County Fantasy Manager 2014

[sussexpob]

I may have got it wrong but that's the way I understand it. Bowlers wickets factor out runs way too much, so all rounders who perform poorly with the bat on average will destroy a specialist batsman so long as they ticket a couple of wickets an innings....

So you are better to play 2-3 batters and bowlers, or 11 bowlers how can average 20 odd with the bat...your wickets mean you hardly need any runs

You had the best performing team of the week !!

It's safe to say I don't understand the rules then....What does it mean by ratio? Yes, I am stupid

[Durhamfootman]

Bowlers game this one

All these FL's are bowlers games. That's why I always pick bowlers

[ianp1970]

It is a way of analysing a team's actual performance, as it does not take into account how well the opposition played (ie, whether you were up against a strong or weak side that week)

It is calculated this way:

(Runs scored by your players) multiplied by (Wickets taken by your players) divided by (100) divided by (number of Matchweeks played)

so for the Rejects after MW1:

893 x 17 / 100 / 1 = 151.8

[Durhamfootman]

I beat powelly

like 2007 all over again

(except powelly put up a bit of a fight)

[ianp1970]

I have updated all the Google Docs for Matchweek 2, deadline 8pm Saturday

[ntini77]

This has no bearing on the result whatsoever but Brendan Nash's 28 runs in Kent's second innings seems to be missing.

[sussexpob]

It is a way of analysing a team's actual performance, as it does not take into account how well the opposition played (ie, whether you were up against a strong or weak side that week)

It is calculated this way:

(Runs scored by your players) multiplied by (Wickets taken by your players) divided by (100) divided by (number of Matchweeks played)

so for the Rejects after MW1:

893 x 17 / 100 / 1 = 151.8

Ok. I have thought that my runs were factored down fir every brendy wicket, which made it feel like it was way too bowler balanced.

Thanks for explanation

[SaintPowelly]

I think I have done my team for week 2 correctly, it should look like :

Dent, Carberry, Dawson, Wheater, Williamson, Goodwin,Sidebottom, Wagg, Tremlett, Griffiths, Ali

subs of Freckingham,Smith, Eckersley, Jennings.

[st_brendy]

It is a way of analysing a team's actual performance, as it does not take into account how well the opposition played (ie, whether you were up against a strong or weak side that week)

It is calculated this way:

(Runs scored by your players) multiplied by (Wickets taken by your players) divided by (100) divided by (number of Matchweeks played)

so for the Rejects after MW1:

893 x 17 / 100 / 1 = 151.8

Ok. I have thought that my runs were factored down fir every brendy wicket, which made it feel like it was way too bowler balanced.

Thanks for explanation

So did I!!!

I could have sworn last season the scoring was along the lines of runs you scored divided by wickets your opponent took. So the better your opponent's bowlers did, the worse your overall score was.

Hence my strategy this season was a complete switch from last season, and I stopped giving a dam about how many runs my team would score, and focused largely on doing as much damage as possible to my opponent with my bowlers!! Onions, Masters, Tommo...

Dammit!!!!

[ntini77]

Where's the spreadsheet for week 2?

[ianp1970]

It is a way of analysing a team's actual performance, as it does not take into account how well the opposition played (ie, whether you were up against a strong or weak side that week)

It is calculated this way:

(Runs scored by your players) multiplied by (Wickets taken by your players) divided by (100) divided by (number of Matchweeks played)

so for the Rejects after MW1:

893 x 17 / 100 / 1 = 151.8

Ok. I have thought that my runs were factored down fir every brendy wicket, which made it feel like it was way too bowler balanced.

Thanks for explanation

So did I!!!

I could have sworn last season the scoring was along the lines of runs you scored divided by wickets your opponent took. So the better your opponent's bowlers did, the worse your overall score was.

Hence my strategy this season was a complete switch from last season, and I stopped giving a dam about how many runs my team would score, and focused largely on doing as much damage as possible to my opponent with my bowlers!! Onions, Masters, Tommo...

Dammit!!!!

Looks like a misunderstanding here!

The explanation given above to Sussex was regarding how his team had performed in the Matchweek, and that the runs scored and wickets taken by his eleven players was the best of anyone in MW1. These stats weren't compiled last year (hence the confusion maybe?) but I thought it would give managers an idea as to how their team were actually progressing over the season.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bfye43--JYkvlPe0ofK2gTvxFlnoG1GY7PX13d5RwMo/edit#gid=2141669855

With regards to the actual match between Sussex and Brendy, the scores and result are calculated thus:

Sussex runs (890) divided by Brendy wickets (22) gives Sussex a Runs per wicket score of 40.59

Brendy runs (550) divided by Sussex wickets (17) gives Brendy a Runs per wicket score of 32.35

Sussex therefore wins the match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mk-12dL6y8EzMfONbfn_XLFqopd9HLykoFiNQsWUqcI/edit#gid=1960146540

Hope this helps

[ianp1970]

Where's the spreadsheet for week 2?

It's on the same link as PM'd for week 1

All weeks will be on the same link...

[ianp1970]

Matchweek 2 details:

[Durhamfootman]

Oh no!

Footmen in Black are up against Man Utd. I hope it's this years Man Utd and not any other Man Utd of the last 20 years, otherwise I'm stuffed.

probably stuffed anyway, as it happens

[Red Devil]

made the changes top matchweek 1 tab