ok, will check the new version for point 1. point 3...well we'll live with it. just takes some pre-emptive planning if wanted. I'm not too fussed about that one, as I can only see that that sort of thing is for cheating, whereas I'm only really using it as a tool to improve the database or make fun games with odd databases...that sort of thing.
for point 2, I understand all the value based stuff. what I didn't understand was the meaning of the following in terms of which are better than others:
awful
best in the world
bowling all rounder/traditional wicketkeeper
cheat
excellent batsman
lower-middle order/super aggressive hitters
number 8 batsman
tail-end batsman
world class batsman
I know a lot of that makes sense, but it's not quite so easy to quantify which of those is better than some others. for example, bowling all rounder vs lower middle order. that sort of thing. the same goes for the bowling ones. my other gripe with this system is there might not be enough options. ESPECIALLY for bowling ability. because for bowling ability, there's:
awful
batting all rounder
part time/occasional
poor
excellent
world class
the top 4 all suggest negative ability really. but the top 2 make the people far too good from my experience. so there doesn't seem to be enough choices. either that or the ranking names aren't quite describing it properly, and maybe "poor" could actually be "good". I think a lot of my problem for not understanding them is that it doesn't qualify which form of the game - test or first class. is excellent in terms of test cricket or domestic stuff?
this is all positive criticism obviously, because I'm a huge fan of what's going on here. and if you did manage to sort out the searching for players in terms of their name, that'd be a fantastic step forward.