International cricket captain 2010

[Scritty]

Great Post Angad

Stats : Yes. For goodness sake, many people over a certain age only go to live games to record the stats. I have people I don't know come to my local club (Barnt Green) and sit there scoring all day. I don't even think they are members.
Cricket is a stat mad game. Yet ICC has very few.
Worse it "breaks" at very low boundary conditions.
At about 1024 FC wickets it "clocks"(returns to zero).Individual players stats are lost forever once they retire. Even if they are record breakers (except the partnership records)

Domestic Leagues -Well everyone wants them, and from a commercial point of view, having the game regionalised to appeal by a larger audience has got to be a good thing as well.

Changing Int Team - Only Bob Woolmer has ever gone the whole hog (Duncan Fletcher almost - he "advises" for other teams but has not taken on the full "coach" or "manager" position. It's not a big one for me, but I can see its merits. Tom "Why does everyone think he's so great" Moody may well do some day as well.

Better Int Career - Yes. The International part of the game is less interesting to me currently than the domestic. You have too little say on who to bring through and how.

There is no equivalent of a second eleven - but in real life international teams DO have 2nd elevens the "Lions" in Englands case.

Also, even when you are in charge you have no control over central contracts. I would like somne say in the domestic team as well (even when I'm on international duty)

I can win plenty of games and be doing well until late May, then the dolt who takes over from me messes it all up year after year in ICC2009.

This means that I sometimes resign from international cricket (then the guy who takes over picks 6 of my 18 players and leaves me having to play with 2 keepers and 7 batsmen - despite only 3 of my players ever getting central contracts)


Better Keepers and Allrounders - Oh please yes. How long have we asked for this. Keepers and allrounders DO change the game. They DO balance an otherwise unbalanced side.
The Botham, Dev's Dhoni's Gilchrists, Kallis's, Sangakara's, Flintoff's,Kahn's etc of this world DO play a disproportionaly large role in many games they play in.
I think Chris is keen to balance the game, and is perhaps concerned about the effect a super allrounder could have.

Well in real life they are the most exciting players. Be that bowler/batters or keeper/batters, they have been the main icons of the game for at least as long as my life. Even Warne had a good batting average.

In real life Allrounders and keeper batters change games and play a huge role as both match winners and cultural and sporting icons More recently (the last ten years) this has been a pretty regular occurence.

ICC should reflect that (they need to be rare, no more than 4 or 5 in the world at any one time) But ICC seems to make a lot of David Capel's and Derek Pringle's - with the odd Tim Bresnan thrown in - but no Dhoni's, Flintoff's or Kallis's (or Gilchrists, Warne's or so many more that have dominated world cricket in the last 10-15 years)

Rating System - I like this. If you had some control over the 2future tours" itinery that would be nice (not that important - but nice) Also whether to turn down optional series (essp one dayers - England do this quite a bit)
Ratings seem very simple at the moment (for teams that is)

Great post Angad :-)

Scritty

[Sureshot]

4-BETTER KEEPERS AND ALL ROUNDER REGENS. we should be able to convert a pure batsman or a bowler into an all rounder by giving them required training for a given long time.

I wouldn't say that is in the slightest bit realistic.

5-CHANGE THE RATING SYSTEM. now this is something which most people dont have a problem with but i do.i am playing with pakistan who did not have great results when they last played with zimbabwe.now since i never play tests with zimbabwe it kind of leaves me handicapped.also i sometimes play 2 series with australia in one year.i win both of them.and guess what,uyou dont get any points for it because you have been beating them for the past 2 years(this was a hypothetical situation).i mean we do not get to decide the schedule or our fixtures,is it my fault that we keep playing you again and again and get no points for it when the teams competing with me in rankings are gaining ground by playing with teams they had earlier lost to. in my opinion the rankings should depend on the strength of your opponent and the results of the last 10 international series only.that would be more realistic.also winning the world cup should give a couple of bonus points which should stay with you till the next world cup begins.also their should be rankings for the best allrounders.

Both our ranking system (which is an old ICC one iirc) and the current ICC ranking system reflects on past results. I don't see an issue with the system, it's simple, efficient and an accurate reflection of the various teams position within the rankings.

The very good all-rounders are very rare, and they will be even rarer with the increasing volume of cricket being played globally.

[Angad]

I wouldn't say that is in the slightest bit realistic.



Both our ranking system (which is an old ICC one iirc) and the current ICC ranking system reflects on past results. I don't see an issue with the system, it's simple, efficient and an accurate reflection of the various teams position within the rankings.

