International Cricket Captain 2006 Review

Tricky wicket.

Version tested: PC

International Cricket Captain 2006 is the sort of game that, as a reviewer, you look forward to demolishing with gleeful relish - like a be-capped 1950s schoolboy greedily eyeing up a rival's dangling conker. It's a budget management game, developed by a handful of unknowns. About cricket, that most treacle-paced of sporting pursuits. With creakingly animated sprites (sprites!) instead of beautiful 3D graphics. Did we mention it's endorsed by South African Englishman Kevin Pietersen MBE, a chap so self-obsessed he allegedly insists that girlfriends shout out his name during intercourse? Good golly gosh, we were so ready to royally rip this game a new one.

But we can't, because it's actually not that awful.

As you'll no doubt have guessed from its title, the game puts you in the pads and, erm, box of a cricket captain. At the beginning of the single-player campaign you get the choice between taking over a county side and earning the right to lead your country (the full "career" mode), taking over England or another nation straight from the off, or taking charge of both a country and a county at the same time. There's one additional mode, where you relive well-loved international test series of yesteryear - although, rather bizarrely, you're limited to those involving either Pakistan or Sri Lanka, so last year's blistering Ashes series is off the menu.

Once you've made your choice, the game becomes a straightforward sports management sim, divided between the routine tasks of captaincy and the matches themselves. The former consists of picking a squad, signing new players, selecting the batting order, preparing your pitch and overseeing training. Such actions don't necessarily have to be boring (Football Manager manages to make even the mundane absorbing) but they are in this case. They feel rudimentary, as if the developers figured they'd better put some day-to-day management bits in there for the sake of completeness, but made them as basic as possible at the same time.

'International Cricket Captain 2006' Screenshot 1

In the future, cricket is played solely by clones of a young Ian Botham.

The whole thing isn't helped by the fact that the shockingly low-res menus make the pointer and every bit of text LOOK REALLY MASSIVE on any monitor not built before the end of the Cold War. The effect is so eye-assaultingly bad that switching to windowed mode becomes an absolute priority.

Matches are where the game really begins. You're handed a decent measure of control over how your team bats and bowls, mainly in the "aggression" setting. If you're playing in your first innings four-day test match and batting, it's probably best to keep your batsmen on low aggression, perhaps three bars out of the available eight. The run-rate will be slow but steady, and there'll be fewer mistakes. In a 50-over one-day match, on the other hand, you'll need to start off quickly - so up goes the aggression and in come the mistakes.

Bowling revolves around a similar system - aggressive play leading sometimes to more wickets being taken but also to more runs being scored by the opposition - and naturally there are other factors to consider: the type and skill of the bowler you're using; the weather conditions; the state of the pitch and the ball.

'International Cricket Captain 2006' Screenshot 2

Wickets falling is as exciting as it gets.

This system works reasonably well, although you sometimes get the feeling that your decisions don't have much effect on how the match plays out. Robert Key's tendency to swing wildly at the ball no matter his instructions proved particularly annoying - the tubby one contrived to hammer out a series of single-figure scores when opening for my Kent side, and I could seemingly do nothing to curb his suicidal tendencies.

As you might have gathered from the mention of sprites and 800x600 resolutions, the game's presentation is primitive. There's some crowd noise, for example, but an excellent six will often be rewarded with the sort of deathly silence that would greet Mel Gibson's arrival at a Bar Mitzvah. Still, there's an old-fashioned charm here, a certain pleasure in hearing the clonk of leather on willow as a blocky, brown-haired sprite representing Freddie Flintoff hits another square cut over the boundary. You get some basic commentary from the BBC's Jonathan "Aggers" Agnew too, which doesn't hurt.

Charm will only get you so far, though, and it's hard to imagine anyone but the most diehard of cricket fans wanting to play through more than a season or two - there just isn't the depth of a Football Manager here, or the same feeling of reward when you adopt a new strategy and it pays off. Part of it is the fact that cricket isn't as tactically rich or physically dynamic a sport as football and part of it is simply that this game isn't detailed or complex enough.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (21) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Aretak #1 6 years ago

    "Part of it is the fact that cricket isn't as tactically rich or physically dynamic a sport as football..."

    Ooh, I bet that'll get a few people up in arms...
  • Eighthours #2 6 years ago

    Part of it is the fact that cricket isn't as tactically rich... as football

    Ouch.

    *ducks under bouncer*
  • The_Aardvark #3 6 years ago

    This is developed by my friend's boyfriend. Say what you like about it, it's a labour of love.
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/06 @ 09:16
  • Rambaldi #4 6 years ago

    Ok, OKAAAY...I admit it..there are some games that are best left on a PC

    ...thank god...
  • Clive_Dunn #5 6 years ago

    It's not actually a bad game if you are a cricket nut, but it doesn't appear to have had its graphics engine updated since 1999 and is badly showing its age.

    In fact, apart from updated stats I can't identify any real changes since the first edition.

    /heads back to Brian Lara.
  • mr_chiquita #6 6 years ago

    This thing hasn't changed in 10 years... it was good back then... but it's still exactly the same.
  • MrChuckles #7 6 years ago

    Nice idea let down by not knowing why you just lost, which is the biggest crime of any management game.

    As long as you learn from your mistakes, people don;t mind losing. I found with previous versions of this i sometimes won and sometimes lost with no idea why. In the end it got turned off.
  • Stickman #8 6 years ago

    If you're a 'cricket nut' then no doubt you already have a previous iteration of this. If you do, DON'T GET THIS. It doesn't matter how much you love cricket, this is a disgrace. Aside from updated players, this is the exact same game as ICC 2 from years and years ago.

