A couple of questions and a couple of comments...

[Chewie]

Form does actually matter quite a bit. You could say it's one of a few modifiers on the ratings. And sometimes players with worse ratings do better than ones with better ones. So quite often picking the player with the higher average but lower rating is a good idea.

 

[6ry4nj]

Form does actually matter quite a bit. You could say it's one of a few modifiers on the ratings.

Thanks Chewie. I needed cheering up as you may have noticed. Can you tell me any more about this? When the computer gives your team an extra star for picking zero-form Broad over "Mr. 68%" Tredwell, could it be mistaken? Is it saying "You've improved your team's chances" or merely "What will the papers say?!"

And sometimes players with worse ratings do better than ones with better ones. So quite often picking the player with the higher average but lower rating is a good idea.

Yes of course the worse rating sometimes outperforms the better. Your odds remain better going with the better rating though, don't they?* The ratings don't change, do they?* I can't believe the computer is going to improve someone's performance based on average. After all, if a player's average doesn't tally with their rating, all that says is that they're overdue for a slump!

* They're pretty much rhetorical questions - feel free not to answer them yeah?

 

[Chewie]

The star rating is the paper rating, and is not affected by form. So a lower star team may be better than a higher one, if the players are in better form. This is what I think at least.

Personally I feel there are other ratings apart from the ones we have found that affect a player's ability. This may make some players better than others, despite their 'rating' not being as high. I've found that some higher rated players don't perform as well as other players rated similar, whereas some rated lower have done much better.

 

[CG123]

Doing that star thing often fails.
I've tried it for OD matches, and I'll get more stars only playing three recognized bowlers.
I think it only works for FC matches.

 

[6ry4nj]

The star method is admittedly likely to be a bit of a blunt instrument. The AI probably just adds up all your team's player ratings and gives you a mark out of five compared to the max possible. If all your high-rating players are batsmen, then picking eleven of them will max your star rating, but won't of course give you much of a team.

So there needs to be another step added to the method: Make sure you have 4 (for FC/Test?) or 5 (for OD/T20/maybe Test) bowlers with adequate stats. IMO adequate stats means averages of less than 32 in the relevant form of the game.

I'm also clutching at straws and hoping that Chewie's right and form is a modifier on ratings, which the star ratings don't take into account. The extent to which form is a modifier on ratings, is the extent to which the star method (as modified above) will be INaccurate...

 

[Chewie]

Yea I think the form determines to what percentage of your max rating you'll perform at or something similar.

 

[Sophie Hart]

@CG123: I was quite confused with bowling preferences, now at least I?m much educated, after reading out some useful tips

 

[qpeedore]

When the ball is new bowl full. It encourages swing. Using the ball tracker you can see if the ball is swinging or not. If the conditions are overcast then the ball swings around a bit more. It's actually noticeable. Reverse swing is a funny thing but it does exist in the game too. I haven't been quite able to figure that out fully yet.

As far as line when the ball is swinging, I can't quite say. Full and on middle and leg seems to do just as well as fully and outside off. So I use the batsman's strength/weakness preferences to decide where to bowl.

Near the end of ODI innings bowl full and at the stumps. The tail can't handle it. For established batsmen, it's probably best to just bowl to their weaknesses.

It's worth keeping an aggressive field until the slog overs in ODIs. If batsmen are finding it hard to pierce the field in limited overs matches don't make the mistake I see too many real-life teams making by setting defensive fields once the Powerplays are over.

I hate using occasional bowlers in ODIs. But in FC and Tests they are way more effective for tricky partnerships.

I wish the game would let players shift their role in the squad based on how their performances are. A couple years ago when Ed Joyce was still with Middlesex I used to bring him on first change in FC matches and he had a bowling average in the mid 30s. Not bad for a part-timer, to be honest and I wish the game would have changed him to an all-rounder over time. I suggested it on their forums back then. No luck getting it implemented though.

Form matters big time. Recent form is important for squad selection. In FC matches see how they do in the 2nd team. In international matches see how their most recent domestic form has been.

Generally speaking you want about 2-3 defensively minded players in limited overs matches to let the aggressive guys bat around while they accumulate at one end. Test matches would require another defensive player generally. At least that's how I pick it.

Age and experience matters a lot. Older players can keep a level head and can adjust better to playing aggressively or defensively if the situation calls for it. Same for younger players with a lot of matches to their names.

 

[6ry4nj]

The star method is admittedly likely to be a bit of a blunt instrument.

Well I experimented. It quickly became apparent that the star rating of a player varies - presumably based on form, but I totally can't be sure, partly because of something really mad I just discovered. Star rating sometimes varies based on batting order. The same 11 players (at the same time, in the same form etc.) can have a significantly different rating (at least half a star) depending on their batting order!

Totally mind-boggling. I like it.