Player Roles

[Manny]

Some players don't get the right status. E.g Harry Gurney batsman on 08. Harry Gurney is an opening bowler. It would be great on 09 just to see the right roles given to the right players.

Any other examples?

Any news on improvment of this in 09?

[the_trademarc]

I'm sure this will be rectified. I remember for ages A. Gilchrist was listed as a Defensive batsman! Lol! I laughed every time a new ICC came out with that listing. They got it right in ICC3, then he retires the next year anyway.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything at the moment, but I'm sure there are a few around, and I'm sure they will be rectified

[SMX11FOX]

lol the harry gurney makes me laugh evertime i see him get a hundred, sam cliff is an opening batsmen according to the game (RFM irl). I can remember in a earlier game Darren Stevens was a bowler only :confused: its just laughable sometimes.

[abzi]

lol yh.. well in the last 1 as with the previous 1z deve had yuvraj listed as defensive so i hope they sort this out 2

[Spinninggenius]

Dan Birch is an all rounder, when he is an opening batter
Garry Park is a wicket keeper, when in fact he is an all rounder
Graham Wagg and Jamie Pipe are both defensive batsmen

[Manny]

yh. all good examples. These should really be sorted out. Should not be liek this in a game..

[Imager36]

At Sussex, Rory Hamilton-Brown is listed as an opener but he is a batting all-rounder.

Sussex isn't really as much of a problem, possibly because Sureshot is closely linked with the club.

[dhoni87]

shoiab malik is bowler when he actually is a all-rounder,same with irfan pathan i feel. Rohit Sharma is not a so good bowler that he should be a all-rounder in that case yuvraj and raina should also be all-rounders.

[Ausathon]

LOL let us not forget that ANDREW HALL is apparantly a wicket keeper batsman in this game haha.

[the_trademarc]

Yeah and one I just noticed. S. Badrinath is listed as an opening batsman. I don't follow Indian cricket much but I believe he is more of a middle order batsman.

[ICClover]

The game has Misbah ul-Haq as a keeper/batter

Mohammed Asif used to be an all-rounder, thank god that is fixed now.

Imran Nazir is an opener in limited overs games

I do hope we can see some differentials in this game for players who open in 1 form but not in others (like Sehwag, Imran Nazir, Kamran Akmal, Luke Wright, Ravi Bopara, Brad gaddin etc etc).

[Manny]

Marlon Samuels and Chris Gayle should be all rounders

[the_trademarc]

Ooooh I think Gayle should still be a batsman. An all-rounder is one who will bowl in every game. Gayle only bowls because there is no one else in the team good enough to make up overs. A poor sign of West Indies cricket as it is.

As for Marlon Samuels, perhaps, but didn't he get done for chucking? Or was that drug related? I can't remember. Either way he's suspended at the moment from memory

[Cyril Washbrook]

As long as Gayle's bowling skill in the game appropriately matches his ability in real life, then it doesn't really make a difference whether he's defined as a batsman or a bowler. There are more glaring errors than that in the game.

[the_trademarc]

That's an interesting point you make Cyril. Playing as Australia, I use M. Clarke as my frontline spinner (play 4 quicks + Watson). I pick up a bunch of 5-for, 6-for and 7-fors with Clarkey consistently, but they cost me 4-5 an over. (These are Test Matches).

To me, Clarkey's often used just as a stop gap bowler, make up the overs, and is generally pretty efficient without picking up big hauls. (Aside from the two major instances, against the best players of spin, supposedly).

In ICC2008, it is not uncommon to have him with figures like 24-0-109-5, not the 14-6-41-1 that you would expect.

I'm not sure whether thats more due to the fact that he is used as a frontline spinner and not a P/T, but just food for thought

[ICClover]

Fawad Alam is just a batter in the game, but I use him as my 3rd spinner a lot (I have 1 frontline spinner, plus Afridi). By 2013, I have used him in 60 or so tests, he has over 120 wickets at under 30. Other batsmen I use to make up overs don’t do anything so I like that his bowling ability is reflected. However, it would be nice if in the profile of such players, it would say “part time bowler” – that was we wont need players like Gayle and Alam to be made all-rounders.

[Manny]

As long as Gayle's bowling skill in the game appropriately matches his ability in real life, then it doesn't really make a difference whether he's defined as a batsman or a bowler. There are more glaring errors than that in the game.

