Yeah I was using your statement to make a general point about the fandoms. I think football is a more in-the-moment thing too, exciting while it happens but easily forgotten because there's always another El Clasico tomorrow. And of course you don't have half an hour during the game to debate whether 'Player A is the greatest since Player B', which you could quite conceivably do while watching the cricket and not miss much.
I think that in football there is simply a much greater tendency to accept players for the genius they present within a team environment, rather than the comparatively individual sport of cricket. People tend to know more about the great teams of the past rather than the great players.
Willing. The main reason I didn't put my name down is that I thought it'd be a smaller, and therefore quicker-paced, draft. Although if this extends through Christmas and New Year I imagine everyone will need some patience.
Yeah, it's only a bit of fun so it doesn't need to be fast paced. Over Xmas we'll remove the limit I think.
On the historical discussion, I'd guess that there aren't that many more historical cricket fans than there are in football. A certain type of person, one who is usually a mad sports nut, actually delves past one or two historical names into the history of a sport. Those people usually do this, albeit to various degrees, through most sports. Think of the guys here who know historical soccer stuff - most of them are the same guys who know historical cricket stuff. And vice versa. Football is just way more appealing to the casual observer. Which is where the disproportionation kicks in.
I think you can make a case for taking Zidane ahead of Pele/Maradona if you felt there are more top quality forwards available than top quality players like Zidane, especially if you haven't seen much of Pele/Maradona play. I don't think it's a strong case and I wouldn't have done the same, but I can see some logic behind it.