Free Modification for injury

[Shaaf88]

Gibbs is suffering from hamstring injury he will not play final so give us replacement modification.

 

[sledger]

No, Gibbs did play.

 

[Ashuchohan]

Hello m new here

 

[syedshah20]

Why do you have three players (Sanga, Chandimal and Kushal) under keepers when
Chandimal and Kushal are playing are specialist batsmen? It totally kills the variety in
selecting specialist batmen. Can you please move Kushal and Chandimal to the batsmen category?

 

[James]

Why do you have three players (Sanga, Chandimal and Kushal) under keepers when
Chandimal and Kushal are playing are specialist batsmen? It totally kills the variety in
selecting specialist batmen. Can you please move Kushal and Chandimal to the batsmen category?

Straight after the current competition, we will change it yes.

Changing it mid-way through the competition forces people into changes which we prefer to avoid.

 

[James]

Why do you have three players (Sanga, Chandimal and Kushal) under keepers when
Chandimal and Kushal are playing are specialist batsmen? It totally kills the variety in
selecting specialist batmen. Can you please move Kushal and Chandimal to the batsmen category?

In fact, what competition are you referring to because no active competition has Jushal and Chandimal as wicket-keepers?

 

[Ike]

Looks like we can get responses from the fantasy staff here, which is great! (I just thought to check out this part of the forum, having followed other parts, and playing fantasy on the cricketweb site for 6-8 months now.)

So, my question: All rounders are placed as either bowlers or batsmen, and to me at least it often seems random which slot they are put into. At least, some whom I consider more important for batting or bowling are found in the opposite category. Why can't they be listed in both places, so you can increase the strategy by letting folks choose which category they want to slot them into. Of course, it doesn't matter for scoring, since all actions are scored for all players. But it does matter for making the best use of your batting and bowling slots, depending on who is playing.

(I could have made a new thread, but this seems to follow on well to the question about players not playing keeper being on the keeper list. Which reminds me, why not allow keepers to also be on the batsmen lists (but not vice-versa, because you shouldn't be able to put a non-keeper in the keeper slot)? )

 

[James]

Looks like we can get responses from the fantasy staff here, which is great! (I just thought to check out this part of the forum, having followed other parts, and playing fantasy on the cricketweb site for 6-8 months now.)

So, my question: All rounders are placed as either bowlers or batsmen, and to me at least it often seems random which slot they are put into. At least, some whom I consider more important for batting or bowling are found in the opposite category. Why can't they be listed in both places, so you can increase the strategy by letting folks choose which category they want to slot them into. Of course, it doesn't matter for scoring, since all actions are scored for all players. But it does matter for making the best use of your batting and bowling slots, depending on who is playing.

(I could have made a new thread, but this seems to follow on well to the question about players not playing keeper being on the keeper list. Which reminds me, why not allow keepers to also be on the batsmen lists (but not vice-versa, because you shouldn't be able to put a non-keeper in the keeper slot)? )

You can definitely get responses here

We used to actually have a separate category for all-rounders but we removed it as we had trouble categorising those players.

Thanks for your suggestion. We have considered actually just opening up all 11 positions to any type of player so you could technically pick 8 bowlers, 1 WK, 2 Batsman as an example.

 

[Ike]

Glad to know you're considering options. I don't like having just 11 players of any type. I think it increases strategy to have to pick batsmen, bowlers, etc. But opening up all rounders to both batting and bowling, and opening up keepers to batsmen, those make sense to me.

 

[James]

Glad to know you're considering options. I don't like having just 11 players of any type. I think it increases strategy to have to pick batsmen, bowlers, etc. But opening up all rounders to both batting and bowling, and opening up keepers to batsmen, those make sense to me.

Thanks for your thoughts