Changes and Ideas for Season 12 (read the first post or you'll get an infraction)

Discussion in 'CricSim Cricket' started by Cribbage, Apr 22, 2012.

Page 28 of 31

  1. stupersteve03 SJ Cambridge

    That is why we have a whole seasons notice...
     
    stupersteve03, Aug 21, 2012
    #541

  2. Cribbage RG Cribb

    Something I've been considering for a while is giving all players a small boost at the home ground on their junior club, as they'd be familiar with the conditions. This would encourage players to stay there as they'd get to play half their matches with that boost rather than just one a season, and it'd reward clubs for bringing their juniors through the grades up to the BS.
     
    Cribbage, Aug 21, 2012
    #542

  3. AVA T Delonge

    And the other signing was a spinner, when we went the whole season before that with just Hughesy as our spinner...
     
    AVA, Aug 21, 2012
    #543

  4. Cribbage RG Cribb

    Yeah. You basically replaced Hughes with Welker, and then replaced Devonshire with Hughesy. Gazza replaced Storer. And the rest of your squad remained as is.
     
    Cribbage, Aug 21, 2012
    #544

  5. Ari PM Jackson

    Re-signing with the Crusaders. :ph34r:
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
    Ari, Aug 21, 2012
    #545

  6. Skippos SM Morgan

    I think this is key.

    As much as the proposed change has a lot of merit - I reckon it'll 'keep the status quo' as such.

    Teams that have a plethora of the, let's say 75th-95th best players in the comp - who are BS standard but just not very good - i.e. the rays with Logan, Lee, Dafter, Das, Cambridge (<_<) etc. won't really be 'allowed' to bring in capable replacements - as all four of those lads are probably in the best 99 players in the comp, so pushing them into ALC is discouraged. Fact of the matter is, with them in the lineup a team like the rays, save for any ridiculous improvement in the aforementioned individuals, won't be able to progress.

    On the flip side - a retention based system with nobody being forced out means a team/teams that currently have awesome first elevens/BS standard players in ALC aren't going to be at a disadvantage. Two good examples are the 'Stars and the Vipers. The Vipers seem to be a loyal bunch and I can't see any of the main core group (first XI minus hughesy, really, plus fiery/boland/nova/witters) wanting to leave. Given that other clubs won't be able to 'improve their weaker links' unless the weaker link is in fact an ALC standard player - it'll be pretty hard to challenge them, given they're a loyal bunch and nobody of substance really seems to be leaving or thinking about it.

    Then there are the 'stars who have awesome depth in ALC, with the problem of BS standard players in ALC already there. Given the 'solution' is a future fix, they're not going to be affected and can continue to re-sign these guys. If someone chose to leave, they've got the BS standard replacement handy already (unless it's a keeper, I guess) and they're not going to suffer much.

    As a Stingray I'm really not worried as something I'm majorly worried about is retention and this system will help us in retaining our 'young talent' - by the end of next season I do believe a lot of our mid season signings will be ready to play BS and continue to grow - and in retaining them we'll be able to improve on our weak BS links from within - so personally I'm not worried, but I am for clubs like the 'Saders and 'Clones who have a bit of young talent but not a huge amount - so for them to improve from within they'd depend on inactives becoming active or signing some new lads who turn out to be good, active members of the forum. Given that new talent is fair game too - they're only going to get 1/6 at best of the new members. So it'll be pretty hard for them to improve from within unless they (like us this season, I guess) get some really gun, active new signings - and it'll take time for them to develop. Given that, as mentioned previously they'd be discouraged from recruiting someone like Hunt, it'll be pretty hard for them to really improve without utilising the market and stealing some guns, IMO. Same for the 'Clones, and to a degree clubs like the Gamblers and Stickies who'll have a lot of activity based decline occur soon.

