What's new

Test Draft #4: Initials

Last Monetarist said:
There is a problem because if you allocate Morgan as keeper and then theoretically replace him in the next round with a proper keeper, it won't be a like-for-like replacement. Unless you are willing to forgo playing with a specialist keeper?
Click to expand...

I think a few more clarifications on this regard will help:-

1)Can a spin bowling all-rounder be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

2) Can a specialist fast bowler be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

3) Can a specialist batsmen be replaced by batting all-rounders?
 
Ab Fan said:
I think a few more clarifications on this regard will help:-

1)Can a spin bowling all-rounder be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

2) Can a specialist fast bowler be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

3) Can a specialist batsmen be replaced by batting all-rounders?
Click to expand...

Good question :inti
 
Ab Fan said:
I think a few more clarifications on this regard will help:-

1)Can a spin bowling all-rounder be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

2) Can a specialist fast bowler be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

3) Can a specialist batsmen be replaced by batting all-rounders?
Click to expand...

yes, no, no imo.

number 2 and 3 changes the ultimate utility of your player, number 1 only changes which condition they will be more effective in, like changing a batsmen whos good in asia for one good outside.

furthermore id also state that openers should not be interchangeable with other batsmen.
 
Ab Fan said:
I think a few more clarifications on this regard will help:-

1)Can a spin bowling all-rounder be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

2) Can a specialist fast bowler be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

3) Can a specialist batsmen be replaced by batting all-rounders?
Click to expand...
1.no
2.yes
3.yes
 
Two opposite opinions. [MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION], think you can give more context on this.
 
ElRaja said:
yes, no, no imo.

number 2 and 3 changes the ultimate utility of your player, number 1 only changes which condition they will be more effective in, like changing a batsmen whos good in asia for one good outside.

furthermore id also state that openers should not be interchangeable with other batsmen.
Click to expand...
Spinners changing to fast bowlers totally modifies the system.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Spinners changing to fast bowlers totally modifies the system.
Click to expand...

its very difficult to get good all rounders in the draft, just like real life, so you have to gamble to use up your slot for all rounders early or late, or try to cover all your bases in the draft and add on an all rounder at the end.

if you let people swap single use players for all rounders you'll have an unrealistic amount of all rounders in all the final teams to make up for teams which might not be well balanced in terms of team composition imo due to lack of strategy in the draft.
 
ElRaja said:
yes, no, no imo.

number 2 and 3 changes the ultimate utility of your player, number 1 only changes which condition they will be more effective in, like changing a batsmen whos good in asia for one good outside.

furthermore id also state that openers should not be interchangeable with other batsmen.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Yes
No
No
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
I agree with this.

Yes
No
No
Click to expand...

Refer Hussain Vs Kallis comparison made by LM.

Hussain is a batsmen while Kallis is a batting all-rounder so one replaces another but you cant replace Nasser Hussain with Imran Khan. That is what was discussed.

Lillee is a specialist fast bowler but can he not be replaced by Imran or Miller?
 
Ab Fan said:
I think a few more clarifications on this regard will help:-

1)Can a spin bowling all-rounder be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

2) Can a specialist fast bowler be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

3) Can a specialist batsmen be replaced by batting all-rounders?
Click to expand...

I tried to explain it in my original post when I proposed the idea that a like-for-like replacement essentially indicates that you are replacing a player whose primary role remains the same i.e. opening batsman for opening batsman; middle order batsman for middle order batsman, keeper for keeper, spinner for spinner, fast bowler for fast bowler.

In the case of all-rounders, there is nothing theoretically wrong with batsmen or bowlers being replaced by all-rounders as long as the primary role of those all-rounders remains the same. I gave the example of Hussain being replaced by Kallis, as their primary roles were the same and the fact that Kallis could bowl was mere bonus. On the other hand, Hussain couldn't be replaced by Imran or Botham as they were bowlers first. There is a bit of a grey area for all-rounders who are not specialists in either category and I think we can allow that to pass.

