• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Secondaries v Primaries

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Having look at how unbalanced when it comes to secondaries and primaries i was wonder what others on CW looked in that department. Basically what i want to know is how many players teams have with either superb plus primaries or superb plus secondaries. Just want to know where my boys are compared with the rest of you guys.

Here is mine (including keeping as its meant to be important soon):
10 Superb plus primaries (1 Wonderful, 7 Quality, 2 Superb)
1 Superb plus secondary (2 above strong, 6 above respectable)

Also what are your thoughts on how important secondaries are looking at your team's performances. Personally I think they make a significant difference.
 

Bobisback

International Regular
Having look at how unbalanced when it comes to secondaries and primaries i was wonder what others on CW looked in that department. Basically what i want to know is how many players teams have with either superb plus primaries or superb plus secondaries. Just want to know where my boys are compared with the rest of you guys.

Here is mine (including keeping as its meant to be important soon):
10 Superb plus primaries (1 Wonderful, 7 Quality, 2 Superb)
1 Superb plus secondary (2 above strong, 6 above respectable)

Also what are your thoughts on how important secondaries are looking at your team's performances. Personally I think they make a significant difference.
I have 3 Quality's and a Remarkable in the way of primaries, and their seconds are either superb or quality. My other two trainees are strong-strong and strong-comp, i will eventually put a fielding net on the strong-comp, as, in my opinion, the higher the secondary the better the performance.

I have a Strong-feeble bowler, and just sold a strong-med batter, they both fail(ed) miserably.

Im currently having a look around for a decent player, and there is a few players in my price range with higher primaries but lower seconds, and im a bit wary of buying one.


EDIT:

2. Angus Howson £2,499,000 (opening price)
Plays for: Saint Barth Blondes Stamina: respectable W/Keeping: worthless
Age: 27 years old Batting: mediocre Concentration: woeful
BT Rating: 13,491 Bowling: superb Consistency: feeble
Deadline: 30/07/2007 10:27 Fielding: mediocre

This is the guy i was looking at, was almost going to bid on him, but the consistency threw me. Didnt even care about the age.
 
Last edited:

Adamc

Cricketer Of The Year
10 superb+ primaries (2 masterful, 1 exquisite, 4 wonderful, 1 remarkable, 1 quality, 1 superb)
7 superb+ secondaries (1 phenomenal, 2 miraculous, 1 exceptional, 1 remarkable, 1 quality, 1 superb)

Included allrounders as having two primaries/secondaries where applicable. I think secondaries are useful to a point, but it doesn't seem to make a huge difference on my high secondary players (though i've only got two). I guess it just makes them a bit more economical and in Watkins' case very difficult to dismiss. I think they're useful to have, but beyond a certain minimum (say proficient) I don't really pay much attention to them or bother training them if I can use the net better elsewhere. Allegedly more important in FC, but that remains to be seen. I don't mind buying players with low secondaries relative to their primary (see Downer) but I'd stay well clear of the guy posted above unless he were much, much cheaper.
 
Last edited:

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think higher secondaries make your players perform more like they would in real life, if that makes sense. So if you have a tailender with like woeful batting but really high concentration he'll hang around more and can score at a reasonable rate, as in real life. Give that tailender no concentration and he'll average 2-3. Similarly if you give an average primary guy high secondaries he can do more of a job you set him to, plus they'll actually nick wickets at a respectable average, but might still go at 4-5 an over. As opposed to taking wickets at 50+ with an ER of 5+, or only being able to really take wickets at the death.

So if you have a batting order with high concentration it's very difficult to dismiss in OD, because it's more like real life - players hang around but might take a while to 'get in' and attack the bowling much.
 

Top