Non pure player rule

How many non pure players per team for next year?

  • Keep it at 1

    Votes: 17 42.5%
  • Make it 2

    Votes: 23 57.5%

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .

eddiesmith

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Posts
46,439
Likes
4,556
Location
Junktion Oval
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England Cronulla
Thread starter #1
There has been a suggestion that the game is getting too predictable and we should consider bringing in a new rule requiring 2 non pure players in each team

I know some people want an answer soon so I will leave this poll open for 2 weeks and will make the decision then

Anyone who wants to put an argument for either please do to show some what the main advantages might be

The poll will not be public as I am hoping to get most people to vote and you will not be forced to follow your captain
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Armageddon

All Australian
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Posts
703
Likes
1
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Golden State Warriors
#2
Make it 2 I say, give the all rounders more of a say in the game and continue to see who the more tactically sound captains are, especially knowing we have the best two skips in the game :) :p

Would see more all rounders pushing for the medals. Let's go two! :thumbsu:
 

Dipper

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 28, 2000
Posts
7,434
Likes
2,117
Location
London,England
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Allies FCC
#4
Sidey_87 said:
Definately needs to be looked at, i think we should go to 2.
Because the best formula for tests has been worked out.
What the man says, as it is all the teams that do well have largely played a similar 'formation', there's no tactical element anymore.

Get the 2 allrounder rule in & nobody can be sure what will work best as there's so many options, NP bat 1 np bowler.....2 pue allrounders, who knows.

Also good for the allrounders gives them more of a go, a few of them get rolled out for the one dayers but don't see much Test action.
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
29,483
Likes
13,022
Location
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
#6
why do you need to HAVE 2 non pure why can't it be optional ?
give people a chance to make some tatical calls
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#7
I think the idea stinks!!!

We need to get this game as close to reality as possible. Otherwise forget about fantasy cricket, call it fantasy funnygame.

The thought of a captain picking a team with no purebowlers and just 2 allrounders is abhorrent.

For me make it a minimum of four bowlers in a team and the captain can decide on the mix. That's plenty of flexibility and close to reality.

It's supposed to be about CRICKET
 

Sidey_87

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Posts
1,083
Likes
1
Other Teams
kangaroos
#8
Frodo said:
I think the idea stinks!!!

We need to get this game as close to reality as possible. Otherwise forget about fantasy cricket, call it fantasy funnygame.

The thought of a captain picking a team with no purebowlers and just 2 allrounders is abhorrent.

For me make it a minimum of four bowlers in a team and the captain can decide on the mix. That's plenty of flexibility and close to reality.

It's supposed to be about CRICKET
If you were to choose 2 all rounder's alone to bowl you would get smashed 9 times out of 10.
If the rule was you must have 4 bowlers i think most captains would take 4 pure bowlers, unless you had a Stmookeyj in your team.
I know what you are saying, but for that to happen the A/R would have to be more valuable and have better stats.
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#9
Sidey_87 said:
If you were to choose 2 all rounder's alone to bowl you would get smashed 9 times out of 10.
If the rule was you must have 4 bowlers i think most captains would take 4 pure bowlers, unless you had a Stmookeyj in your team.
I know what you are saying, but for that to happen the A/R would have to be more valuable and have better stats.
Doesn't matter if you get smashed or not, the proposed rule allows for a farcical situation. Many teams play without an allrounder, nothing wrong with that. And yes, if we want to encourage more allrounder selection then increase their stats, but IIRC the purebowlers stats were improved last season by Kapow because the allrounders had a clear advantage.

The only change needed is a four bowler minimum.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dipper

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 28, 2000
Posts
7,434
Likes
2,117
Location
London,England
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Allies FCC
#12
Frodo said:
The only change needed is a four bowler minimum.
you're missing the point big time Frodo, if you bring in a 4 bowler minimum then there's no room for tactical outflanking anymore, essentially anyone who knows what they're doing will play 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler & 3 pure bowlers.

There's no fun anymore if you can't try to outsmart people.

There's no way that you can win games playing 2 non pure bowlers & no pure bowlers so it(2 np rule) gets rid of the packing the side out with batsmen thing but at the same time keeping the essence of this thing which is trying to find a way of being more succesful.

