Yeah that's a bad bug isn't it? I think it only happens with Australia, would that be right? I recently noticed David Hemp (former Glamorgan player, with a few England games) in my database, aged 41(!), and without a team! I've absolutely no idea why it's making an exception for him. I'm not sure he's even available in the transfer window.
International Selections in the game
- Thread starter 6ry4nj
- Start date
Now to T20Is for England, and there are just two more changes, with Morgan and Patel replacing the two regens. Three of the real-life batting options (Kieswetter, Bairstow, Buttler) are not available ? Kieswetter (as covered previously) through nationality, the latter two because they debuted irl too recently and are not in the database. So that just leaves Morgan, Pietersen and Patel, who are selected in both worlds. However, Morgan?s record in the game after 5 matches is rubbish. Davies and Cook are the best two openers with international experience (in saying this I?m discounting the improbables Trescothick and Solanki), and there is also a regen who might be worth a try.
Prior is selected out of inflexibility on the part of the AI. Foster (my number one at Essex) is the only other keeper it has ever picked, but to me Davies is a far better choice right now. Not unlike the real-life selectors, the AI has blinkers on where my Ravi Bopara is concerned. I?m sure both could do much better. The omission of Conran is something of a surprise, as he has 136 runs at 45.33 ? including an unbeaten 66 ? from his 5 T20Is so far. Finally to Pietersen, and much as in real-life the selection can?t really be faulted.
To bowling, and again the real-life use of Patel makes no sense. In the game he is in purely for batting. Broad and Swann are again agreed upon by both sets of selectors, and neither is a particularly controversial choice in either realm. Woakes in-game has a 9-match record that ensures him a place. Note the similarity ? in reverse of course ? to Dernbach?s stats! The ?bit-and-pieces? selection of Flintoff doesn?t make a lot of sense ? especially when they then bat him below Clare. Personally I would always go with a better bowler - in the game that would be Onions or Sidebottom, or bring in domestic high-flyer Imran Arif - 32 games, 110 overs, 64 wickets at 11.77! And the game has this inflated sense of the worth of Clare ? his in-game performances do justify his selection as a bowler.
So that?s England covered. Next will be?India!
----------
Nearly forgot, here are my pick-by-numbers alternative in-game selections. Surprise debutants include Mark Davies in Tests, Matt Spriegel in ODIs, and the aforementioned Imran Arif in T20. Enjoy!
Prior is selected out of inflexibility on the part of the AI. Foster (my number one at Essex) is the only other keeper it has ever picked, but to me Davies is a far better choice right now. Not unlike the real-life selectors, the AI has blinkers on where my Ravi Bopara is concerned. I?m sure both could do much better. The omission of Conran is something of a surprise, as he has 136 runs at 45.33 ? including an unbeaten 66 ? from his 5 T20Is so far. Finally to Pietersen, and much as in real-life the selection can?t really be faulted.
To bowling, and again the real-life use of Patel makes no sense. In the game he is in purely for batting. Broad and Swann are again agreed upon by both sets of selectors, and neither is a particularly controversial choice in either realm. Woakes in-game has a 9-match record that ensures him a place. Note the similarity ? in reverse of course ? to Dernbach?s stats! The ?bit-and-pieces? selection of Flintoff doesn?t make a lot of sense ? especially when they then bat him below Clare. Personally I would always go with a better bowler - in the game that would be Onions or Sidebottom, or bring in domestic high-flyer Imran Arif - 32 games, 110 overs, 64 wickets at 11.77! And the game has this inflated sense of the worth of Clare ? his in-game performances do justify his selection as a bowler.
So that?s England covered. Next will be?India!
----------
Nearly forgot, here are my pick-by-numbers alternative in-game selections. Surprise debutants include Mark Davies in Tests, Matt Spriegel in ODIs, and the aforementioned Imran Arif in T20. Enjoy!
Yeah, but irl he has a FC bowling avg of 42.94 from 18 matches (at age 22), so maybe it's not a bug but he's just done flukily well for my Australia team?
Anyway, if you compare my team to the current Aussie sides (my game is only 8 months ahead), it seems the game's predictions are not all that bad. The biggest surprise is the complete failure of Ricky Ponting in ICC 10, while Phillip Hughes and (maybe slightly) Michael Clarke are overrated, as well as Marcus North and Shane Watson. David Warner is completely under-rated.
