Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

No, I mean if two players bid, and one bid is higher, the highest instantly wins.

Having to buy thirty players in a short space of time means we need to hurry it along.

sussexpob wrote:No, I mean if two players bid, and one bid is higher, the highest instantly wins.

Having to buy thirty players in a short space of time means we need to hurry it along.

For me the problem is the second round where your are a bit static and unaware how to plan because you don't know what cash you will have. Round two is a little redundant.

Unless a tie is made on bid amount, the player should be won.

I think it adds the interesting dynamic of how much people will bid knowing they have no other chance....it opens it up to more tactical approaches

I'm happy to take part again.

I'm not too bothered about how the player allocation system will work this season, I'll go with whatever is agreed. But to chuck two things in there, which spring to mind:

- A bigger budget per person at the start allows for more players to be bid on (assuming that people don't put in stupidly high unrealistic bids for a small handful of players), and thus less of a need to allocate players around at the end (as so long as more players are allocated after round one, then people know where they stand a bit more - both in terms of remaining cash, and remaining squad places - when it comes to the later rounds).

- I don't see why 30 players has to be must, given the right player allocation system overall. If people do want to spend a lot of money on a handful of players, then absolutely fine. Just as long as they then end up with a smaller squad (or maybe the same sized squad, but filed with lots of rubbish £10k or £20k players for example who'll make two D2 appearances all season). I totally fail to see why people should be complaining about the risk of not being able to put a full XI. Both years which this has run, I have purposely gone to the effort of seeking to buy players from a range of teams, to limit the risk of suffering from a week where certain teams don't play. Similarly I tend to avoid anyone who plays international cricket. For me, this sort of planning is part of the game. And at the same time, I do go slightly over the top for some of the bigger players, and for this reason I have always been happy to accept having a small squad than people who prefer to spread their money more. That's only fair. It's just turned out to be the case that the rules have worked in such a way that I haven't needed to suffer from a smaller squad (ie due to running out of funds). But that doesn't mean that the rules can't change.

ianp1970 wrote:

sussexpob wrote:One thing I will say too, because I don't think people should get a second chance on a player after round one....

No matched bid in round 1 wins you a player outright....in fact no matched bid on any round should win the player.

This will help to get idea of squad numbers quicker, which is essential without the lottery

If you mean that if only one team bids for a player in any round then he's won, then I think you maybe onto something there.

Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

Surely that's correct, any bid in a round that no one else has bid on wins outright, but isn't that how it was last year?

sussexpob wrote:

sussexpob wrote:No, I mean if two players bid, and one bid is higher, the highest instantly wins.

Having to buy thirty players in a short space of time means we need to hurry it along.

For me the problem is the second round where your are a bit static and unaware how to plan because you don't know what cash you will have. Round two is a little redundant.

Unless a tie is made on bid amount, the player should be won.

I think it adds the interesting dynamic of how much people will bid knowing they have no other chance....it opens it up to more tactical approaches

agreed, I think that makes sense

also perhaps we should be allowed to overbid, i.e. post your bids in order of priority but, given that we know we will likely be outbid for some players, there is no limit on the bidding. Once you've used all your cash though, then obviously your remaining bids of lower priority become redundant

The suggestion from sussex does make sense, it will force managers to think more carefully about their bidding.

Ian, remind me.... what happens if a player goes out on loan during the season? I'm assuming that he still scores points, is that right?

I have an inkling of the team I'd like to bid for..... I just need confirmation of the bidding process and the amount available to spend... it's your competition.. you decide how you would like to proceed. I'm quite happy with whatever you feel is the right way to go

Durhamfootman wrote:Ian, remind me.... what happens if a player goes out on loan during the season? I'm assuming that he still scores points, is that right?

Durhamfootman wrote:I have an inkling of the team I'd like to bid for..... I just need confirmation of the bidding process and the amount available to spend... it's your competition.. you decide how you would like to proceed. I'm quite happy with whatever you feel is the right way to go

Will decide on the budget and format by the end of today.

I am currently minded to only allow over-bidding in the final round, but will probably go with Sussex suggestion of leading bid after each round gets the player.

We have 7 players so far, another 1 (or better still 3) would be ideal.

The first round deadlines will be 7pm Tuesday.

is Powelly in? he seems to like this game

if it turned out to be 8 players, that would relieve the time pressure to get under way, I would have thought. I confess I wasn't keen on the dummy teams from 2 years ago

Why footman? Did truemans trundles annihilate you too?

everybody annihilated me that year. I hadn't got up to speed then

Durhamfootman wrote:is Powelly in? he seems to like this game

Not yet.

Thank you for the invitation, Ian. I would be delighted to take part again. Last year was a lot of fun.