When the Allies were winning every year you said that we must be cheating as you seemed to think that this thing was a dice game, random in it's results, if it was I wouldn't bother with it anymore, we kept winning because we were ahead of the field in terms of tactics, if there's 1 np player with a 4 bowler minimum then there's nowhere to go with tactics anymore, we've reached the zenith, tactically eeveryone is more switched on now, we won our fist 2 titles almost by simply not playing np bats, it took 3 years for the rest of the field to cotton on to that one but now we're in the professional era.

As much as this thing is a cricket simulation the more important thing is that it's as enjoyable as possible.If every game is like a toss of a coin it'll be sh*thouse.

Here's something for you to chew on.


KCC won most of their games playing 6 bats, 1np bowler, 3 pure bowlers
Allies won a lot of game playing the same
WSC won most games playing 6 pure bats, 1 A/R, either 3 pure bowlers or 2 pure bowlers 1 np
Victoria, 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler, 3 pure bowlers for most of the time.

See a correlation there?

Top 4 sides.

The only way I found to outsmart that was to pick 8 bats I did it once, to KCC which is a testament to how good they are, we won but I've never used it again as it's not really in the spirit of the thing.

Keep it the same for next year & we'll have every team playing the same basic way & we'll all win about half our games & lose about half.
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#14
Dipper said:
you're missing the point big time Frodo, if you bring in a 4 bowler minimum then there's no room for tactical outflanking anymore, essentially anyone who knows what they're doing will play 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler & 3 pure bowlers.

There's no fun anymore if you can't try to outsmart people.

There's no way that you can win games playing 2 non pure bowlers & no pure bowlers so it(2 np rule) gets rid of the packing the side out with batsmen thing but at the same time keeping the essence of this thing which is trying to find a way of being more succesful.

When the Allies were winning every year you said that we must be cheating as you seemed to think that this thing was a dice game, random in it's results, if it was I wouldn't bother with it anymore, we kept winning because we were ahead of the field in terms of tactics, if there's 1 np player with a 4 bowler minimum then there's nowhere to go with tactics anymore, we've reached the zenith, tactically eeveryone is more switched on now, we won our fist 2 titles almost by simply not playing np bats, it took 3 years for the rest of the field to cotton on to that one but now we're in the professional era.

As much as this thing is a cricket simulation the more important thing is that it's as enjoyable as possible.If every game is like a toss of a coin it'll be sh*thouse.

Here's something for you to chew on.


KCC won most of their games playing 6 bats, 1np bowler, 3 pure bowlers
Allies won a lot of game playing the same
WSC won most games playing 6 pure bats, 1 A/R, either 3 pure bowlers or 2 pure bowlers 1 np
Victoria, 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler, 3 pure bowlers for most of the time.

See a correlation there?

Top 4 sides.

The only way I found to outsmart that was to pick 8 bats I did it once, to KCC which is a testament to how good they are, we won but I've never used it again as it's not really in the spirit of the thing.

Keep it the same for next year & we'll have every team playing the same basic way & we'll all win about half our games & lose about half.
I see your point completely, and disagree. I see this competition as being about all the players. You see the competition as a tactical battle between a dozen captains with everyone else being 'sundries'. I don't mind if every team finishes with 11 wins and 11 losses, it gives averyone something to cheer about and gives a nice close competition.
Your goals can be satisfied with a minimum four bowler rule and slightly raising the allrounder stats. If all rounders are taking wickets and scoring runs they are going to get selected.


ps I never thought you were cheating and never said anything like that.
 

Blue Red and Gold

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Posts
10,274
Likes
184
Location
rAdelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide United, Leeds United
#15
I voted for two non pure players, either way I am not too fussed, as a captain it is pretty easy at the moment, especially in the one dayers, I just pick 6 bats, 4 bowlers and an all rounder. Each week I just substitute a batsman. Easy as.

If we change the rules I am cool with that as it will make things harder to pick but a little bit more exciting.
 
