SuperSelector: New: Aus vs Eng ODI, ICC World Cricket League Division , SA vs WI Tests

[MundaPakistani]

Big thank you and well done to Varun. SS is awesome!

[varun]

Big thank you and well done to Varun. SS is awesome!

Thanks MP. Just got back from work/dinner ! Phew.. and it's already 10 PM ! lol.. No matter, hopefully should have some sorta sub mechanism in the next hour or so.. Watch this space.

[apocalypse]

Varun: Please add Ben Hilfenhaus to the Australian Squad thanks

[varun]

Varun: Please add Ben Hilfenhaus to the Australian Squad thanks

Added

[varun]

Thanks MP. Just got back from work/dinner ! Phew.. and it's already 10 PM ! lol.. No matter, hopefully should have some sorta sub mechanism in the next hour or so.. Watch this space.

Well things are becoming a bit more complicated than I expected, so will continue tomorrow.

[varun]

UPDATE !! SUBSTITUTIONS AVAILABLE. It costs a fixed 50 points per substitution. Use the standard [-] and [+] links to add substitutions, and [x] to remove any temporary substitutions. If you are wondering what the "Substitution Adjustments" are, they are there to compensate for you choosing a new player who has a lot of points already (negative adjustment), or if you are dropping a player who got you a lot of points for someone new (positive adjustment). Basically, if you are currently on 1000 points, and you make a substitution, you go to 950 points regardless of who you substitute. Note: I wasn't planning on doing this tonight, but due to a busy schedule tomorrow decided to spend some of my night-time on it and finish it off. It was a bit of a rush job so if you encounter bugs, PLEASE LET ME KNOW !

[coffee_rules]

UPDATE !! SUBSTITUTIONS AVAILABLE. It costs a fixed 50 points per substitution.

Thanks. Was stuck with Asif and Sehwag.

[apocalypse]

Thanks. Was stuck with Asif and Sehwag.

aur agar kal sehwag khel gaya to?

[Dravid]

prob wont.. so its -50 for a positive sub too??damn... :P

[Ram]

Varun, i am not sure how relevant it is to have SRs in test matches and i dont think i have to explain why i say that.

[varun]

Varun' date=' i am not sure how relevant it is to have SRs in test matches and i dont think i have to explain why i say that.[/quote'] I've set the par strike rate for Test matches to be very low at 0.4. Also you'll find the containment weight is very low for Test matches. Anyway, let a few matches finish, and we'll revisit the scoring and see if the scores look disproportionate to our view of the person's performance

[Ram]

Cool.

[varun]

Varun' date=' i am not sure how relevant it is to have SRs in test matches and i dont think i have to explain why i say that.[/quote'] Actually thought about it again. Point noted. I've changed the formula slightly. Am using the containmentWeight to calculate the strike-rate bonus. See first post on this thread to see how Batting points are calculated for details. This will only affect the scores of all Super Selector Matches from NOW ON !!

[Ram]

Actually thought about it again. Point noted. I've changed the formula slightly. Am using the containmentWeight to calculate the strike-rate bonus. See first post on this thread to see how Batting points are calculated for details. This will only affect the scores of all Super Selector Matches from NOW ON !!

Thanks for that. Just checked the formula, What is the "runs scored more than 100 , runs scored more than 50 part ? So an innings of 100 off 200 balls with 8 fours and 2 sixes will fetch the batsman 100 + .3( 100-200*.4) + 8*4 + 2*6 = 159 points ? Is that how it works ?

[varun]

Thanks for that. Just checked the formula, What is the "runs scored more than 100 , runs scored more than 50 part ? So an innings of 100 off 200 balls with 8 fours and 2 sixes will fetch the batsman 100 + .3( 100-200*.4) + 8*4 + 2*6 = 159 points ? Is that how it works ?