The game predicted the rise of Matthew Wade who in 8 months' time could have completely replaced Brad Haddin irl.
Bowling-wise, Mitchell Johnson is over-rated (which is not that surprising since he is very talented), as are John Hastings and Nathan Hauritz, with Peter Siddle and Mitchell Starc pretty much as in rl. Brett Lee has completely faded out of internationals, as has Clinton McKay.
The biggest difference is the inexplicable rise of certain players-such as Peter George, Burt Cockley, Cameron Boyce, Mark Cosgrove who are not that good irl. The players who are in the team instead of them irl are normally just outside the team in the game (Dan Christian, James Pattinson, Peter Forrest, George Bailey, Ed Cowan, Steven Smith) but some are nowhere near (Nathan Lyon, Pat Cummins, Xavier Doherty).
Overall, the rl Australian team has changed much more than mine over less time so I think ICC tends to overrate the consistency of the best players, some (Hughes, Clarke, Hastings) almost never let me down.
I meant the bug that when their state de-selects them, they become unavailable to the national team as well.
The way I've described it before is that Hughes has the charmed life in the game that Warner has irl...
In this ICC09 save, Ponting is still going strong in Tests, but is fading fast in the other forms. It never rated North at all - the AI has never once picked him.Good to see both versions still picking Katich. It's absolutely disgraceful - not to mention woefully incompetent - the way he has been ostracized irl! Fourth highest Test run-scorer and fifth highest average of Australians currently playing.
This save only foresaw the rise of Wade in ODIs. My Hastings is a batting all-rounder, and Starc is rubbish, although I don't rate him in reality either. Siddle is the most dependable bowler, although relatively weak in one-dayers. Lee is on the cusp of the Test and 50-over teams. McKay is being picked in T20Is, and deserves to be in the other two forms.
I've got the same thing that you mention with Cockley - both versions must have way overestimated his potential. Butterworth is the other mystifying left-field favourite bowler (all-rounder really) of the ICC09 AI. Those you list as just outside the team for you, are nowhere in this save. Lyon and Cummins aren't in the 09 database, and Doherty has never represented Australia, and had a bad 2011-12 even in the one-day game (14 wickets at 35.5, compared to 31.57 for his career).
India
Next we have India, and a slight change of format. I have put the three Test teams (real-life, in the game, and mine) into one image together.
The game uses only the two openers from the real-life team, and drops Sehwag down to seven. Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman have all apparently been retired by the AI in this form, even though only Dravid has actually disappeared from the game. Consequently the game?s team is terribly weak in batting, with Vijay averaging only 32 after 16 matches. As you can see from my team, the best batsmen available include Tendulkar, Laxman and Yuvi. Dhoni has a much better international record than Parthiv, the best of those who have played Tests, although I?ve gone with a veteran keeper making his debut.
To bowling, and we can see (if we didn?t already know) that the real-life lineup is quite weak. Even allowing for the bowling stocks available, this is the wrong lineup. Ishant Sharma needs an extended break from Tests ? I can only assume Praveen Kumar was injured. But I digress.
The game regularly uses two spinners and just two pacemen for India (among others). Even so, there are bowlers who could have been picked over A Kumar, the medium-fast regen. Joginder Sharma debuted this year in Tests, with 4 wickets from 25 overs at 21.75. Sreesanth is also going well after 15 Tests (albeit only one recently), averaging 30.56. I?ve gone with Powar, who had two impressive Tests way back in 2007, and debutant Salvi, second only to Joginder in domestic.
And that?s India?s Test comparison. ODIs soon?
Next we have India, and a slight change of format. I have put the three Test teams (real-life, in the game, and mine) into one image together.
The game uses only the two openers from the real-life team, and drops Sehwag down to seven. Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman have all apparently been retired by the AI in this form, even though only Dravid has actually disappeared from the game. Consequently the game?s team is terribly weak in batting, with Vijay averaging only 32 after 16 matches. As you can see from my team, the best batsmen available include Tendulkar, Laxman and Yuvi. Dhoni has a much better international record than Parthiv, the best of those who have played Tests, although I?ve gone with a veteran keeper making his debut.