    Just my two cents. A flip side is the likely addition of a new side in season 13 which will see a lot of movement happening - and therefore gaps being filled, I guess; but then again that could cause problems in itself. (if this isn't allowed then edit this out but I don't see an issue as it's hypothetical) - Say Gazza left for the lions. Given that really, The Vipers don't have much bowling depth in Witters/Winney as the replacements, it'd probably give them just cause according to the changes to recruit a BS standard bowling AR from somewhere else - thus they'd not decline much due to a weak ALC team but other clubs would - defeating the purpose of the 'change' - but then again I have no idea how the integration of a 10th club will affect the market so I can't comment on it, for all I know it could stabilise it and allow this 'change' to prosper. But it could also further imbalance the comp and with this change in place the imbalance would just be increased.

    tl;dr don't read this
     
    Skippos, Aug 21, 2012
    #546

  7. Athlai JJD Heads

    Jesus Christ Skippos why on Earth would you write so much on the subject
     
    Athlai, Aug 21, 2012
    #547

  8. Hunter AD Hunt

    I like how I'm being used as an example. Especially since no one is interested in me. :p
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
    Hunter, Aug 21, 2012
    #548

  9. Gazza GJ Weaver

    Sucking on Cribb's cock etc.
     
    Gazza, Aug 21, 2012
    #549

  10. Mike ML Martyn

    Far out, Skip.
     
    Mike, Aug 21, 2012
    #550

  11. Howe JHF Howe

    The other thing that people haven't really mentioned yet is that recruitment is so frigging hard to get right.

    There are always people saying they might come but never commit, people who forget about arrangements and make new ones, people who are hard to track down and you've no idea what they're doing, and of course people who just go ahead and lie for the sake of it.

    I think a lot of the time, what ends up being unnecessary recruitment is people trying to play safe in a very tricky situation to get right.
     
    Howe, Aug 21, 2012
    #551

  12. Cevno IV Narang

    What about clubs owned by oil tycoons though, that can pay ALC players enough and distort the market?
     
    Cevno, Aug 21, 2012
    #552

  13. Cribbage RG Cribb

    Players like that would only count for half or something (except for Steve), so I think you'd probably be fine to bring in another batsman. Those are basically fringe players, so as long as you didn't end up with too many players in ALC and I actually came up with a system that worked properly, you'd still be able to improve on that. I personally don't think you should tbh, but I don't think the points system would legislate you out of it as such.

    I'm just going to go out and give a proper example, because this isn't so much gossip as it is a serious discussion. I'm talking about things like the team with the best batting lineup in the competition losing a batsman ranked ~ 30 and attempting replacing him with two top 15 batsmen, resulting in a man who was in the top 20 of the Season 11 rankings being dropped to ALC. That's just so obviously pointless. It wouldn't even make them a noticeably better side; it'd just give them slightly better depth in the 1% chance of injury, and weaken the competition as a whole. These are the sort of things that club usen't to ever do because, while they were all concerned primarily about themselves, they didn't recruit with blinkers on and completely ignore the repercussions. They'll dress it up as trying to chase down the Vipers but that sort of recruitment wasn't going to do that anyway; they already have them beat on the batting front and new signings aren't going to do better than the middle order bats they already had. That's the sort of thing the points system would rule out, by giving them - lets say a 4.0/5.0 rating for c'd BS standard middle order batsmen, and only allowing them to recruit one more.
     
    Cribbage, Aug 21, 2012
    #553

  14. Cribbage RG Cribb

    There are salary caps in reality, at least in the sports I follow anyway. :p
     
    Cribbage, Aug 21, 2012
    #554

  15. Furball G Furball

    Because guys like Dean Shiels will earn more money at Rangers than they would at Kilmarnock and have the security of a longer contract.
     
    Furball, Aug 21, 2012
    #555

  16. Eggman DA Eggman

    Bring in trades and Multi-season contracts.


    Problem solved.
     
    Eggman, Aug 21, 2012
    #556

  17. Furball G Furball

    For an example like that why not just enforce a one out, one in policy?
     
    Furball, Aug 21, 2012
    #557

  18. Verigoat S Verigotta

    Because no one would ever leave the Saders
     
    Verigoat, Aug 21, 2012
    #558

  19. Speirz DG Speirs

    Been doing this of my own accord since day one. This days it has become more and more obvious to me though that you need to be a bit of a cunt to compete though. Recruiting someone so that another team doesn't have them has become almost as important as recruiting them for yourselves.
     
    Speirz, Aug 21, 2012
    #559

  20. Cribbage RG Cribb

    Yeah, I didn't really phrase that very well. What I meant was, from Season 1 up until three seasons ago, that's what happened. We've seen a slow shift away from that in the last three seasons though, as we've had some presidency changes, and pretty much every club has got the rep of at least one "dog poach", so there's not much goodwill.
     
    Cribbage, Aug 21, 2012
    #560
Page 28 of 31

Share This Page