In answer to your questions:

1. Depends on the players being replaced: theoretically Daniel Vettori is an all-rounder but his primary role is a spinner. I can't replace Neil Johnson in my team with Vettori as that would change the composition/structure of my side. On the safe side, I would advocate no to this question.

2. Yes, shouldn't be a problem as long as the all-rounder fast bowler is a bowler first, batsman second.

3. See above.
 
guess i misunderstood the rules then, i disagree with it but if that was pre-decided then i wont argue.
 
Last Monetarist said:
I tried to explain it in my original post when I proposed the idea that a like-for-like replacement essentially indicates that you are replacing a player whose primary role remains the same i.e. opening batsman for opening batsman; middle order batsman for middle order batsman, keeper for keeper, spinner for spinner, fast bowler for fast bowler.

In the case of all-rounders, there is nothing theoretically wrong with batsmen or bowlers being replaced by all-rounders as long as the primary role of those all-rounders remains the same. I gave the example of Hussain being replaced by Kallis, as their primary roles were the same and the fact that Kallis could bowl was mere bonus. On the other hand, Hussain couldn't be replaced by Imran or Botham as they were bowlers first. There is a bit of a grey area for all-rounders who are not specialists in either category and I think we can allow that to pass.

In answer to your questions:

1. Depends on the players being replaced: theoretically Daniel Vettori is an all-rounder but his primary role is a spinner. I can't replace Neil Johnson in my team with Vettori as that would change the composition/structure of my side. On the safe side, I would advocate no to this question.

2. Yes, shouldn't be a problem as long as the all-rounder fast bowler is a bowler first, batsman second.

3. See above.
Click to expand...

Nicely put up. I just wanted this to be clear as you can see that there were doubts and contrasting opinions between posters, so I think we should adhere to this.
 
ElRaja said:
guess i misunderstood the rules then, i disagree with it but if that was pre-decided then i wont argue.
Click to expand...

I can see your point of view, but the same should apply the other way around too. If posters don't select a spinner due to oversight and then replace one of their batsmen who can bowl seam up (say Steve Waugh in your team who was a decent all-rounder pre-1996) with someone like Vettori would be utterly unfair. That's why I thought the primary role should remain unchanged.
 
Regarding all-rounders that are neither here nor there, say Mark Ealham, Faheem Ashraf, Hardik Pandya or Shane Watson, if someone wants to replace a specialist batsman or bowler with such players, then good luck to them. I can think of at least one notable poster on this forum who would be all over that idea.
 
Please, don’t set rules after my turn. Fast bowling all rounder is a role. Another player who can do the same can only replace the former player. A batsman who doesn’t bowl is a role. Only someone who has same credentials can replace that player. Else it’s bananas
 
Forward Defensive Push said:
Please, don’t set rules after my turn. Fast bowling all rounder is a role. Another player who can do the same can only replace the former player. A batsman who doesn’t bowl is a role. Only someone who has same credentials can replace that player. Else it’s bananas
Click to expand...
When last monetarist posted that idea he made it clear that batsman can be replaced by batting all-rounder,so there is nothing new.
 
I would suggest we could make it rigorous by stating your replacement all rounder had to bat a majority of there innings in the position the player you are replacing did, its is objective in a way too.
 
ElRaja said:
I would suggest we could make it rigorous by stating your replacement all rounder had to bat a majority of there innings in the position the player you are replacing did, its is objective in a way too.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that.
 
To be honest, I made that explicitly clear in my original post when I compared Hussain with Kallis. They both bat in exactly the same position.
 
Just another point of clarification, I shouldn't be able to replace Hussain with Stokes or say Shakib, because neither bat in the top order.
 
Last Monetarist said:
I tried to explain it in my original post when I proposed the idea that a like-for-like replacement essentially indicates that you are replacing a player whose primary role remains the same i.e. opening batsman for opening batsman; middle order batsman for middle order batsman, keeper for keeper, spinner for spinner, fast bowler for fast bowler.