To bowling, and we can see (if we didn?t already know) that the real-life lineup is quite weak. Even allowing for the bowling stocks available, this is the wrong lineup. Ishant Sharma needs an extended break from Tests ? I can only assume Praveen Kumar was injured. But I digress.
The game regularly uses two spinners and just two pacemen for India (among others). Even so, there are bowlers who could have been picked over A Kumar, the medium-fast regen. Joginder Sharma debuted this year in Tests, with 4 wickets from 25 overs at 21.75. Sreesanth is also going well after 15 Tests (albeit only one recently), averaging 30.56. I?ve gone with Powar, who had two impressive Tests way back in 2007, and debutant Salvi, second only to Joginder in domestic.
And that?s India?s Test comparison. ODIs soon?
Yeah - pretty much... If I was playing as them in this save.
Ok, here goes...
These are the ten best batsmen by international format, again I've included their age and averages (minimum of 5 innings in that format to qualify):
Test:
Uwe-Karl Birkenstock (SA) (23) (97.57)
Brad Hodge (AUS) (38) (55.89)
Ricky Ponting (AUS) (38) (55.09)
Kumar Sangakkara (SL) (35) (54.55)
Michael Clarke (AUS) (31) (54.31)
Heino Kuhn (SA) (28) (54.08)
Lahiru Thirimanne (SL) (23) (52.50)
Phillip Hughes (AUS) (24) (52.40)
Gautam Gambhir (IND) (31) (51.69)
Mohammad Yousuf (PAK) (38) (50.39)
ODI:
Divan van Wyk (SA) (27) (55.00)
Michael Papps (NZ) (33) (51.75)
Mike Hussey (AUS) (37) (50.04)
Mahendra Dhoni (IND) (31) (49.31)
Phillip Hughes (AUS) (24) (48.84)
Michael Clarke (AUS) (31) (44.02)
Mohammad Yousuf (PAK) (38) (42.83)
AB de Villiers (SA) (28) (42.82)
Ricky Ponting (AUS) (38) (42.45)
Mark Cosgrove (AUS) (28) (42.24)
T20I:
Andrew Symonds (AUS) (37) (48.14)
Ajinkya Rahane (IND) (24) (42.00)
Misbah-ul-Haq (PAK) (38) (40.14)
Rilee Rossouw (SA) (23) (40.00)
Angelo Matthews (SL) (25) (39.65)
Michael Clarke (AUS) (31) (38.65)
Matthew Wade (AUS) (25) (38.00)
Murali Vijay (IND) (28) (37.60)
Shane Watson (AUS) (31) (37.32)
Brendon McCullum (NZ) (31) (35.85)
@6ry4nj: Is this what you meant or did you mean something else like International Australian batsmen only or did you want me to analyse each national team separately? Cos if you did, it shouldn't be a problem, I can still do it, but obviously a bit later.
These are the ten best batsmen by international format, again I've included their age and averages (minimum of 5 innings in that format to qualify):
Test:
Uwe-Karl Birkenstock (SA) (23) (97.57)
Brad Hodge (AUS) (38) (55.89)
Ricky Ponting (AUS) (38) (55.09)
Kumar Sangakkara (SL) (35) (54.55)
Michael Clarke (AUS) (31) (54.31)
Heino Kuhn (SA) (28) (54.08)
Lahiru Thirimanne (SL) (23) (52.50)
Phillip Hughes (AUS) (24) (52.40)
Gautam Gambhir (IND) (31) (51.69)
Mohammad Yousuf (PAK) (38) (50.39)
ODI:
Divan van Wyk (SA) (27) (55.00)
Michael Papps (NZ) (33) (51.75)
Mike Hussey (AUS) (37) (50.04)
Mahendra Dhoni (IND) (31) (49.31)
Phillip Hughes (AUS) (24) (48.84)
Michael Clarke (AUS) (31) (44.02)
Mohammad Yousuf (PAK) (38) (42.83)
AB de Villiers (SA) (28) (42.82)
Ricky Ponting (AUS) (38) (42.45)
Mark Cosgrove (AUS) (28) (42.24)
T20I:
Andrew Symonds (AUS) (37) (48.14)
Ajinkya Rahane (IND) (24) (42.00)
Misbah-ul-Haq (PAK) (38) (40.14)
Rilee Rossouw (SA) (23) (40.00)
Angelo Matthews (SL) (25) (39.65)
Michael Clarke (AUS) (31) (38.65)
Matthew Wade (AUS) (25) (38.00)
Murali Vijay (IND) (28) (37.60)
Shane Watson (AUS) (31) (37.32)
Brendon McCullum (NZ) (31) (35.85)
@6ry4nj: Is this what you meant or did you mean something else like International Australian batsmen only or did you want me to analyse each national team separately? Cos if you did, it shouldn't be a problem, I can still do it, but obviously a bit later.