Joined
May 23, 2005
Posts
1,195
Likes
0
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham & Redbacks
#16
Give 2 a shot, it's more unpredictable and if Frodo's main argument is that it makes it less like cricket then someone should point out to him that their are usually more than 4 pure bowlers and an all rounder who can bowl. Maybe if we brought in the part timer style of player which is bat average 43 and bowl:60?
 

spell_check

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Posts
4,536
Likes
3
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
#17
Yes, good idea. It can open up more possibilites such as two pure bowlers, one pure all rounder, one non pure; or one pure bowler, three pure all rounders; three pure bowlers, two non pure all rounders etc.
 

Cassius_Clay

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Posts
5,043
Likes
1,105
AFL Club
Collingwood
#19
Dipper said:
you're missing the point big time Frodo, if you bring in a 4 bowler minimum then there's no room for tactical outflanking anymore, essentially anyone who knows what they're doing will play 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler & 3 pure bowlers.

There's no fun anymore if you can't try to outsmart people.

There's no way that you can win games playing 2 non pure bowlers & no pure bowlers so it(2 np rule) gets rid of the packing the side out with batsmen thing but at the same time keeping the essence of this thing which is trying to find a way of being more succesful.

When the Allies were winning every year you said that we must be cheating as you seemed to think that this thing was a dice game, random in it's results, if it was I wouldn't bother with it anymore, we kept winning because we were ahead of the field in terms of tactics, if there's 1 np player with a 4 bowler minimum then there's nowhere to go with tactics anymore, we've reached the zenith, tactically eeveryone is more switched on now, we won our fist 2 titles almost by simply not playing np bats, it took 3 years for the rest of the field to cotton on to that one but now we're in the professional era.

As much as this thing is a cricket simulation the more important thing is that it's as enjoyable as possible.If every game is like a toss of a coin it'll be sh*thouse.

Here's something for you to chew on.


KCC won most of their games playing 6 bats, 1np bowler, 3 pure bowlers
Allies won a lot of game playing the same
WSC won most games playing 6 pure bats, 1 A/R, either 3 pure bowlers or 2 pure bowlers 1 np
Victoria, 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler, 3 pure bowlers for most of the time.

See a correlation there?

Top 4 sides.

The only way I found to outsmart that was to pick 8 bats I did it once, to KCC which is a testament to how good they are, we won but I've never used it again as it's not really in the spirit of the thing.

Keep it the same for next year & we'll have every team playing the same basic way & we'll all win about half our games & lose about half.
I want you to show me how many formations you can make having this new 2 non player rule compared to the one we have in place right now.
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#20
One other point. I had decided that smaller squads would be preferable, however if this rule comes in the allrounders become critical and you would probably need 4 in your squad. So that means squad size would need to increase.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#22
Hmm I'm not so sure just going to 2 non-pures will really change much. At the end of the day a relatively simple sim is always going to end up with a particular line up dominating, and if a few catch on they will do well. I just wish I had caught on (or rather paid attention) before taking over:)

I think the main thing is that the averages get tinkered with by Ed in the off season to come up with a scenario where it is not so easy to arraive at a dominant formula.

Or make restrictions something like:
1) at least 2 pure bowlers.
2) either a 3rd bowler out of pure bowler or a np bowler or a bowling ar.
3) at least a 4th bowler - np bat or batting ar.

so that is at least 4 bowlers - but with lots of combos. that is just a suggestion, can be tweaked. But I think having at least 4 bowlers is a must.

Even if a particular formula wins out, the chances of everyone even having that formula in their squad is slim.

But it all depends on the tweaking with the stats making things even.

I'd be happy for np bats to have full batting stats too. Everyone wants a Freddie.

And I'd throw in a smokey of injuries.

Anyone who does not post in a test match recieves a stats penalty for the next test match - an injury. So either gets dropped or plays with reduced stats for their speciality. They keep going down until you've non-posted yourself to oblivion.

p.s. I voted go to 2, but really it is a vote for change, not just a knee jerk 2ar rule.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#24
eddiesmith said:
Injuries is good, I like the idea of a player getting 'injured' when they whinge about the game not being posted :p
You could injure them for being too pro-aussie in the ashes!
 
Top Bottom