In theory, it makes it easier to distinguish between an all rounder and a batsman that can bowl...

[the_trademarc]

In theory, yes, but the beauty of the game is the realistic aspect to it. Finding out things about certain players that are not overly obvious.

In reality, guys like Clarke, Katich, Gayle, Jayasuriya, Tendulkar, etc. would not have become recongised decent P/T bowlers without being given a go.
Same goes for ICC

[Cyril Washbrook]

In theory, it makes it easier to distinguish between an all rounder and a batsman that can bowl...
I'm with trademarc on this one. For instance, take Katich. While he was playing for Western Australia, he was considered to be purely a batsman. Then he moved to NSW... and started bowling in matches a bit. All of a sudden he was capturing six and seven wicket hauls. Moreover, the divisions between "batsmen who can bowl" and "all-rounders" are always going to be a bit blurred anyway. It's about experimenting a bit and working out which players are going to be useful bowlers even if they haven't got the red ball next to their name.

[grant28]

yeah the yuvraj one and shoaib malik one stick in my mind the most.

[ragniblov]

i don't know if this is actually possible in the other games, but would it be possible, if you gave a batsman lots of bowling technique training for example, would he eventually become an all rounder?

[Scritty]

I have tried this. It works to an extent.

Everyone has (I believe) a maximum ability level at both main disciplines. If you train a batter in bowling he will indeed improve..but only to the maximum that seems pre-set (but hidden)

Some become very good.


Chris has got Mitchell of Worcester (amongst others) spot on. He opens the batting, and this is his only advertised skill, but in cloudy conditions his 75mph stuff is really very effective. In first class..where batters can play every ball on merit, he is not so effective, in OD's he's pretty good, but never gets acknowledged as an allrounder.

There are many like this in the game, and they do all benefit from skill training, but only to the "hidden maximum" pre set when they are generated.

I find not picking any bowlers or for the international friendly that most County sides play mid summer (and means very little) is a good ploy. Use "Autoplay"..and the AI will then pretty much show you who the better bowlers are (i'ts not infallable, but if it shows someone does pretty well, then persevere with them)

Likewise, when you are Test captain, send all your keepers into the test match, and see which player the AI picks to replace them in your county matches that are auto played in your absence..that's probably your best "backup" keeper. Not certainly..but a good pointer.

I like finding out how good my players are, and "testing" them like this is a good way.In real life it would really show you who could cut the mustard, but you would use training games and pre-season games for it. Sadly ICC does not give you these, so these methods can be useful in their stead.

Paul

[Sureshot]

Yes, we do make mistakes on occasions. Got no problem in admitting that, sometimes it is down to opinion, other times it is wrong. Sometimes it is down to a genuine mistakes with the process, rather than thinking a No3 is a bowler.

It is a large database, and with about 3,000 players, we will make mistakes. I'd hope this years is seen as an improvement by you all, as I've done a lot of it. Unfortunately last year, any player type errors couldn't be resolved quickly due to the issues we had regarding patches.

[aus5892]

Sometimes there are bugs too with the errors. Cullen Bailey for example, he was a bowler in the database file but the game changed him to an opening batsman. That was no one's fault, it was just a glitch.

[dan3634]

I just saw in the screenshots that Mitchell Johnson was listed as a bowler. Surely a test 90 and 100 and battting average in the mid 30s qualifies him as an all rounder?

what would be a cool feature would be say if you had a bowler and you invested a lot of time into his batting and he improves a lot, once his stats reflect it like a 25 average with the bat they should change from pure bowler to all rounder imo ie like mitch jonhson.

[the_trademarc]

Yeah but Mitch Johnson is in the team predominately for his bowling. He is not selected as an all rounder.
And one 100 and one 90 doesn't mean you're an all rounder. Granted I'm a big fan of his, but can you compare him to Shane Watson, Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, etc?

In today's world, the majority of tailenders can bat properly, and we see more and more 50's made by 9, 10 and 11. Using your logic, guys like H. Singh, Z. Khan, C. Vaas should all be all-rounders.
In reverse, M.Clarke, C.Gayle, etc. Every player can both bat and bowl , at the end of the day, they should be listed as what they are selected for.

[aus5892]

Johnson could be considered an all-rounder but you wouldn't find too many sources that would actually list him as one.