The very good all-rounders are very rare, and they will be even rarer with the increasing volume of cricket being played globally.

well i guess you are right about it not being realistic to turn a pure batsman/bowler to an allrounder by just training but in the absence of genuinely good allrounders its kind of like a last resort(as scritty said an allrounder is really important for the balance of the side especially in odis).ANd what about wicketkeeper batsmen.there are plenty of good wicketkeeper batsmen these days and this is a trend which wont be stopping any time soon.(scritty has expressed views exactly similar to mine)

also i am sorry regarding the rating system.i didnt know the icc(international cricket council) follows the same system.you see i am playing with pakistan atm and they had lost their last home test series to zimbabwe in 98 and since i no longer play with them,it kind of does leave me handicapped.also winning the world cup should really add a couple of bonous points(how does winning the world cup affect the actual ratings btw?)

well i hope u agree with my other points.
and thanks for replying to my post,really a huge fan of this game.

[tommyjay1]

when selecting overseas player , id like to be able to see the dates of there chosen country's tours , this way you could be able to estimate how many games he might miss.

also i agree with better allrounder regens, and was wondering if in 2010 there will be Allrounder Opening batsmen?? like shane watson for example , this would give your team tremendous flexibility.

[Scritty]

I wouldn't say that is in the slightest bit realistic.

The very good all-rounders are very rare, and they will be even rarer with the increasing volume of cricket being played globally.

I would say that to an extent it certainly is realistic

Flintoff was a barely 80mph trundler picked for ODI batting and little else for the first three years of his international career. Often not bowling at all in his first 20 or so ODI's (and only once finishing his 10 overs in his first 10 ODI's)

Stewart was not a keeper of any standing and was coached up by Jack Richards.
Pietersen (like Hick) played early career as a spinner almost exclusively - and I'm talking full first class career here, not school and 2nd XI. Worcestershire picked Hick specifically as a spinner in 1984 with no interest in his batting

Some became real allrounders from having perhaps one good discipline and one "ok" discipline. And some became "useful" at their weaker discipline to the point where in "horses for courses" conditions they could be very handy.

Akram's batting, Borders bowling, Warne's bowling, Lee's batting, it's a long list if you think about it.


Then there is the real point "The amount of cricket"
Someone give me strength.

Where does this nonsense idea come from. In terms of matches, overs, travelling times, tour lengths etc etc, cricketers from the last 20 years play far FAR less cricket at both FC and test level then their predecessors

Bob Willis, Glenn Mcgrath. They bowled 2800 and 4800 overs (roughly) in tests
Willis bowled another 2800 in FC cricket as well!
Botham, Hadlee, Imran, Kapil,Wasim - even fat bloke Merv Hughes - they put these modern guys to shame.

Ambrose, Walsh. These guys were quick. Back in the late 80's they'd bowl for Northants and Gloucestershire - 300 overs a year, then straight on a tour for the Windies

The much vaunted Ashes 2005 England seam attack Flintoff, Harmison, Jones and Hoggard bowled less than either Willis or McGrath.
EVEN WHEN YOU ADD ALL THEIR OVERS UP.

Anderson will have to play test cricket till he's almost 50 at the rate he's going to get close. Broad is getting a few under his belt, but that's about it.

It's nothing to do with the amount of cricket being played, or travelling. Unless that is the arguement is that they are playing no-where near enough to stay match fit.

Aktar, Lee, Bond? I don't think so. They have the very best training and travel facilities, hardly ever bowl and break down at the touch of a feather.

The stats to make a case for this being due to the amount of cricket being played by them just do not exist.

Aktar, Lee, Bond have bowled so very little it's hardly worth mentioning.

The three PUT TOGETHER bowled barely more test overs than Wasim Akram, and at a a pace not much greater. Wasim also bowled far far more first class overs than any of them.

Bowling 4 overs twice a week in T20 - then claiming you are knackered?? Come off it. This argument is really not very good.

If I were you I wouldn't model anything daft like this in the game, because you will be modelling a myth.

/rant off



Scritty

[Imager36]

Then there is the real point "The amount of cricket"
Someone give me strength.

Where does this nonsense idea come from. In terms of matches, overs, travelling times, tour lengths etc etc, cricketers from the last 20 years play far FAR less cricket at both FC and test level then their predecessors

Scritty

Yeah, I have to agree with you there Scritty. I was reading a lot of stats at the start of the season about there being the most number of days of cricket in the English domestic season since the Benson and Hedges Cup was scrapped. But with the large (and growing) amount of T20 cricket in the calendar, there will be far fewer overs bowled than in that season.