Last edited:
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
ICC is still crap until it finds a way to successfully create players that don't have the mental fortitude for cricket. It was fine 7 years ago, but I would have hoped in that time they'd have introduced more than just some more leagues.
I want players coming through who average around 50 in domestic cricket but don't score a run in international cricket etc...
I want players coming through who average around 50 in domestic cricket but don't score a run in international cricket etc...
Yes I meant each country separately, but then I only expected you to do Australia (at the most). So whatever you want to contribute will be appreciated. I realize that collating the top batsmen overall took extra work, so I assure you that it is a valued and appreciated contribution. In fact, I think I'll do it now for my save.
Test:
Hodge (Aus, 37) 55.89
Hughes (Aus, 23) 53.80
Ponting (Aus, 37) 52.88
Yousuf (Pak, 37) 52.01
Jayawardene (SL, 34) 51.92
Tendulkar (Ind, 39) 51.92
Sangakkara (SL, 34) 51.13
Sheharyar Ghani (Pak, 26) 50.84
M Hussey (Aus, 36) 49.78
Younis Khan (Pak, 34) 49.39
ODIs (some surprises here):
Guptill (NZ, 25) 56.00
Grant Elliot (NZ, 33) 52.62
Dhoni (Ind, 30) 49.27
Hughes (Aus, 23) 47.13
S Marsh (Aus, 28) 43.54; tied with
Tendulkar (Ind, 39) 43.54
M Hussey (Aus, 36) 43.13
Yousuf (Pak, 37) 42.43
Pietersen (Eng, 31) 41.96
Gambhir (Ind, 30) 41.73
T20Is:
Rohit Sharma (Ind, 24) 46.25
Misbah ul-Haq (Pak, 37) 46.10
Smith (SAf, 31) 38.74
Hamilton Masakadza (Zim, 28) 36.86
Cam White (Aus, 28) 38.37
Gambhir (Ind, 30) 36.12
Raina (Ind, 25) 34.83
Amla (SAf, 29) 34.57
Devon Smith (WI, 30) 33.20
Sangakkara (SL, 34) 33.00
Last edited:
ODIs (India)
ODIs now, and again the game has dropped Sehwag down the order and replaced him with Vijay. Vijay was the least successful of the six potential openers who have been used in the past year (the others being Parthiv, Badrinath and Rahane). In his defence, he has only played 7 matches, and has a much better domestic average (in brackets in the table), so he deserves a few more games. Tendulkar got a few games in the past year, and did not perform. He was out of form in domestic as well, despite being as good as ever in 2010-11. Perhaps his advanced years have got to him. That appears to be what the AI thinks, anyway. (On a side note, he has one century in two years, so he is still an unattainable 12 short of the magic 100 international centuries).
Kohli is 11th on career ODI batting, and has only had 5 matches, so he will be well in the running for more, especially when the old guard actually do retire. Rohit Sharma is down in 13th, and after 37 matches, that suggests he?s not up to it. I?ve no idea why the game doesn?t pick Dhoni. Despite having the second best career average after blast-from-the-past Khoda, he has not been picked for the last two years.
Now to the AI?s other picks. Badrinath has the 9th best record in this format. He?s also the third best opener apart from Khoda, so he qualifies to be first or second reserve. Yuvi is an automatic pick. Sehwag is one of the openers ahead of Badrinath, but if he?s not being used to open, he doesn?t quite deserve his place. In addition to the bats in my team, Raina and Laxman are also ahead of him.
