If they didn't make the finals not many would've heard of them. Being part of a successful team is so important to get recognised.
I know this team looks great statistically, I wouldn't really back them to be great irl. Depending on how realistically Cribb has been able to simulate rl this team could turn out worse than it seems.
A few very good players and then a few that Eds overrates IMO. Will go well but reliance on seemingly impressive Ranji players isn't the greatest of shouts, nor the worse though.
Not quite sure how you can say this, even though it may well be true. How many of Khadiwale, Tiwary, Bawne, Kusal Perera, Dhawan, Sadaf & Miller have you seen in domestic FC action? As for the rest of the side; Misbah, Kaushal, Mitch & Magoffin - I'm sure you'd agree they'd all go very well in a competition like this. I can only assume you're talking about Dhawan whose pick you really disagreed with, IIRC. I definitely appear to rate him higher than you do, but I also agree as a standalone pick he was way too early. But I don't regret picking him because it's given the team a really good balance. You told me at the time he'd be a bits and pieces player in this and I'm just fine with that. His role is to bat 7 and bowl 5 and I can afford to do that 'cause Kaushal gunna Kaushal. The idea wasn't to come into the draft and pick Indian players - but I'm also not surprised that, IMO, there's plenty of value in the Ranji (and in Asia) in this competition given the people drafting teams. I've tried to get variety in the side to make sure I'm well covered, but the guys I look for from the stronger domestic competitions are generally picked when they deserve to be, rather than sliding like some of the Indian domestic guys do. As for the point on reliance, I completely disagree. My picks from the Ranji were Khadiwale, Bawne, Tiwary & Dhawan. The first two were my R10 and R11 picks and I'm sure you'll agree we're not overly reliant on a guy who bats 7 and bowls 5 either. You could argue Tiwary but given we have one of the world's better Test batsmen and one of the world's best domestic accumulators, I don't think we're reliant on him either. The players you're referring to are all support players. Players I am relying on are Misbah, MJ, Magoff, and, perhaps particularly, Kaushal. I don't think you'll argue any of them won't do well.
Verigoat will call Johnson a girl while attending the trial match between your two sides, causing him to completely lose his line for the rest of the season. He's going to shunt it.
My main feeling is that while your team is great statistically, you've got two guys in your whole XI who have played more than a handful of Tests (MJ and Misbah). I probably shouldn't use my own team as an example due to me having an obvious bias towards my own team, but anyway: Your team's FC batting stats are drastically better than mine. However, I feel mine would actually go better IRL. As you say, I haven't actually seen most of the Indian guys, but the point remains they've only played in India (heavily batting-favoured conditions), against pitiful Indian domestic bowling. (Sub Sri Lanka etc for India where necessary). No doubt they're still great batsmen, but I feel they look a lot better than they actually are. I mean, if Bawne is really a 68-average-deserving batsman, he'd surely be playing for India (and dominating).
Also while Johnno is a weapon when firing, one great Test series isn't going to suddenly make him the leading wicket-taker in this. He'll be good due to him being Test-standard, but I don't feel he'll even be the best Aussie bowler in this.
Prez, your team is shit. I don't even know what it is but you picked Andrew Hall in like Round 3 so your opinion basically counts for jack
I singled out the Ranji specifically because that's where most of your picks have come from but the same point stands for both Sadaf and Miller too. I disagree that Dhawan gives you the balance you think it does because I don't think he's all that great as a number 7. He probably will be and I'll look silly when he averages 42 or something but I just don't see it. This team will compete because the stats are just so absurd. Like, the WI domestic competition is shite, the pitches are shite, Nikita Miller is actually pretty damn rank average but there's only so much you can compensate for a bloke averaging 5 across a season. Bawne was a good pick when you got him but I'm not convinced by Khadiwale regardless of the numbers. I think the point I was trying to make was that in comparison with other sides this side lacks Test experience and outside the few proven, genuine Test class players the rest of your side consists of weaker FC competition bullies.
It's a domestic competition. We chose to use our round 3 & 4 picks when Test players were still going on proven domestic performers. Kaushal's, IMO, proving that more and more right every time he bats, and Magoff would be a great second seam bowler at this level, even if he were picked a tad early. Which guys are you talking about in particular? Bawne, Kusal & Khadiwale? Misbah, Kaushal can obviously be pushed to one side, Dhawan can as well for the reasons I've highlighted in my post to Marcuss, and Tiwary's record is just a step above so I don't think you'd attack him. By the same logic; does this mean you really, really rate my bowling attack (whose weakest members are probably Dhawan and Sadaf)? I'm not really expecting Bawne to average 68 in this, if that's what you mean.
Prez is missing the point about the issue with Indian domestic cricket. The pitches are flat, yes, but it's only slightly batting heavy itbt. The far bigger issue is the number of teams, the general structure of it and the distribution of talent which means that the best players (either batsmen or bowlers) excel to absurd levels. You get bowlers averaging <23 and batsmen averaging 80+ across the season.
Even if he's not a great #7 we've got two number 8s and a number 9 in our tail. It's covered. Khadiwale was taken in round 11. I'm not expecting him to set the world alight. It does lack Test experience, yeah. I obviously think this means less in a one-off match against similar sides than you & Prez do.
Well, yeah, I get that. But when they do it across three of four seasons it's time to start thinking they're a bit good at cricket.
Yeah Eds I rate your team, my point is that if you looked at raw stats your batting is probably sitting comfortably ahead of any other. But I don't think your batting is comfortably better than any other. I do still feel my batting would go better IRL tbh, but I don't think it will in this and understandably so. I just hope someone like me doesn't get hopelessly outclassed due to players being overrated on FC stats. Don't think it'll happen though, I trust Cribb
Yeah Eds I rate your team, my point is that if you looked at raw stats your batting is probably sitting comfortably ahead of any other. But I don't think your batting is comfortably better than any other. I do still feel my batting would go better IRL tbh, but I don't think it will in this and understandably so. I just hope someone like me doesn't get hopelessly outclassed due to players being overrated on FC stats. Don't think it'll happen though, I trust Cribb
But the thing is someone like Nikita Miller patently isn't. He's pretty distinctly average. What would you expect him to average across an English county season?
I'm not suggesting that my batting deserves to be as far ahead of yours as the stats suggest. I don't think anyone just looks at those raw stats to judge a team, do they, really? Well, you're suggesting it'd go better IRL despite having never actually watched half my team play cricket. If you want to suggest their stats don't really reflect their ability then at least watch them play first.