Also, if you need an example of players almost turned into allrounders closer to home, look at Sussex's own batsman (now slow bowling allrounder) Mike Yardy.

[Alrounder80]

It's incredible that childish things are so intent on making as few a changes as possible and yet many people still carry on buying ICC every year in the hope that childish things have made some changes. The ONLY solution it seems is to stop buying ICC for a year so their sales go down. This will encourage them to start actually attempting to make changes instead of finding excuses not to change one thing or another.

PLEASE don't let it come to this situation as I actually enjoy playing ICC but have been extremely dissapointed with the last few versions of the game where there was hardly any changes made to the game. STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND START MAKING CHANGES!!!!!!!!

[Scritty]

It's incredible that childish things are so intent on making as few a changes as possible and yet many people still carry on buying ICC every year in the hope that childish things have made some changes. The ONLY solution it seems is to stop buying ICC for a year so their sales go down. This will encourage them to start actually attempting to make changes instead of finding excuses not to change one thing or another.

PLEASE don't let it come to this situation as I actually enjoy playing ICC but have been extremely dissapointed with the last few versions of the game where there was hardly any changes made to the game. STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND START MAKING CHANGES!!!!!!!!

They are.
The cricket genre is (shockingly) low for good games - essp given the amount of money in the game now.

Chris has always provided a solid game, and this year promises real change. The accusation of stagnation is one that I think hurts Chris and his gang, they were hamstrung by publishers unwillingl to change what they thought was a"cash cow" formula by investing in it.

Childish Things is a small indie dev company. I know not everyone can support them, but I will buy this years (and the next CC game whenever that is)

The cricket game genre needs support

I may like a robust discussion, but if we stop buying the game we may well actually "kill" it.

For £20, and for say one more year (because this year we have had definate if not specific promises of advancement) I will give it another go

Though having said that - if there is not a good step this year, then I might reconsider next.

Scritty

[ab5ides1]

They are.
The cricket genre is (shockingly) low for good games - essp given the amount of money in the game now.

Chris has always provided a solid game, and this year promises real change. The accusation of stagnation is one that I think hurts Chris and his gang, they were hamstrung by publishers unwillingl to change what they thought was a"cash cow" formula by investing in it.

Childish Things is a small indie dev company. I know not everyone can support them, but I will buy this years (and the next CC game whenever that is)

The cricket game genre needs support

I may like a robust discussion, but if we stop buying the game we may well actually "kill" it.

For £20, and for say one more year (because this year we have had definate if not specific promises of advancement) I will give it another go

Though having said that - if there is not a good step this year, then I might reconsider next.

Scritty

I agree with you and will get my copy the day its out for downloading and i once again say that i hope they include Aus domestic comps.

[Frosty10]

some more ideas from me:
before ICC 09 came out, me,my brother and my cousin wanted to play online on the laptops with our worldtwenty20. Unfortunately we could not so this so I think you should be able to make your own world twenty20 and choose any nations to put in any groups.

[Sureshot]

Yeah, I have to agree with you there Scritty. I was reading a lot of stats at the start of the season about there being the most number of days of cricket in the English domestic season since the Benson and Hedges Cup was scrapped. But with the large (and growing) amount of T20 cricket in the calendar, there will be far fewer overs bowled than in that season.

Also, if you need an example of players almost turned into allrounders closer to home, look at Sussex's own batsman (now slow bowling allrounder) Mike Yardy.

Yard's progression as a bowler has been specific to the shorter format and resulted in him changing his bowling style. His bowling was always useful as a Left arm Medium in his youth, his "darts" are very effective, as batsman don't know whether to treat him as a spinner or a medium pacer.

All-rounders are a rarity, but I don't see this lack of quality all-round regens in my experience of game play. It's pretty much a luck based scenario, but Chris has been looking at player types and I'm sure we'll make tweaks if neccessary for 2010 on regens.

They are.
The cricket genre is (shockingly) low for good games - essp given the amount of money in the game now.

Chris has always provided a solid game, and this year promises real change. The accusation of stagnation is one that I think hurts Chris and his gang, they were hamstrung by publishers unwillingl to change what they thought was a"cash cow" formula by investing in it.

Childish Things is a small indie dev company. I know not everyone can support them, but I will buy this years (and the next CC game whenever that is)

The cricket game genre needs support

I may like a robust discussion, but if we stop buying the game we may well actually "kill" it.

For £20, and for say one more year (because this year we have had definate if not specific promises of advancement) I will give it another go

Though having said that - if there is not a good step this year, then I might reconsider next.

