Could argue that he started training harder, or just started to rock up to training in the first place.
He was no longer enjoying the benefits of being a professional cricketer. And it takes more than just putting pen to paper for those benefits to become apparent. So I'm telling you - ignore the contract status of players; select on performance. I think you vastly over-estimated the affect the penalty would have in provincial cricket anyway, but regardless, you've got your side now so you're to follow a selection process. Dropping Teja for him at the moment would be illogical.
Nah, activity is training. And his activity has remained unchanged. He now has access to better training facilities at his club, but that's not going to have a great baring on rep cricket and certainly isn't going to make him better overnight.
I'm sorry but that's honestly ridiculous. There's no real life reason for him suddenly losing ability when not signing a contract, and there's no real life reason for him to gain ability the moment he signs a contract. So expecting selectors to follow real life selection policies surrounding a surreal happening is just daft.
You're daft. Think of it like this. Ricky Ponting retires from cricket in March 2013, hypothetically. For the purposes of this let's just assume Ponting's only sunday cricket standard, though. The season starts back up again 5-6 months later, and everyone's had a 2-3 month pre season while Punter's been drinking beer. A bloke on the team's getting married on the first game of the season so the lads are one short and call back Punter and see if he'll play. He obliges - he rocks up a bit overweight and out of touch and while he's still got the class he once had, he's just not in touch and his performance suffers enough. Punter then decides in December - 'yeah, I miss cricket, why not come back to it' and begins to start training and getting in condition. When he plays his comeback game in december he's still going to be as out of touch as he was earlier, but that 2-3 month pre season of conditioning/form he missed out on starts from there, so he'll be back about where he should be in February. Does that make sense? Because that's how I anticipate it is on cricsim, everything's so bloody realistic I'm sure this is too. P.S. prez I have learnt it the hard way there are plenty of indian sites where they use syedur rahman's simulator to output stupid numbers and call it cricket. I am sure if you go there they will love discussing it as a simulator. Here it's much more fun acting like this is proper cricket, nobody wants to think about it as 'SM Morgan is just a line that a computer program uses to generate results' - they prefer to think they are the player. Treating it like real cricket is what makes this site more enjoyable and makes the work put in by Cribb I'm sure a lot more worthwhile. Expecting people to behave as if it's a sim is just stoopid.
Again, you're trying to romance the sim. I understand why, but it's a bit daft to overdo it. Which is what you're famous for doing. He's still been training. He hasn't got any more or less training from not signing a contract. He signs a contract, and magically gains ability. You want to think that there is a gradual reintroduction to full ability, but there is absolutely no proof to base this on. I want to treat it like RL cricket as much as the next, but it's stupid to hurt your team purely to do so.
He hasn't been training, he's been rocking up at the end of training sledging his old teammates and having a beer. FFS, it's far more enjoyable to think about it logically. I don't even think I'm romancing it - I think I'm just presenting what would happen in real life. Cribb has ensured that the sim replicates real life as closely as possible, so you saying that 'treating it like that hurts the team' implies that in this regard, the sim doesn't replicate real life. I believe my view benefits the team - as I believe it's best to believe in every situation realistic cricket and events are replicated. Not doing so would be at my peril, if not now - but in the future if things do get changed. You're frustrating me, a lot.
Skippos and Prez, do not argue this with each other. You're both doing nothing but speculating on how the simming averages are calculated, which I've stamped out of this place. All that I've publicised is that there is a penalty for not signing a contract. I've also hinted in this thread that the penalty is lower in provincial cricket. For all you guys know that penalty could be 0.000000000000000001% or it could be 80%, and that's done deliberately to make selectors actually monitor the performance of players for a few games when something happens and not just start guessing and assuming. Prez, selection itself is a simulation. A selector's role is not to guess simming averages but to aid in the simulation process by simulating the selection of a side. If you take issue with this then feel free to step down from all selection roles here. Do not feel free to argue the point at every turn. Skippos, when I elect not to argue something like that with someone like Prez, it's usually just because I don't want the argument aired, not because I'm waiting for you to do it for me. This post is not intended as a means of argument or debate, but as an instruction and an explanation. As such, there is no invitation to reply. If you choose to do so then you'll be cockblocked or worse. Good day.
When my post has been approved i'm good for negotiations, so who wants a guy from the better land of sheep.
