Draft: Budget Draft: 10 Test Centuries

@ahmedleo414

1. :eng: :ar: Wilfred Rhodes (2)
2. :ind: :bat: Chetan Chauhan (0)
3. :ire: :bat: Ed Joyce (0)
4. :pak: :ar: Imran Khan (6)
5. :pak: :bat: Abdul Hafiz Kardar :c: (0)
6. :wi: :wk: Deryck Murray (0)
7. :saf: :ar: Shaun Pollock (2)
8. :aus: :bwl: Shane Warne (0)
9. :saf: :bwl: Dale Steyn (0)
10. :pak: :bwl: Waqar Younis (0)
11. :eng: :bwl: Jimmy Anderson (0)

:tick: Quite obviously, that is a ridiculous bowling attack; I've no way of knowing how you'll prioritise your five seamers; absurd as it sounds, Waqar may be the weakest of them.
:tick: You budgeted very well to allow yourself to pick Imran Khan, who I'm guessing you had your eye on from the very outset.
:x: The cost of that though is that you're really low on batting. Once the bowling side gets through your top four, they'll fancy themselves to run through the rest of that batting order pretty quickly.

- - -

@Aislabie


1. :saf: :bat: Barry Richards (2)
2. :aus: :bat: Archie Jackson (1)
3. :eng: :bat: Tip Foster (1)
4. :eng: :bat: Douglas Jardine :c: (1)
5. :saf: :bat: Lee Irvine (1)
6. :ind: :ar: Ravindra Jadeja (1)
7. :sri: :wk: Niroshan Dickwella (0)
8. :pak: :ar: Wasim Akram (3)
9. :eng: :bwl: Hedley Verity (0)
10. :eng: :bwl: George Lohmann (0)
11. :wi: :bwl: Curtly Ambrose (0)

:tick: The bowling attack in this side is huge: although they're not all the subjective first-choice players in the GOAT conversation, they all match up statistically with the very best ever.
:tick: The opening combination is pretty much the best I could have hoped for, especially if I were to spend as few as three centuries on them.
:x: Arguably saving three centuries to spend on Wasim compromised my top-order, but I think the biggest disappointment in this team is that it must have made me unbearably smug.

- - -

@blockerdave

1. :saf: :bat: Jimmy Cook (0)
2. :saf: :ar: Trevor Goddard (1)
3. :ind: :bat: Nawab of Pataudi (1)
4. :zim: :bat: Murray Goodwin (3)
5. :aus: :bat: Stuart Law (0)
6. :saf: :ar: Aubrey Faulkner (4)
7. :saf: :ar: Mike Procter :c: (0)
8. :zim: :ar: Heath Streak (1)
9. :eng: :wk: Bob Taylor (0)
10. :wi: :bwl: Michael Holding (0)
11. :eng: :bwl: Derek Underwood (0)

:tick: Your all-rounders add a huge amount of flexibility to your team: six good bowling options and enough batting to have a pure gloveman at number nine is an unusually well-rounded team.
:tick: A new ball attack of Holding and Procter would be terrifying; even your spinners - Faulkner and Deadly - aren't exactly slow bowlers.
:x: If there's a slight chink in your team, it's the change seamers; both Goddard and Streak are stock seamers, which is fine but it would be a bit of a respite for an opposing batsman.

- - -

@Na Maloom Afraad


1. :eng: :ar: WG Grace (2)
2. :saf: :wk: Pieter van der Bijl (1)
3. :eng: :bat: KS Duleepsinhji (3)
4. :ind: :bat: Mayank Agarwal (3)
5. :aus: :ar: Slasher Mackay (0)
6. :ind: :ar: Lala Amarnath (1)
7. :ind: :ar: Madan Lal (0)
8. :afg: :ar: Rashid Khan (0)
9. :wi: :bwl: Courtney Walsh (0)
10. :aus: :bwl: Dennis Lillee (0)
11. :aus: :bwl: Glenn McGrath (0)

:tick: You went all-out on your seam attack and it shows: McGrath, Walsh and Lillee are all among the most respected seamers in cricket history.
:tick: Having WG Grace in your team is always going to be a big bonus: I say it every time, but he was as far ahead of his contemporaries as anyone bar Bradman has ever been.
:x: This side does slightly lack specialists: with only three outright batsmen (though Mackay was an inspired pick) it does feel like this team could be slightly better balanced.

- - -

@VC the slogger

1. :ind: :bat: Vijay Merchant (3)
2. :pak: :wk: Taslim Arif (1)
3. :eng: :bat: David Steele (1)
4. :aus: :bat: Brad Hodge (1)
5. :eng: :bat: KS Ranjitsinhji (2)
6. :nzf: :bat: Martin Donnelly (1)
7. :aus: :ar: Monty Noble (1)
8. :aus: :ar: Alan Davidson (0)
9. :eng: :bwl: Frank Tyson (0)
10. :aus: :bwl: Bill O'Reilly (0)
11. :eng: :bwl: Sydney Barnes (0)

:tick: Ranjitsinhji, Donnelly and Noble at five, six and seven is serious depth in the batting department - it would be a huge effort to get through all of them.
:tick: Bill O'Reilly and Sydney Barnes would be devastating, especially on a helpful wicket. Noble, Davidson and Tyson don't offer any weak links either.
:x: Arif and Steele in the top three have first-class batting averages of 33 and 32 respectively; there's a real chance of being 20 for two.

- - -

@Yash.

