and not peak). I would suggest that 1951 - 2000 would be a very good time period for this draft - it neatly avoids Bradman, it incorporates a lot of ATG players who are well known and who have footage available and it also avoids any current players (at least I'm pretty sure Gayle has retired from tests).

This draft had a time period of roughly 50 years but due to the nature of early ODI cricket it felt like a much longer time period. A test period of 50 years would feel much shorter given the nature of the format being consistent.

Anyway, food for thought. I have another game I'd like to start soon, but I can't do it with school holidays next week.

 

[trundler]

The main thing I wanted to do in the alphabet draft by forcing players to move ahead was to make sure that the draft actually moved ahead and one person didn't just draft three people in a row. It turned out that it wasn't really necessary, players loved jumping ahead at times. But what it did do was force some ATG players to get skipped over because you couldn't pick two players with the same initial.

I think a chronological draft in this format for tests would work best if there was a restricted time period for the draft. I felt that the time period for this draft didn't work quite so well because we ran into a situation where people were drafting current players and it's very difficult to compare current players with retired players (given that people mostly pick based on overall record and not peak). I would suggest that 1951 - 2000 would be a very good time period for this draft - it neatly avoids Bradman, it incorporates a lot of ATG players who are well known and who have footage available and it also avoids any current players (at least I'm pretty sure Gayle has retired from tests).

This draft had a time period of roughly 50 years but due to the nature of early ODI cricket it felt like a much longer time period. A test period of 50 years would feel much shorter given the nature of the format being consistent.

Anyway, food for thought. I have another game I'd like to start soon, but I can't do it with school holidays next week.

Yeah, this works.

Somebody also suggested one where we pick in increasing order of batting averages. I'd be happy to run either though there's another draft that's just started.

 

[stephen]

I think we should do one in decreasing order of waistlines, if only so that Dwayne Leverock comes into play.

 

[weldone]

The main thing I wanted to do in the alphabet draft by forcing players to move ahead was to make sure that the draft actually moved ahead and one person didn't just draft three people in a row. It turned out that it wasn't really necessary, players loved jumping ahead at times. But what it did do was force some ATG players to get skipped over because you couldn't pick two players with the same initial.

I think a chronological draft in this format for tests would work best if there was a restricted time period for the draft. I felt that the time period for this draft didn't work quite so well because we ran into a situation where people were drafting current players and it's very difficult to compare current players with retired players (given that people mostly pick based on overall record and not peak). I would suggest that 1951 - 2000 would be a very good time period for this draft - it neatly avoids Bradman, it incorporates a lot of ATG players who are well known and who have footage available and it also avoids any current players (at least I'm pretty sure Gayle has retired from tests).

This draft had a time period of roughly 50 years but due to the nature of early ODI cricket it felt like a much longer time period. A test period of 50 years would feel much shorter given the nature of the format being consistent.

Anyway, food for thought. I have another game I'd like to start soon, but I can't do it with school holidays next week.

This sounds good, but why not 1929-2000 if the idea is to just avoid Bradman?

 

[stephen]

This sounds good, but why not 1929-2000 if the idea is to just avoid Brdman?

It's also to limit the number of "slots" available. It's not just to avoid Bradman. You want some clumpiness in the players on offer I think.

For example, in the alphabet draft, you had Smith, Sobers, Simpson and Steyn all in the same group. This meant you could plan ahead knowing that most people would stop at an S player. You also knew that you couldn't get both Steyn and Sobers - you had to choose. I think any more than 50 slots and you lose an element of this. Even in this draft there weren't many years where more than a couple of players picked someone from that year.

In fact, did anyone pick someone from 2000?

 

[Red]

This sounds good, but why not 1929-2000 if the idea is to just avoid Bradman?

Reverse chronology would be good, with Bradman included. Going from the present backwards. Who's willing to pull the trigger first.

 

[weldone]

Reverse chronology would be good, with Bradman included. Going from the present backwards. Who's willing to pull the trigger first.

Yes that sounds promising.

Note: Also, for what it's worth, I enjoyed this draft even more than the reverse alphabet. So, the clustering effect isn't important for me.

 

[mr_mister]

Tendulkar got dismissed quite a few times around 1998-99 trying to hit sixes and skying the ball. After that he completely stopped trying to hit a six for about the next 10 years.

What was he trying to do in the '03 WC final

 

[weldone]

What was he trying to do in the '03 WC final

was trying to clear the infield i think...it flew of the edge

 

[stephen]

What was he trying to do in the '03 WC final

He was trying to do to McGrath what Hayden would do to Pollock in 2007. But McGrath was a better bowler than Pollock.

 

[stephen]

Is this going to get a voting thread?

 

[stephen]

Is this going to get a voting thread?

 

[ankitj]

Soon

 

[trundler]

I'm bored so

Dilshan
Stewart+
Lamb
Yousuf
Twose
Miller
Botham
Vaas
Willis
Ajmal
Chatfield

 

[ankitj]

Flower as keeper. Sehwag as opener.

 

[trundler]

Oh blimey, how do I forget Flower? Woeful. In that case I'd prefer to have Dhawan in there.