Australia
I'm going in alphabetical order, that's why I'm doing Australia first. I may leave Bangladesh for a while, however, because they play so rarely in ICC09.
Anyway, to Australia. Here are their recent real-life squads, with comparisons to my save:
First an explanation of my notation. Where to start?
ITG - in the game
tm - this player is in the team in the game as well as irl
n/a - this player is not in ICC09's database
IFn - International Fail (to be blunt); this player has had n international matches in this format, and has not been good enough
kod - "knocking on door": means they are competitive in that category and will or should be considered for future selection
nwn - "nowhere near": they are never likely to be good enough to select
The numbers in the ITG columns are the players' rankings in the game for that format - by average. Their ranking among international players is used if they have played internationals, and in this case the figure is bolded. So the unbolded figures are domestic rankings.
The averages in blue indicate they relate to bowling, and all-rounders' averages are in purple - batting then bowling.
Thus, for example, Dave Warner has a real-life Test average of 48.3, but in the save he has a batting average of only 35.5 in domestic (having never been capped), the 45th best of Australia's domestic batsmen.
So, here are the game's most recently selected teams, for comparison:
The teams are very different from in real life. In general, the game's selections are more "conservative" than the real-life ones.
In Tests, for example, the game has stuck with Katich and Jaques, rather than experimenting with a Cowan. In this respect it has been more rational than the real-life selectors, as these two (especially Katich) have records which argue strongly for their selection. It has picked up Phil Hughes - you may want to think of him as the Dave Warner of ICC09
![Wink ;) ;)](/forums/styles/planetcricket/xenforo/smilies/wink.gif)
(superhuman and can do no wrong). It has also dropped Ponting, although I don't think this is permanent. (Then again, he is the overseas player for lowly Leicestershire...) And it has persisted with Haddin, which even on real-life figures is not that surprising.
It has been somewhat more adventurous with the bowling. It has persisted with Johnson (who is a better bat and bowl in the game than irl), and we are not surprised to see Siddle there - especially with the in-game average close to 25.
I don't understand the selection of Tait. I can only think that the AI knows (or suspects
![Grin :D :D](/forums/styles/planetcricket/xenforo/smilies/biggrin.png)
) the game to have a preference for fast bowlers (ie. over medium-fast/fast-medium). He does have a much better Test record in-game than irl (where he has only played 3 games iirc) - but it's a way off good enough for selection. Nor is his form particularly good.
As for Burt Cockley, in this save he's a domestic star - 4th best career average. Then again, the three ahead of him are McKay, Cameron (a fast bowler btw), and a regen - none of whom are being picked.
So that's the Test comparison done. That's a lot to digest, so I'll post the analysis for the other formats a bit later.