Finally to my left-field picks. Khoda has 115 runs from his two ODIs in 1997. He?s 37 now. Still, I don?t understand why he hasn?t been selected since, so there?s no time like the present to remedy that. Uday Kaul is a best of domestic keeper ? he is also the best of domestic batsman overall, so I included him for his batting. (I then gave him the gloves because his catches per match is better than Dhoni?s).
To bowling then, and Yusuf Pathan makes no sense as a bowler in the game (and even less in real life!) Irfan Pathan in-game has had 11 games at this level in the last two years, but is not a front-runner for a place. Ashwin and Dinda have not played for India in the game, and are nowhere near debuting in this format either. Praveen Kumar has performed much better in the game than real-life, but he?s still a long way down in the considerations.
Jadeja is a fantastic bowler in the game, and deserves his spot. (The 32.2 batting average is a mistake ? that?s from domestic ? the 20.9 is correct). Mishra similarly picks himself. Joginder Sharma has achieved a satisfactory average of 28.85 over the past year (14 matches), but his disastrous former tilt at the position (he debuted in ODIs in 2004!) makes it hard to pick him. Chawla likewise is not a front-runner (based on performance). Munaf Patel is the best of the experienced seamers, so it?s not a big surprise that the game picks him.
My selections now, and they?re based on pure ODI averages. Bhandari (right-arm fast-medium who debuted in 2000), Mishra, Jadeja and the regen Kumar have the best averages. Basant Mohanty comes in as the best of domestic. He is a 25-year-old right-arm fast-medium. While he has 40 List A games, over three years or more, under his belt in the game, I notice that, in real life, he just debuted in domestic one-dayers in February. He has 66 wickets at 18.32 ? and that?s why he?s there.
ODIs now, and again the game has dropped Sehwag down the order and replaced him with Vijay. Vijay was the least successful of the six potential openers who have been used in the past year (the others being Parthiv, Badrinath and Rahane). In his defence, he has only played 7 matches, and has a much better domestic average (in brackets in the table), so he deserves a few more games. Tendulkar got a few games in the past year, and did not perform. He was out of form in domestic as well, despite being as good as ever in 2010-11. Perhaps his advanced years have got to him. That appears to be what the AI thinks, anyway. (On a side note, he has one century in two years, so he is still an unattainable 12 short of the magic 100 international centuries).
Kohli is 11th on career ODI batting, and has only had 5 matches, so he will be well in the running for more, especially when the old guard actually do retire. Rohit Sharma is down in 13th, and after 37 matches, that suggests he?s not up to it. I?ve no idea why the game doesn?t pick Dhoni. Despite having the second best career average after blast-from-the-past Khoda, he has not been picked for the last two years.
Now to the AI?s other picks. Badrinath has the 9th best record in this format. He?s also the third best opener apart from Khoda, so he qualifies to be first or second reserve. Yuvi is an automatic pick. Sehwag is one of the openers ahead of Badrinath, but if he?s not being used to open, he doesn?t quite deserve his place. In addition to the bats in my team, Raina and Laxman are also ahead of him.
Finally to my left-field picks. Khoda has 115 runs from his two ODIs in 1997. He?s 37 now. Still, I don?t understand why he hasn?t been selected since, so there?s no time like the present to remedy that. Uday Kaul is a best of domestic keeper ? he is also the best of domestic batsman overall, so I included him for his batting. (I then gave him the gloves because his catches per match is better than Dhoni?s).
To bowling then, and Yusuf Pathan makes no sense as a bowler in the game (and even less in real life!) Irfan Pathan in-game has had 11 games at this level in the last two years, but is not a front-runner for a place. Ashwin and Dinda have not played for India in the game, and are nowhere near debuting in this format either. Praveen Kumar has performed much better in the game than real-life, but he?s still a long way down in the considerations.
Jadeja is a fantastic bowler in the game, and deserves his spot. (The 32.2 batting average is a mistake ? that?s from domestic ? the 20.9 is correct). Mishra similarly picks himself. Joginder Sharma has achieved a satisfactory average of 28.85 over the past year (14 matches), but his disastrous former tilt at the position (he debuted in ODIs in 2004!) makes it hard to pick him. Chawla likewise is not a front-runner (based on performance). Munaf Patel is the best of the experienced seamers, so it?s not a big surprise that the game picks him.