    If this is a 'labour of love', I'm glad I'm not your friend, cos she's getting a poor deal in the bedroom.
  • afray #9 6 years ago

    Agreed it hasn't changed.

    To make a great cricket management game, they have to take you a level of abstraction away from the captaincy. If you're bowling, you control a man controlling another man who has to wait for another man to make a mistake to succeed. Unless you really know what you're doing (the real captains and coaches spend days working out plans against opposition batsmen) this can either be frustrating, or so simplistic it's dull (he's a back foot player so pitch it up, bring in the fielders for unsettled batsmen, etc).

    A great cricket management game will have to make the game almost play itself, while you control training, higher-level tactics, contracts, negotiations, etc. But then it loses what makes it cricket -- ie the cricket!

    Maybe I'm being defeatist -- I haven't played Michael Vaughan's Cricket Manager from a few years ago, and the same guy has been working on a sequel for ages.
  • Lim-Dul #10 6 years ago

    Hey - this doesn't sound like a budget title to me - rather like a shareware game. How can it get 5/10? Anyone heard of New Star Soccer 3? THAT's how you make a retro style game that's good. (It's also a management game - you manage your alter ego - including girlfriends and stuff :-D).
  • Talha #11 6 years ago

    Perhaps as early as 2050, we might have a good cricket computer game.

    And hey EG, what's up with that 'not as tactically rich as footy' stuff? Surely I expected YOU guys to know better. Yes, I agree with the 'less physically dynamic' part, but consider: Footy games last all of 90 minutes, while a typical one dayer lasts more like 9 HOURS. Isn't there supposed to be some difference between the two?
  • Stiemens #12 6 years ago

    afray - that sequel developed by Oli Norwell and Glenn Stiemens (me :)) is out now, either retail (Marcus Trescothick's Cricket Coach) or digitally (Cricket Coach Pro). The digital version is coming along well, with some useful additions since the retail one came out in May... http://www.cricketco achgame.com (if that is allowed on here, is the weblink).
  • smelly #13 6 years ago

    "Say what you like about it, it's a labour of love. "


    Most games are.. Doesnt stop some of them being crap though.
  • Talha #14 6 years ago

    @Smelly: Yes, couldn't agree more. And that's the tragedy of it all.
  • afray #15 6 years ago

    Stiemens: Had no idea! Get out there and pimp this thing: Been waiting to give it a go, but thought it was still in development!
  • Stickman #16 6 years ago

    I'm downloading it now!
  • vandy404 #17 6 years ago

    A secret kept far too well. I'll be downloading this.
  • afray #18 6 years ago

    Had a blast at lunchtime.

    Only major gripe was having to press through each day individually. Rather get scores at the end of the matches rather than each day, and let the game run through until I get news or scores.

    The match seemed good although I only got to bat with England (Tres 170, fred 90* overnight, 370-8) v Sri Lanka. The batting options were identical to the ICC options, bar the lack of a "farm the strike" option for the tail-enders. Having said that, it seems like Fred was trying to do that anyway, so maybe it's automatic.

    The match display was much nicer, and I liked the overhead match view. Shame I can't really see the lbw calls -- it'd be fun to be thinking "ooh that's got to be out" or "miles away!" before the umpire raises his text finger!

    If I enjoy this test match it's a good possibility I'll be buying this direct.

  • afray #19 6 years ago

    Had another thought about the structure of cricket management games.

    As you might expect, there is a large amount of randomness in sports management games. Because you're not controlling the players directly, they have to simulate them using random numbers. Over a large number of events, you'll see patterns emerge that back up your suspicions about players: This guy scores a lot, or this guy is particularly bad.

    But watch a single event and you get very little information for your preconceptions. The match I just played in the Cricket Coach Pro demo had Vaughan get out for 3. He's not rated badly as a player in the stats, I had him on defensive, so why did he get out? Randomness.

    The problem, and another reason why cricket management games have it so tough compared to football sims, is that these random events are so much more decisive in cricket. In football, over a match, you can see many events that can tell you about a player. While watching Vaughan's innings of 5 balls I learnt next to nothing about his technique, form, status. I don't have time to learn about the player, so I can't make informed decisions, so I'm lost when it comes to why he was dismissed.

    The random number generator can change a match by dishing up just one freak random number during a 20-over spell that removes a well-set batsman. In football you are much less likely to get that, so it's easier to construct a less frustrating experience.

    While we're directly comparing genres here, football sims also allow you to blast through matches in 10-15 minutes while still maintaining some tactical control. In cricket sims you're looking at hours to play a match to maintain the same control. It's much more off-putting.

    I think it's possible to make an exceptionally good cricket managment game, but not with realistic rules. You have to shorten matches, possibly through shorter overs. You have to simplify the stats (possibly to only ~3 per bat/bowl/field) so it's easier to understand how a bowler compares to a batsman, and how one can play well against the other. And you have to back it up with a superb meta-game of transfers/man management/training. But that won't sell to the purists, and the purists are the only people who are looking to these games in the first place! :-/

    Sorry for the long post.
  • Clive_Dunn #20 6 years ago

    "The match I just played in the Cricket Coach Pro demo had Vaughan get out for 3. He's not rated badly as a player in the stats, I had him on defensive, so why did he get out? Randomness."

    Clearly you haven't watched Michael Vaughan bat for the last 2 years :p
  • afray #21 6 years ago