In the case of all-rounders, there is nothing theoretically wrong with batsmen or bowlers being replaced by all-rounders as long as the primary role of those all-rounders remains the same. I gave the example of Hussain being replaced by Kallis, as their primary roles were the same and the fact that Kallis could bowl was mere bonus. On the other hand, Hussain couldn't be replaced by Imran or Botham as they were bowlers first. There is a bit of a grey area for all-rounders who are not specialists in either category and I think we can allow that to pass.

In answer to your questions:

1. Depends on the players being replaced: theoretically Daniel Vettori is an all-rounder but his primary role is a spinner. I can't replace Neil Johnson in my team with Vettori as that would change the composition/structure of my side. On the safe side, I would advocate no to this question.

2. Yes, shouldn't be a problem as long as the all-rounder fast bowler is a bowler first, batsman second.

3. See above.
Click to expand...

Whatever [MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION] had said earlier, it is summed up here. There hasn't been any change made to rules and let's adhere with this.

If there is any other confusion, let's call it out now.
 
In fact, players like Stokes and Shakib are gold-dust. You can't really differentiate their batting from their bowling, so I'd suggest you can only replace those or players such as them with genuine all-rounders that have already been selected. Else it's not really like-for-like.
 
Last Monetarist said:
In fact, players like Stokes and Shakib are gold-dust. You can't really differentiate their batting from their bowling, so I'd suggest you can only replace those or players such as them with genuine all-rounders that have already been selected. Else it's not really like-for-like.
Click to expand...

Stokes is clearly a better batter than a bowler. In Shakib case, it can't be differentiated.
 
Ab Fan said:
Stokes is clearly a better batter than a bowler. In Shakib case, it can't be differentiated.
Click to expand...

Stokes is slightly better batsman than bowler, in the same way Keith Miller was slightly better bowler than batsman. He's not really a batsman who bowls a bit, his bowling is utterly crucial to what he contributes to the team.
 
Ab Fan said:
I think a few more clarifications on this regard will help:-

1)Can a spin bowling all-rounder be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

2) Can a specialist fast bowler be replaced by fast bowling all-rounder?

3) Can a specialist batsmen be replaced by batting all-rounders?
Click to expand...

No for 1,2,3. Have to keep it fully like for like
 
go with the idea for where they have played the majority of their innings for 1-8. 9,10,11 can be anyone
Obviously spinners remain spinnets
 
Devendra Bishoo, just to secure a spinner for switching.

Also top give the next person an 'o'
 
therealAB said:
go with the idea for where they have played the majority of their innings for 1-8. 9,10,11 can be anyone
Obviously spinners remain spinnets
Click to expand...

[MENTION=151648]therealAB[/MENTION], refer to the discussion that LM had earlier. I think it is better to stick with that as it was proposed when we were around halfway.

Basically, a like-for-like replacement essentially indicates that you are replacing a player whose primary role remains the same i.e. opening batsman for opening batsman; middle order batsman for middle order batsman, keeper for keeper, spinner for spinner, fast bowler for fast bowler.

In the case of all-rounders, there is nothing theoretically wrong with batsmen or bowlers being replaced by all-rounders as long as the primary role of those all-rounders remains the same. I gave the example of Hussain being replaced by Kallis, as their primary roles were the same and the fact that Kallis could bowl was mere bonus. On the other hand, Hussain couldn't be replaced by Imran or Botham as they were bowlers first. There is a bit of a grey area for all-rounders who are not specialists in either category and I think we can allow that to pass.
 
Last edited:
Ab Fan said:
[MENTION=151648]therealAB[/MENTION], refer to the discussion that LM had earlier. I think it is better to stick with that as it was proposed when we were around halfway.

Basically, a like-for-like replacement essentially indicates that you are replacing a player whose primary role remains the same i.e. opening batsman for opening batsman; middle order batsman for middle order batsman, keeper for keeper, spinner for spinner, fast bowler for fast bowler.

In the case of all-rounders, there is nothing theoretically wrong with batsmen or bowlers being replaced by all-rounders as long as the primary role of those all-rounders remains the same. I gave the example of Hussain being replaced by Kallis, as their primary roles were the same and the fact that Kallis could bowl was mere bonus. On the other hand, Hussain couldn't be replaced by Imran or Botham as they were bowlers first. There is a bit of a grey area for all-rounders who are not specialists in either category and I think we can allow that to pass.
Click to expand...