My selections now, and they?re based on pure ODI averages. Bhandari (right-arm fast-medium who debuted in 2000), Mishra, Jadeja and the regen Kumar have the best averages. Basant Mohanty comes in as the best of domestic. He is a 25-year-old right-arm fast-medium. While he has 40 List A games, over three years or more, under his belt in the game, I notice that, in real life, he just debuted in domestic one-dayers in February. He has 66 wickets at 18.32 ? and that?s why he?s there.
I just checked and found that those are their real-life averages at the end of 2008-09. The game has done them the favour of never picking them since (ie. at all), so they haven't spoiled them!
T20Is (India)
Finally to T20Is for India. I?ve got Uthappa as 9th best bat in the game ? that should be 7th, so on performance he?s second reserve. Gambhir?s absence from the AI?s team is mystifying, but you must realize that India have only played one T20I in the last two years. Kohli has only represented India in ODIs, and is not going to debut anytime soon in this form. Rohit Sharma leads the world in this format, so like Gambhir, he should definitely be playing in the game. Raina and Dhoni likewise.
Apart from Sehwag, the AI?s batting selections are all very early in their career in this format. Yes, even Tendulkar, who has only played two games. None of them have justified their places as yet, but it is early days. Nevertheless, I would think that 5 unproven novices in a batting lineup is about 4 too many. As I have said in the graphic, Sehwag, Tendulkar ? and possibly Tiwary ? are (imo) contenders for berths in real life.
In my selection, the batsmen are all the best-performed international bats from the game. Normally I would blood the best of the rest from domestic, but since in this case it was a regen, I haven?t bothered. Yusuf Pathan?s batting average is another mistake (in T20Is it?s 14.33), so he should probably not be batting above Dhoni.
Now to bowling. Yusuf Pathan, Ashwin, and Vinay Kumar all look like stupid selections in real life, especially given Munaf Patel and Mishra?s impressive real-life averages. Ashwin and Vinay Kumar have not played for India in any form in the game, nor do they deserve to. Although Ashwin?s 13.08 average in-game looks impressive, the batting standard in Indian domestic T20 must be woeful (in the game that is), as there are many bowlers (15 in fact) going better than that. Note that Vinay Kumar bowls at under 20 in domestic, yet barely makes it into the top 200.
The AI agrees with the selectors regarding Irfan Pathan, and picks him. The other real-life bowler is Praveen Kumar. Like Yusuf Pathan, he has an enviable bowling record in the game, far better than in reality. So I?ve no idea why the in-game selectors don?t pick them. Again they have two inexperienced bowlers (Munaf and Ishant) who have not yet performed in this arena. Apart from Irfan Pathan, none of their selections make much sense.
And so to my selections. I think I made a mistake with Yusuf Pathan. I now notice he has not been utilized as a fifth bowler in the game ? he averages only about 1.5 overs per match. I should have had Harbhajan (or Irfan Pathan) instead. Of all the impressive sets of figures among the domestic bowlers, Aavishkar Salvi has the best, with 78 wickets in 43 matches at 9.44. RP Singh and Praveen Kumar are the game?s best-performed Indian T20I bowlers. The game also thinks that Balaji Rao is Indian ? whereas he is actually Canadian apparently ? so he gets in the team too. (Don?t ask me how a Canadian comes to have a T20I bowling average good enough to make it into the Indian team).
And that?s it for India, so New Zealand will be next?
Finally to T20Is for India. I?ve got Uthappa as 9th best bat in the game ? that should be 7th, so on performance he?s second reserve. Gambhir?s absence from the AI?s team is mystifying, but you must realize that India have only played one T20I in the last two years. Kohli has only represented India in ODIs, and is not going to debut anytime soon in this form. Rohit Sharma leads the world in this format, so like Gambhir, he should definitely be playing in the game. Raina and Dhoni likewise.
Apart from Sehwag, the AI?s batting selections are all very early in their career in this format. Yes, even Tendulkar, who has only played two games. None of them have justified their places as yet, but it is early days. Nevertheless, I would think that 5 unproven novices in a batting lineup is about 4 too many. As I have said in the graphic, Sehwag, Tendulkar ? and possibly Tiwary ? are (imo) contenders for berths in real life.
