h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd like to have a consultation about how this season has gone, so any ideas over here are very welcome. First of all, though, for those of you that don't know my movements well, I'd like to explain about my summers and why I have time pressures which affect what I can put into FK.

I run a large hotel in Torquay, but in the summer I take on a second job running nature camps for children. This means I'm away from home for 3-4 days a week for most of the cricket season, and most of the rest of my time is spent with my partner or working at the hotel. When I decided to run this competition, I had to consider this; hence the closed transfer windows for selling players and changing captains and so on. I need to make this comprehensive, but also easy to run in terms of time. I've succeeded in the former, but probably not the latter.

So within that consideration, I'm open to ideas for next season. I'd particularly like some help from B on designing a spreadsheet for the scoring; I know you told me so, but the start of season leapt upon me and all of a sudden it was too late.

Regarding the scoring, I think it's fairly balanced as it is, with one exception - catches. The points for the wicketkeepers seem too high - in every team bar one, the wickie is in the top four scorers. A batsman scoring a century is currently outscored by a keeper taking four catches in a match, which can't be right. The best way I can see around this is to give one point for catches to wicketkeepers alone, and award one for a stumping as well. No other player would score for a catch. Captains aside, I don't think it makes much difference to the scoring anyway; points for catches lean towards the batsman slightly, but are as much points for turning up as anything. Removing the points for catches would encourage people to choose all-rounders for their side to act as captains, as they would only score double for their 'other' discipline - you'd only benefit from the captaincy points if you had a batsman who can bowl, or vice-versa. I would also say that it's the longest part of the job, scrolling through the scorecard looking for catches taken.

I like the squad system, even though it is difficult to handle at times. It does need refining, though - I'd perhaps set a limit of fourteen per squad, and allow captains to have any number of batsmen/bowlers up to this limit rather than forcing you to have one of each at least.

Does anyone else have any suggestions, criticisms or ideas? How about giving Andy a handicap at the start of the season?

Now that people have seen which players score points I don't think there's much need to handicap anyone ... I can't believe I got away with signing Darren Maddy for such a low price though.

I think the rule changes you suggest about catches sound good - makes it easier and ensures people go for all-rounders. With wicketkeepers maybe a stumping should be worth two points? Perhaps there should also be some way of increasing the points for scoring 200, 300 etc. - although this might favour Somerset... If you were to do that then maybe you could consider more points for a bowler who takes 10 wickets in a match?

I wondered also whether you could include tour matches, since overseas tests are included, but this would probably be biased in some way...

Anything which favours Somerset will be considered

I think that's a good idea regarding the stumpings, as you'll only get those points if your wickie is actually playing for his county in that position. I'm quite keen to ensure there is balance between batting and bowling scores, but I don't think this is the case at the moment, looking at the championship scores alone:

Only one batsman has scored over 100 points; two wicketkeepers and five bowlers have achieved the same feat.

Eighteen bowlers have scored 50-100 points compared to eleven batsmen and seven wicketkeepers (bearing in mind there is only one wickie per team!)

Of the thirteen playing, nine wickies have scored 50 or more points.

In addition, if you look at the high-scoring batsmen most have gained extra points through being part-time bowlers or all-rounders, or have benefited from captaincy points. None of the high-scoring bowlers have, with the exception of Warne.

The difference is more pronounced in limited overs, where a batsman is less likely to score heavily than a bowler is to take a wicket. To some extent I think this reflects the game, as tight bowling is arguably more important than flashy bating, but the scoring in the Twenty20 was dominated almost completely by the ball.

This all shows that wicketkeepers are definitely overpowered. Under the new system, Nic Pothas would have scored 46 points this season, not 66 - putting him alongside Justin Langer and Jacques Rudolph, for example, which I think is a fairer reflection of his performance.

To return to the batsmen being undervalued, I don't want to go down the road of giving batsman points for scoring in increments of 25, which would be the obvious solution. This would make checking scores more of a hassle, because at the moment it's quite easy for me to check a player's total by checking his overall stats for the season (presuming he hasn't moved in or out of the team, of course). Perhaps increasing the points for batsmen would be the answer, maybe to five for each completed half-century and ten for a century? Without bonus points, this would make a century equivalent to a five-fer.

Tests, home and overseas, are included to reflect time spent away from the County and ensure that teams are not handicapped too much by the absence of key men. Only a few Counties play in tour matches each year; only Somerset and Sussex would have played in scoring matches this year. If I was to include tour matches, there would be an argument that first class matches against Universities and the like should also count, so I'd rather quietly drop that idea

Did we ever have the discussion about two innings of, say, 48 and 45 being potentially as good as two innings of, for example, 51 and 3 for a player? Wouldn't get anything for the first example but to my mind he's not done too badly for his team.

I have to say that I still think my gut instinct of - say - a point for every ten runs and three points for a wicket (with appropriate bonuses) would make a bit more sense.

B

I hate to say this but i agree ewith Mu Beta *quickly washes mouth out*

although as i probably wont b appearing next season it doesnt count for much.

I agree B, although I'd still like to see some kind of points recognition for a 50, 100, 150 etc.

Maybe you could reward a batsman for every run he scores, with bonuses for 50s and 100s.

This would make the scoring work in a higher order, admittedly but would satisfy those like MB asking for scoring to accumulate at a lower increment (so that 40s get suitably rewarded) and also would accommodate Skanks' requirement to be easily back countable. e.g.,

A batsman with July stats of 1000 runs incl. 2 hundreds and 4 fifties. Easy to tally his score across the month yes?

Then, modify the bowler's scoring to suit this based on the stats, wherein a fifer = a century batted.

So at the start, it was too complicated, and now you want a more complex scoring system...

I've already ruled out batsmen scoring at lower increments, partly because of the extra time it would take and partly for the ease of checking. It would be lovely to have a perfect representation of a player's performance through the season, taking into account every run scored or a bowler bowling tightly and so on, but I don't have time to be that comprehensive. It takes me four to six hours every week as it is! In any case, on an individual level the essence of batting is in scoring fifties and hundreds, being able to convert good starts into big scores. If you've got a batsman who keeps getting out in the thirties and forties, I don't think he deserves to score any points for them. Points per run or per ten would be fine for the Twenty20, where batsmen score far fewer fifties and hundreds, but not through the weekly competition.

I could introduce a one-off bonus award for batsmen who reach, say, 1,000 runs over the campaign. This would reward those top batsmen who score consistently well, regardless of scores made in each innings, across the whole season. This would separate the achievements of a Trescothick, with three centuries and three fifties, from that of a Patel with the same - Tresco has scored nearly 400 more runs than Patel in the Championship this season.

Tell you what - we could try a points per run system for the Twenty20 World Cup, if enough players are interested. It goes like this:

Batting: One point per run, bonus of 25 at 50 and 50 at 100 (cumulative; a century would be worth 175 points, just reward for a rare Twenty20 feat).

Bowling: Twenty points per wicket, bonus of 50 for a five-fer.

Catches and stumpings: Five points for either by team's elected wicketkeeper.

Captains: Score double at everything in this version, just to keep it easy.

If I can do all the scoring from stat tables and this works as a trial, I'll consider something similar for next season

I need at least half a dozen players to give it a go, but the more the merrier. We'd need to move fast as well, as the first game is in less than a fortnight - any help in drawing up player lists would be appreciated Email me asap if you're interested, especially if you can spare an hour or so to help set it up.

Wouldnt it just be easier to declare your interest here?

No, because I'm at work until midnight and have to log on to reply, which is bloody inconvenient The sooner I know if we've got enough, the sooner I can crack on.

Logging off again now...