County Fantasy Manager 2013

[Red Devil]

Only one release this week:


Ian,

I'd like to release Newton this week please.

Thanks,
Red


RD, you can post your choice here.

I think JP Duminy is the best batting replacement

[ianp1970]

Only one release this week:


Ian,

I'd like to release Newton this week please.

Thanks,
Red


RD, you can post your choice here.

I think JP Duminy is the best batting replacement

RD, you can only bid on listed players.

If Duminy was available there might have been more releases on Friday

[Red Devil]

Plunkett

[ianp1970]

I'm completely against anymore drafts at this stage - all posters have the ability to release and pick different players already so can get rid of players that are not playing - more drafts at this stage changes the rules halfway through and adds unnecessary complexity

also the reclassification of players seems to be moving away from what i think was said before. IMO any changes should be really obvious ones, not grey areas - personally if someone regularly bowls 10+overs a match then they bowl and if someone bats in the top 9 in the order then they bat. If they do both then I can't see how that is a clearcut case of them not being an all-rounder. I believe the idea was to correct really glaring misclassifications, not to have a go at reclassifying a large number of players.

On the other hand though, we're restricted to only picking a maximum of two all-rounders.

Personally, that is what I disagree with. I don't see why you should be limited to how many bowlers, or all-rounders, or keepers etc you can pick. But on the basis that we are, then I do think it is important to get those who only bat a bit or bowl a bit or keep a bit etc reclassified.

The limit was clear from day one and, like i said, someone who bats a bit or bowls a bit versus a genuine all-rounder becomes a grey area quickly. There are many who argue that Pollock, Wasim, Hadlee do not qualify as all-rounders. I'm with Ian on this one - I think Ian was expecting a handful of reclassifications, that would all be very clear cut. As soon as it's a grey area then the original classification should not change IMO.

When CFM returns for next season there will be no limits on player types. Managers will just pick their best XI and 4 reserves in preferrential order.

[ianp1970]

Player types:

Having looked at the requests that have been put forward, my thoughts are as follows:

Collingwood - change to Bat (bowls 2 overs per match)
Wright C - change to Bwl (batting ave. 4.28)
Hughes - change to Bat (bowls less than 2 overs per match)
Yardy - change to Bat (bowls less than 1 over per match)
Wright - stays as AR (bowls over 10 overs per match)
Wessels - stays as WK (he is Notts back up keeper)
Groenewald - change to Bwl (batting ave. 4.63)
North - change to Bat (bowls less than 3 overs per match)
Gidman - change to Bat (bowls less than 4 overs per match)
Howell - change to AR (batting ave. 42.66 and bowls over 20 overs per match)
Wagg - stays as AR (batting ave. 31.00)

[Red Devil]

All of that seems reasonable.

Couple of suggestions Ian ...

1. I think you should be able to play a wk as a batter - you just don't get their catches. This is basically what happens in the real world - Ind were playing Dinesh Karthik as a batter and Eng are doing the same with Bairstow.

2. You should be able to name more than 4 subs if you want e.g. if there are injury doubts or players may be rested etc - and also you should be able to change formations e.g. if you have selected 5 bats and 5 bowlers but 1 batter gets injured then maybe your preference would be to replace with an AR, depending upon which players you have. Just need to make it clear on your subs listing.

3. The ranking based on runs scored by you / wickets taken against you - this takes no account of the number of wickets you take. So someone with a strong bowling side will suffer. I would suggest a net difference i.e. (runs scored by you / wickets taken against) - (runs scored against you / wickets taken by you

what do you think?

[meninblue]

Ian, kindly take a decision regards to my previous post.

If anyone wants to take over Adi's team Clubcricketer for the second half of the CFM season, please let me know

Ian ,as nobody is keen to participate as replacement team, i request you to give 3 points to all my opponents County FM's. I think that is the best solution keeping the FL structure intact.

[ianp1970]

All of that seems reasonable.

Couple of suggestions Ian ...

1. I think you should be able to play a wk as a batter - you just don't get their catches. This is basically what happens in the real world - Ind were playing Dinesh Karthik as a batter and Eng are doing the same with Bairstow.

2. You should be able to name more than 4 subs if you want e.g. if there are injury doubts or players may be rested etc - and also you should be able to change formations e.g. if you have selected 5 bats and 5 bowlers but 1 batter gets injured then maybe your preference would be to replace with an AR, depending upon which players you have. Just need to make it clear on your subs listing.

3. The ranking based on runs scored by you / wickets taken against you - this takes no account of the number of wickets you take. So someone with a strong bowling side will suffer. I would suggest a net difference i.e. (runs scored by you / wickets taken against) - (runs scored against you / wickets taken by you

what do you think?

1. If I allow managers to pick their 'best XI' then they could end up with none, one or more WKs. It might make team selection much easier all round This would make my administration much easier too, as I would only need one formation spreadsheet!

2. Theoretically I would have no problem in having unlimited Matchweek squads. Managers would pick their starting XI and and any number of reserves. I only picked 4 for this year to give one in each position.

3. I beg to differ here. The number of wickets taken by your players has a direct correlation on your opponent's runs per wicket score, and thus match result. I think you end up with the same result either way, but my best maths days were a few years ago!

Again, looking forward to next year, I can see some merit in rewarding bigger victories with more points than more marginal ones. We could work on the LVCC system and have 16 points for a win, 3 points for a draw, and upto 8 bonus points available dependant on margin of victory / defeat.

[ianp1970]

Matchweek 10 details:





Teams in by 8pm tomorrow please

[ianp1970]

Updated squads:

[st_brendy]

Adams
Trescothick
Yardy
Chopra
Dawson

Wallace

Howell
Crook

Leach
Thorp
Raynor (BWL)

Hughes
Davies
Wright
Wainwright (BWL)

Blooming Essex and Leics both not playing! And no-one wanting to trade a bowler for one of my batsmen!

[Chris de Burgh]

Osaka Metrics starting XI
Formation F

AG Wakely
JO Troughton
JS Gatting
KJ Coetzer

D Murphy

SJ Croft
MNW Spriegel

JW Dernbach
SC Meaker
CT Tremlett
WB Rankin

Reserves
KS Williamson (Bat)
Jc Buttler (WK)
GH Dockrell (Bwl)

[durham_andy]

Formation F

Lumb
Dexter
Taylor
Madsen

Kieswtter

Shazad
Borthwick

Henderson
Harris
Sidebottom
Turner

Subs:
Thornley
Cross
Breese
Saxelby

[ianp1970]

Olympian Rutland team:

Nash
McKenzie
Katich
North

Wheater

Stokes
Clarke

Magoffin
Rushworh
Hogg
Panesar

de Bruyn
Jones
Mullaney
Thomas

[SaintPowelly]

Jennings
Redfern
Goodwin
Gidman

Mustard

Wagg
Willey

Groenewald
Tomlinson
Riley
Balcombe

Housego
Brown
Ervine
N/A