In my selection, the batsmen are all the best-performed international bats from the game. Normally I would blood the best of the rest from domestic, but since in this case it was a regen, I haven?t bothered. Yusuf Pathan?s batting average is another mistake (in T20Is it?s 14.33), so he should probably not be batting above Dhoni.
Now to bowling. Yusuf Pathan, Ashwin, and Vinay Kumar all look like stupid selections in real life, especially given Munaf Patel and Mishra?s impressive real-life averages. Ashwin and Vinay Kumar have not played for India in any form in the game, nor do they deserve to. Although Ashwin?s 13.08 average in-game looks impressive, the batting standard in Indian domestic T20 must be woeful (in the game that is), as there are many bowlers (15 in fact) going better than that. Note that Vinay Kumar bowls at under 20 in domestic, yet barely makes it into the top 200.
The AI agrees with the selectors regarding Irfan Pathan, and picks him. The other real-life bowler is Praveen Kumar. Like Yusuf Pathan, he has an enviable bowling record in the game, far better than in reality. So I?ve no idea why the in-game selectors don?t pick them. Again they have two inexperienced bowlers (Munaf and Ishant) who have not yet performed in this arena. Apart from Irfan Pathan, none of their selections make much sense.
And so to my selections. I think I made a mistake with Yusuf Pathan. I now notice he has not been utilized as a fifth bowler in the game ? he averages only about 1.5 overs per match. I should have had Harbhajan (or Irfan Pathan) instead. Of all the impressive sets of figures among the domestic bowlers, Aavishkar Salvi has the best, with 78 wickets in 43 matches at 9.44. RP Singh and Praveen Kumar are the game?s best-performed Indian T20I bowlers. The game also thinks that Balaji Rao is Indian ? whereas he is actually Canadian apparently ? so he gets in the team too. (Don?t ask me how a Canadian comes to have a T20I bowling average good enough to make it into the Indian team).
And that?s it for India, so New Zealand will be next?
New Zealand
With regard to New Zealand?s Test team, Taylor, Vettori and Flynn are the only points of agreement between the real-life and in-game selectors. Guptill, McCullum, Williamson and Gillespie don?t miss out by much, however. Meanwhile Chris Martin is retired in the game, Kruger van Wyk is still South African, and Brownlie is not in the database. That just leaves Bracewell, who in the game is below domestic standard.
The game doesn?t simulate dummy-spits and benders, so Jesse Ryder is behaving himself and thus makes the team. I don?t agree with the selections of Tennison or Fulton, but then I have selected two non-openers to open the batting. Nevertheless, Fulton is far from being one of the top two openers in-game. Guptill or McIntosh would make more sense.
(On a side-note, there are five ?Mcs? in the database ? B McCullum, McGlashan, McIntosh, McKay and McSkimming ? and they have all represented their country, either in the game or in real life).
Ryder, Hay, de Boorder, Flynn and Taylor are all uncontroversial selections in the game, as is Franklin. Bond and Tuffey have better averages than Oram, Vettori and even O?Brien, which makes them more intuitive selections. Finally I include McSkimming, as the best domestic bowler, ahead of Lance Shaw and Bradley Scott.
With regard to New Zealand?s Test team, Taylor, Vettori and Flynn are the only points of agreement between the real-life and in-game selectors. Guptill, McCullum, Williamson and Gillespie don?t miss out by much, however. Meanwhile Chris Martin is retired in the game, Kruger van Wyk is still South African, and Brownlie is not in the database. That just leaves Bracewell, who in the game is below domestic standard.
The game doesn?t simulate dummy-spits and benders, so Jesse Ryder is behaving himself and thus makes the team. I don?t agree with the selections of Tennison or Fulton, but then I have selected two non-openers to open the batting. Nevertheless, Fulton is far from being one of the top two openers in-game. Guptill or McIntosh would make more sense.
(On a side-note, there are five ?Mcs? in the database ? B McCullum, McGlashan, McIntosh, McKay and McSkimming ? and they have all represented their country, either in the game or in real life).
Ryder, Hay, de Boorder, Flynn and Taylor are all uncontroversial selections in the game, as is Franklin. Bond and Tuffey have better averages than Oram, Vettori and even O?Brien, which makes them more intuitive selections. Finally I include McSkimming, as the best domestic bowler, ahead of Lance Shaw and Bradley Scott.