1. :aus: :bat: Sid Barnes (3)
2. :saf: :bat: Peter Kirsten (1)
3. :ind: :bat: Rusi Modi (1)
4. :nzf: :bat: Stewie Dempster (2)
5. :aus: :ar: Michael Bevan (0)
6. :saf: :wk: Jock Cameron (0)
7. :nzf: :ar: Richard Hadlee (2)
8. :eng: :bwl: Fred Trueman (0)
9. :wi: :bwl: Malcolm Marshall (0)
10. :wi: :bwl: Joel Garner (0)
11. :sri: :bwl: Muttiah Muralitharan (0)

:tick: Your bowling attack is outstanding: again, when Fred Trueman looks like the weakest of your five main bowling options something has gone very right.
:tick: Michael Bevan and Jock Cameron are two excellent zero-century options that really did help to free up your budget to spread around the rest of your top seven.
:x: Richard Hadlee might be a position too high at number seven, and does create a slight diplodocus tail on the end of your team.

- - -

Players We All Missed

1. :aus: :bat: Bruce Laird (0)
2. :wi: :bat: John Holt (2)
3. :eng: :bat: Brian Bolus (0)
4. :wi: :bat: Gus Logie (2)
5. :sri: :bat: Arjuna Ranatunga (4)
6. :aus: :bat: Andrew Symonds (2)
7. :aus: :wk: Tim Paine (0)
8. :aus: :bwl: Pat Cummins (0)
9. :eng: :bwl: Alec Bedser (0)
10. :aus: :bwl: Clarrie Grimmett (0)
11. :wi: :bwl: Lance Gibbs (0)

Honestly, it was hard to think of too many good batsmen who we'd missed out on, a good effort by all involved.
 
@ahmedleo414

1. :eng: :ar: Wilfred Rhodes (2)
2. :ind: :bat: Chetan Chauhan (0)
3. :ire: :bat: Ed Joyce (0)
4. :pak: :ar: Imran Khan (6)
5. :pak: :bat: Abdul Hafiz Kardar :c: (0)
6. :wi: :wk: Deryck Murray (0)
7. :saf: :ar: Shaun Pollock (2)
8. :aus: :bwl: Shane Warne (0)
9. :saf: :bwl: Dale Steyn (0)
10. :pak: :bwl: Waqar Younis (0)
11. :eng: :bwl: Jimmy Anderson (0)

:tick: Quite obviously, that is a ridiculous bowling attack; I've no way of knowing how you'll prioritise your five seamers; absurd as it sounds, Waqar may be the weakest of them.
:tick: You budgeted very well to allow yourself to pick Imran Khan, who I'm guessing you had your eye on from the very outset.
:x: The cost of that though is that you're really low on batting. Once the bowling side gets through your top four, they'll fancy themselves to run through the rest of that batting order pretty quickly.

So, Imran wasn't on my radar at all... until i got to my 5th pick.. originally i had Phil Mead and Matthew Sinclair, as well as someone else, i can't recall... but when i noticed Imran only had 6, i figured the rest of the team around him at that time... when it was getting close to the end, i also say Vettori had only 6 as well.. so i kept flip-flopping between Vettori and Khan, I went with Khan, cause i figured, I wanted the best pace attack i can...
 
@ahmedleo414

- - -

@blockerdave

1. :saf: :bat: Jimmy Cook (0)
2. :saf: :ar: Trevor Goddard (1)
3. :ind: :bat: Nawab of Pataudi (1)
4. :zim: :bat: Murray Goodwin (3)
5. :aus: :bat: Stuart Law (0)
6. :saf: :ar: Aubrey Faulkner (4)
7. :saf: :ar: Mike Procter :c: (0)
8. :zim: :ar: Heath Streak (1)
9. :eng: :wk: Bob Taylor (0)
10. :wi: :bwl: Michael Holding (0)
11. :eng: :bwl: Derek Underwood (0)

:tick: Your all-rounders add a huge amount of flexibility to your team: six good bowling options and enough batting to have a pure gloveman at number nine is an unusually well-rounded team.
:tick: A new ball attack of Holding and Procter would be terrifying; even your spinners - Faulkner and Deadly - aren't exactly slow bowlers.
:x: If there's a slight chink in your team, it's the change seamers; both Goddard and Streak are stock seamers, which is fine but it would be a bit of a respite for an opposing batsman.

I get the point, but a tad harsh on Streak that, he was a fine bowler. Not in the Procter/Holding class for sure, but if you think of the era he played in and the relative strength of his team vs who he'd have been bowling against, and that he was head and shoulders above the rest of his attack - if you saw Streak off you really did have respite - i think an average a spit over 28 is pretty good!

I also considered Simon Jones in place of either Streak or Underwood, for reverse swing; or Frank Foster in place of streak for an awkward left-arm around angle complementing Procter's awkward right-arm around. But Streak had been on my list the whole time and I decided not to deviate.
 
I get the point, but a tad harsh on Streak that, he was a fine bowler. Not in the Procter/Holding class for sure, but if you think of the era he played in and the relative strength of his team vs who he'd have been bowling against, and that he was head and shoulders above the rest of his attack - if you saw Streak off you really did have respite - i think an average a spit over 28 is pretty good!

I also considered Simon Jones in place of either Streak or Underwood, for reverse swing; or Frank Foster in place of streak for an awkward left-arm around angle complementing Procter's awkward right-arm around. But Streak had been on my list the whole time and I decided not to deviate.
Yeah, that's entirely fair; we all have different tastes in cricket teams that's for sure. One other option for that slot in your team might have been Chaminda Vaas, who offered a left-arm option, but would probably have been too like Goddard.

If I was picking your team I might have gone for Shane Bond though and spent the extra century on... I'm not sure who.

Arrrgh, there's no right answer!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top