Ok that is fine. So Imran could be swapped for Chris Martin?
 
Although, if one has to be mean-spirited about it, there are no Eric Rowan types beginning with 'o'.
 
So basically i am trapped again.
High chance of getting e.
But [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] only has 4 bowlers in total
Boult, underwood, dev and bond so he needs to select a bowler if he wants to swap him in the 12th round.
 
theres literally no test bowlers whos name begin with an 'o', so im going with ottis gibson
[MENTION=146232]jeeteshssaxena[/MENTION] you get an 'n'
 
Narain Swamy
Right arm fast medium bowler who played one match in his career and took 0 wickets.
Y for [MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION]. :yk
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Narain Swamy
Right arm fast medium bowler who played one match in his career and took 0 wickets.
Y for [MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION]. :yk
Click to expand...

talk about a death stare, looks more at place in a netflix special than a test xi :srt

20160615022619.jpeg
 
Haha :vk

I pick Yasir Arafat. He is a fast bowler who bats at 7-8. Took a fi-fer in India on debut.
 
Last edited:
Roy Fredericks
Trevor Goddard
Larry Gomes
Hashim Amla
Kumara Sangakkara
Tony Greig
Andrew Flintoff
Neil Wagner
Erapalli Prasanna
Ray Lindwall
Rangana Herath

Pretty decent bunch I believe, covers all bases.
 
Moh@n said:
Roy Fredericks
Trevor Goddard
Larry Gomes
Hashim Amla
Kumara Sangakkara
Tony Greig
Andrew Flintoff
Neil Wagner
Erapalli Prasanna
Ray Lindwall
Rangana Herath

Pretty decent bunch I believe, covers all bases.
Click to expand...

Basically, what my point is that you already had six bowling options. Tony Greig is probably the best sixth bowling option by anyone. So, rather than going for another all-rounder, you could have gone for a specialist batsmen who averages 45+ than an all-rounder. But anyways, its fine now.
[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION], you get 'D'.
 
Ab Fan said:
Basically, what my point is that you already had six bowling options. Tony Greig is probably the best sixth bowling option by anyone. So, rather than going for another all-rounder, you could have gone for a specialist batsmen who averages 45+ than an all-rounder.
Click to expand...

I get your point. But picking the specialist batsman would have meant I would have been without a regular opener. And if I picked Dilshan, then he would be a seventh bowling option too.
 
[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] appears to be in the same boat as I, in needing a second opener. In that light, 'd' is not a bad letter if he knows his cricket from the 80s and early 90s.
 
Last Monetarist said:
[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] appears to be in the same boat as I, in needing a second opener. In that light, 'd' is not a bad letter if he knows his cricket from the 80s and early 90s.
Click to expand...

I opted to go a bit further back to the 70s...

Dennis Amiss.
 
draft reaching pointy end now, can someone post the draft order for the 12th round subs.
 
Well, this was a bit of a no-brainer, unless someone tells me that Stuart Binny once opened the batting for his team in the Ranji Trophy:

Sanath Jayasuriya

So it's an 'a' for [MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION], seeing that he needs a keeper, I trust he will recognize the significance of that letter.
 
Gavaskar
Jayasuriya
Harvey
Hussain (c)
Gower
Johnson
Marsh (wk)
Pollock
Warne
Marshall
Lillee

About as good as I could have hoped for in the beginning.
 
Last Monetarist said:
Well, this was a bit of a no-brainer, unless someone tells me that Stuart Binny once opened the batting for his team in the Ranji Trophy:

Sanath Jayasuriya

So it's an 'a' for [MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION], seeing that he needs a keeper, I trust he will recognize the significance of that letter.
Click to expand...

You’re too kind!

Thunderstorm XI picks the legendary Alan Knott.
 