Scritty

Support like this is much appreciated, I firmly believe that ICC 2010 will be a step in the right direction, not only that but we have long-term plans as well as short-term ones, being independent has it's advantages, as well as some disadvantages, not least in that lots of good people got made redundant in the process. It has never been the case that we haven't implemented the changes that we all want, due to anything other than resources. I've heard many comparing the game to Football Manager, and saying they'd like to see ICC in a similar mould. They have resources we could only dream of, they actually have full-time staff for a start, let alone a few dozen of them. If we can, we will. If we don't, it's not because we don't care or for any sinister reason.

The cricket gaming genre is something I've been involved with for a few years (here for a couple of years and a certain big website some of you know of). It's not a very big market, we've had some good games that have showed promise in the simulation genre and our management sub-genre is even smaller.

Codemasters latest release will not be on the PC for this year (resources/sales) and who knows what EA are doing, I don't think they have anything in the offering. You then have projects like The Art of Cricket, again, resources restrict it. Cricket Revolution has had some good success.

It's difficult though, because to create the perfect cricket game requires resources, like any project. If you don't have those resources you have to try and build them up and build for the future, I don't see anyone getting the funding to make the perfect cricket game at a click of the fingers, because there simply isn't the money in this genre to do that.

I think we have a great strength in the gameplay, it's what got me addicted to the game back when I was about 11, I'm on a save with Worcs at the moment and it's enthrawling building the team up (should be even more fun in ICC2010). It's not long till you'll get to try ICC 2010 (huh, it's May?) and you can all judge for yourselves on the changes we have made.

Also, it's £15.99

[haiderabass110]

In International Cricket Captain 2010:

We should have 3 or 4 seasons of ICC WORLD CUP
We should have all the 3 or 4 seasons of ICC CHAMPIONS TROPHY
We should have al the seasons of ICC WORLD CUP T20 2007,2009, and 2010.
We Should have the 1 or 2 seasons of ICC UNDER-19 WORLD CUP
We should have the ICC WOMEN'S WORLD CUP T20 2009, and 2010
We Should have more T20 games
We Should have authority to make own series and authority to make series name.
We Should have authority to set Prize Amounts for the teams and player FOR EXAMPLE: Man of the match, man of the series, runner teams, winner teams etc.
We should have game requirments low and it can run in lower pc very easy and in great pc very fast and well.

We Should have more good things
Thanks.

[Scritty]

I'm on a save with Worcs at the moment and it's enthrawling building the team up (should be even more fun in ICC2010).

Nice news about the price.
I mentioned in another thread having an even harder game mode - but I take it back. Anyone wanting a real challenge should just take over Worcestershire.

Phil Jacques has notched 5 ducks on his first 8 innings in all competitions, and our seam blowing is that slow Geoffrey Boycott's mum is queueing up for a net against them (lead by a guy every other county sacked, in his late thirties)

A keeper who is doing is "A" Levels and not available, and number 3 batsman (Moeen Ali) who is having to do all the spin bowling (because we have not got any proper ones)

Bravo Mark "Success is not just about winning matches" Newton.

Try telling the fans that.

Rant off (I really must stop ranting)

Scritty

[Frosty10]

some more ideas from me:
before ICC 09 came out, me,my brother and my cousin wanted to play online on the laptops with our worldtwenty20. Unfortunately we could not so this so I think you should be able to make your own world twenty20 and choose any nations to put in any groups.

Also choose which nation you want to hold it in and show what type of bowlers would bhe useful there e.g. 2010= west indies=spinners

[Sureshot]

Nice news about the price.
I mentioned in another thread having an even harder game mode - but I take it back. Anyone wanting a real challenge should just take over Worcestershire.

Phil Jacques has notched 5 ducks on his first 8 innings in all competitions, and our seam blowing is that slow Geoffrey Boycott's mum is queueing up for a net against them (lead by a guy every other county sacked, in his late thirties)

A keeper who is doing is "A" Levels and not available, and number 3 batsman (Moeen Ali) who is having to do all the spin bowling (because we have not got any proper ones)

Bravo Mark "Success is not just about winning matches" Newton.

Try telling the fans that.

Rant off (I really must stop ranting)

Scritty

I can't wait to do a 2010 Worcs save. With regards to price, I have no impact on this whatsoever, but it was changed to £15.99 (on-line, we have very limited control on Retail price) not long after release for several reasons, which could still be in effect for 2010, in fact it's down to £10 now. I know Chris has said it before, but buying the digital version helps a lot more.