Well you got the first part right, the bonus for fours and sixes isn't as high as you show there. The "more than 100, more than 50" part shows the bonus a batsman gets for reaching landmarks. For tests it's 10 points for a century and 5 points for a 50. So the above test-match scenario will fetch: 100 + .3 ( 100 - 200*.4) + 8*0.2 + 2*0.5 (0.2 bonus for each four, 0.5 bonus for each six.. this is for test matches) + 10 (for reaching a century) = 100 + 6 + 1.6 + 1 + 10 = 118.6 points

[Ram]

so, a 99 of 85 balls with 8 fours and 2 sixes will get the batsman 116.9 While a 100 of 200 balls with 8 fours and 2 sixes fetches him 118.6 Not that fair, if you ask me.

[varun]

so, a 99 of 85 balls with 8 fours and 2 sixes will get the batsman 116.9 While a 100 of 200 balls with 8 fours and 2 sixes fetches him 118.6 Not that fair, if you ask me.

Actually it will fetch him 126.1. 99(85) : 99 + .3 (99 - 85*.4) + 8*0.2 + 2*0.5 + 5 = 99 + 19.5 + 1.6 + 1 + 5 = 126.1 I agree it isn't too fair either, but I've taken this step because of your suggestion MM :D In the previous scenario, the SR was given too much importance, and in this 0.3 is a bit too much of a nullifying factor I guess. If we take away the bonus points for centuries/half-centuries: 100(200) : 106.9 99(85) : 121.1 That's a bit more fair I guess, but I'd still like to give "some" bonus points for landmarks as they do play on the morale and psyche of the team. Also, maybe a containmentWeight of 0.5 would be good for tests. That would result in : 100(200) : 100 + .5 ( 100 - 200*.4) + 8*0.2 + 2*0.5 + 10 = 100 + 10 + 1.6 + 1 + 10 = 122.6 99(85) : 99 + .5 ( 99 - 85*.4) + 8*0.2 + 2*0.5 + 10 = 99 + 32.5 + 1.6 + 1 + 5 = 139.1 Doing away with the bonus points for centuries/half centuries would result in: 100(200) : 112.6 99(85) : 134.1 Again, remember these are tests (as you rightly pointed out above), so the Strike Rate is important, but not *that* important. Importance of landmarks (100's and 50's) is debatable however.

[Ram]

Aaah... i forgot to add the 5 for his 50.. :D Now that i think of it, i would actually stick withe ContainmentWeight of .3 A cw of .5 gives too much importance to the SR, which in my opinion arent that big a factor in tests. For eg, in the 2002 Leeds test against Ind and Eng, Sanjay Bangar's 68 off 236 balls fetches 67.2 while Michael Vaughan's 61 off 116 gets hi m 72.08. But Bangar's innings was terribly important. Another factor, In one-dayers, there must be some consideration given the top-order and tailender wickets that are taken. Eg - A Harbhajan doing a 10 overs, 38 runs and the wicket of Mohammed Yousuf will probably score lesser than say RP Singh who does 10 overs 49 runs and 2 tail end wickets in the last over.

[varun]

Aaah... i forgot to add the 5 for his 50.. :D Now that i think of it, i would actually stick withe ContainmentWeight of .3 A cw of .5 gives too much importance to the SR, which in my opinion arent that big a factor in tests. For eg, in the 2002 Leeds test against Ind and Eng, Sanjay Bangar's 68 off 236 balls fetches 67.2 while Michael Vaughan's 61 off 116 gets hi m 72.08. But Bangar's innings was terribly important.

Glad you agree with the current system

Another factor, In one-dayers, there must be some consideration given the top-order and tailender wickets that are taken. Eg - A Harbhajan doing a 10 overs, 38 runs and the wicket of Mohammed Yousuf will probably score lesser than say RP Singh who does 10 overs 49 runs and 2 tail end wickets in the last over.

That's a good point, although implementing it will be slightly involved. Will put this in my todolist for some other time.

[fineleg]

Please get rid of the bonus for Landmarks...IMO a 48 or a 50 not too different. A 95 or 100 not too different. Landmark is in our "minds"...lets not give special points - you have to work hard for a 48 or 98 as well. A 48 in 46 balls should be more important than a 50 in 60 balls (for ODIs)