Thunderstorm XI

1. Barry Richards
2. Eddie Barlow
3. Rohan Kanhai
4. Ken Barrington
5. Sir Everton Weekes
6. Alan Knott (WK)
7. Wasim Akram (C)
8. Harold Larwood
9. Ryan Harris
10. Nathan Lyon
11. Fred Trueman
 
Here is the new draft order:
[MENTION=151679]Forward Defensive Push[/MENTION]
[MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION]
[MENTION=151648]therealAB[/MENTION]
[MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION]
[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION]
[MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION]
[MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION]
[MENTION=23911]Moh@n[/MENTION]
[MENTION=146232]jeeteshssaxena[/MENTION]
 
[MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION] 2nd :danish

He doesn't even need to replace any player, the team has all the bases covered. :jordan
 
Out of 9 blokes, I am assuming about 5 will take fast bowlers or fast bowling all-rounders, couple of them may look for replacing their spinners and probably a couple more will go for batsmen. So, atleast it's guaranteed that you will get to pick top tier ATG players.
 
Last edited:
It is so obvious it is funny. I name my replacement. I welcome Sir Alexander Vivian Richards into my team ahead of Eoin Morgan :viv

My final XI -

Hanif Mohammad
Nathan Astle
Sir Viv Richards (c)
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Chris Read (wk)
Ravindra Jadeja
Pat Cummins
Harbhajan Singh
Umar Gul
Alec Bedser
 
The Viper said:
Here is the new draft order:

[MENTION=151679]Forward Defensive Push[/MENTION]
[MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION]
[MENTION=151648]therealAB[/MENTION]
[MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION]
[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION]
[MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION]
[MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION]
[MENTION=23911]Moh@n[/MENTION]
[MENTION=146232]jeeteshssaxena[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

poor @jeeteshsaxena , if someone deserved not to be last it was him lol, some guys never catch a break :fadi
 
Forward Defensive Push said:
It is so obvious it is funny. I name my replacement. I welcome Sir Alexander Vivian Richards into my team ahead of Eoin Morgan :viv

My final XI -

Hanif Mohammad
Nathan Astle
Sir Viv Richards (c)
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Chris Read (wk)
Ravindra Jadeja
Pat Cummins
Harbhajan Singh
Umar Gul
Alec Bedser
Click to expand...

Suddenly that lineup looks a lot better. I would have boosted the bowling though :usman
 
Forward Defensive Push said:
It is so obvious it is funny. I name my replacement. I welcome Sir Alexander Vivian Richards into my team ahead of Eoin Morgan :viv

My final XI -

Hanif Mohammad
Nathan Astle
Sir Viv Richards (c)
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Chris Read (wk)
Ravindra Jadeja
Pat Cummins
Harbhajan Singh
Umar Gul
Alec Bedser
Click to expand...

Good team. You have managed to assemble a batting lineup of Viv, Lara and Kallis which is the highlight of this team. As many as six good bowling options are there in your team although posters may look for ATG bowlers. But much better team now.
 
Thunderstorm XI will replace Harold Larwood with Imran Khan! With that, our team is complete.
 
Thunderstorm XI

1. Barry Richards
2. Eddie Barlow
3. Rohan Kanhai
4. Ken Barrington
5. Sir Everton Weekes
6. Alan Knott (WK)
7. Imran Khan (C)
8. Ryan Harris
9. Wasim Akram (VC)
10. Nathan Lyon
11. Fred Trueman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll
Test Draft - which of these teams is most likely to win a Test in India?
2 3 4
Replies
300
Views
29K
amit
amit
T
Test draft #5: Chronological timeline
5 6 7
Replies
501
Views
14K
Abdullah719
A
T
Hypothetical ODI draft
13 14 15
Replies
1K
Views
24K
therealAB
T
T
Draft #3 - Tests (post-1970 players)
10 11 12
Replies
881
Views
22K
Moh@n
Moh@n
A
Hypothetical Test draft - 10 participants to pick their teams [Completed]
9 10 11
Replies
852
Views
30K
maddgenius
maddgenius
Back
Top