I was actually thinking of a modern Test draft, players must have had their debut no earlier than 1990 or something like that. I'm happy with whatever though.

Now that Melbourne and Sydney have two teams how are people deciding which to support, geographical reasons?

I don't think most people support any of the made up franchises they just go watch a game when they can.

Im not from a 2 team state so I dont really know.

I would assume it would be whichever team your favourite player played for if anything.

At the Sydney game about 40% of the crowd was obviously going for the 6ers, 20% going for the Thunder and 40% neutral at least in terms of wearing team gear etc...

Interestingly even though the Sixers and the Thunder play in different stadiums, outside the ground there were membership booths for both teams to sign up which I thought was curious.

in for any draft

+1

I'd be in for any draft though

DonkDonkDonkDonk
ashley12
muttiah
PlzBeALevel
Dennis Denuto
and me.

We have 6, any more?

I'm in for a draft if I can.

If we are capping from the 1980's or whatever I wouldnt want more then about 8-10 but entire history we can basically do as many as would be in.

SixFour might be in (he usually does the other drafts for NFL and football

I prefer all eras because the player pool is so deep and I like researching about old players. But I'm in regardless.

Definitely has to include everyone post ww2. I'd guess that at least half of the top 15 to be players who played between 1945-1985. Or we could make it after the obvious no 1 draft picks retirement to make things more interesting. The cool thing about test cricket is that it hasn't changed much at all. Even the standard hasn't got that much better imo, except for fielding. So this should make for a pretty good draft.

Given that obvious number 1's last tour was 1948 I think that makes sense.

I'd be in for a draft, although I might be better as a co-owner if we have a short timer (<12 hours) as I'm probably not active enough to keep up with that.

i'm going on a ski trip from friday onwards for a week and i have no idea what level of internet i would have so if you're thinking of running it then, i'd have to be out.

ICC, please make DRS mandatory. Cricket is suffering.

I'd love to be in a draft, can't do it until Tuesday though!

Man any player from history is gonna have people choosing players from the 20s.

I dont wanna do research lol.

Weird spot in last nights 20/20 Big Bash Game between Perth Scorchers and Melbourne Stars

We batted first and made basically nothing (All out for 69 IIRC, Malinga took 6/7)

The batted second and were 0/29 after two overs, with Luke Wright particularly owning us.

However then the rain came down really badly (It had been drizzling throught the day and the game, pitch was in pretty bad shape at this point) and by the time covers came down a lot of water had gone on the pitch.

Game is stopped for about an hour or so, and Im actually in a pretty good mood because we all know its 5 overs that constitute a match, and we might get the second most bull**** draw of all time (just behind the England vs Pakistan game from the 1992 World Cup)

However, because the D/L target for none down after 5 overs is 6, and they have already surpassed that, they bowl one more ball, abandon the game, and award the game to the Stars.

We obviously deserve nothing from the game, since we were getting absolutely slaughtered, but still I was certain that it took 5 overs to constitute a match, and obviously had the score been a little bit closer where we could take 2 or 3 wickets to bring the D/L target up it would have been an interesting spot.

I was weird. It makes sense from the point of view of the 5 over target being reached, so it's game over. What is odd is that they had to actually bowl one ball, rather than declare a win when the umpires were convinced they would have played had more runs been needed and this 5-over min rule. You could argue that they should have played the 5 overs, as the batting side could have suddenly got bowled out, but if it's the rule then it's the rule - even if none of the players or commentators knew what the rule was.

Also, England going for the slowest first day batting performance I can remember (and that's with Pieterson scoring half the runs).

Yeah, I think post WW2 would be a could cut off.

Sounds like a couple of people can't do it this week and with Christmas coming up maybe we should leave it until the new year?

Sounds like they mostly got it right but that there was no need for the additional ball to be bowled. If the game was reduced so that the team batting second would face 5 overs, their target for the end of 5 overs would have been set and already reached.

There's no requirement for them to actually face 5 overs - if it was a 5 overs a side game, then the team batting second would not have to face all of their 5 overs if they reached the target in say 4.3 overs.

Can't think why they needed to bowl the extra ball though. Proof that the conditions were playable maybe?

lol yeah it was wierd to bowl the extra ball. It was like the umpires had to prove that play was possible.

I guess the confusing thing was thinking that 5 overs had to be played, whereas it seems like it's just that the min target is a 5 over target.

After new years is good but il be busy with Aussie mills so cant promise much

As per Cricinfo
Doesn't explain why the one ball was necessary