FTP: PlanetCricket FTP World League

[jdeus]

I felt the poll spoke for itself really...

A poll wouldnt prove anything! Just that more people want the rule taken out.

Why do people want the rule taking out is the question. Because people dont see the need to have the rule isnt really a good enough reason for it to be scrapped.

I think the purpose of the rule was to try level the playing field in games by giving both teams opportunities to have a game breaking youth... either by them performing amazingly or horrifically. Personally I think the rule doesnt go far enough. It should be one U19 batter and one U19 bowler who has to bowl at least 5 overs. And an allrounder doesnt cover both.

If anything the rule encourages people to try improve the level of their youth to remain competative in our league system. Which would also mean they would be more competative in their youth leagues which would ultimately bring in more cash for the club and provide a better future for the senior side with promising players coming through.

But yeah I totally agree no point in it at all! Its hardly surprising that me and hedger both want the rule to continue as we both have really good youth sides around the top 100 in the world. Whereas everyone elses aint so great... but who's fault is that?? Not mine or hedgers!

Anyone disagree??

 

[Zohaib]

Sent Aussie XI a challenge

 

[Iridium]

All of this is from my viewpoint.

I think the purpose of the rule was to try level the playing field in games by giving both teams opportunities to have a game breaking youth... either by them performing amazingly or horrifically. Personally I think the rule doesnt go far enough. It should be one U19 batter and one U19 bowler who has to bowl at least 5 overs. And an allrounder doesnt cover both.

I can see where you're coming from. But more often than not, my youth player performs horribly. My youth side is by no means dire, but it isn't great either, I'll freely admit that. And yes, I do have one or two great youth players. But compared to the seniors that others are playing, I might as well hand the other team a free wicket or 80 extra runs. Most of the time one (or both) my youth players are a contributing factor to a loss. This is not me saying that my seniors are free from blame, sometimes they fail too. My youth players performing just doesn't happen often enough for me to want to play youths in my lineup.

If anything the rule encourages people to try improve the level of their youth to remain competative in our league system. Which would also mean they would be more competative in their youth leagues which would ultimately bring in more cash for the club and provide a better future for the senior side with promising players coming through.

I feel there's no incentive to play youths. You're weakening your team and your players get no experience. This to me is a friendly league, a chance to play your best senior lineup possible and if you lose, it doesn't really matter since this is hosted outside of FTP. I don't look at improving my youths so that they'll be more competitive in this league.

But yeah I totally agree no point in it at all! Its hardly surprising that me and hedger both want the rule to continue as we both have really good youth sides around the top 100 in the world. Whereas everyone elses aint so great... but who's fault is that?? Not mine or hedgers!

Anyone disagree??

You two have very good youth teams so it's only natural that you both want to implement a youth rule. If I was in your shoes, I'd be saying the same thing. But if a rule only truly benefits a small number of people, then in my opinion, it's not worth having the rule in the first place.

Maybe we could have gone about discussing the rule better instead of having a mob mentality and asking for change, and for that Hedger, I apologise 'cause I know you put a lot of effort into this. But I still stand by my view that the youth rule isn't to my liking.

 

[Haarithan]

I'm good either way. My vote in that poll clearly underlines that.

 

[Varun]

Well if people care so much about the youths we can have the last two matches or so as youth matches, eh?

It's an virtual tournament, and a majority voted against the youth rule, so that's what they want, why bother? Because then you won't be able to win because your youth team is very strong relative to others? Oh no!

 

[Chewie]

My thoughts are basically the same as Iridium's. Many people don't play the game by training both youth and senior squads up at the same time, because it's more efficient that way. Why should they be discouraged by making them play youths?

 

[jdeus]

All of this is from my viewpoint.

I can see where you're coming from. But more often than not, my youth player performs horribly. My youth side is by no means dire, but it isn't great either, I'll freely admit that. And yes, I do have one or two great youth players. But compared to the seniors that others are playing, I might as well hand the other team a free wicket or 80 extra runs. Most of the time one (or both) my youth players are a contributing factor to a loss. This is not me saying that my seniors are free from blame, sometimes they fail too. My youth players performing just doesn't happen often enough for me to want to play youths in my lineup.

But its not a matter of your youth being worse than your seniors because everyones will be, its really if they are better than your opponants youth... somewhat... ish?!

I feel there's no incentive to play youths. You're weakening your team and your players get no experience. This to me is a friendly league, a chance to play your best senior lineup possible and if you lose, it doesn't really matter since this is hosted outside of FTP. I don't look at improving my youths so that they'll be more competitive in this league.

You just made my point for me... it doesnt matter if you lose, exactly!! So if thats the case why does it matter if you lose because of your youth??

You two have very good youth teams so it's only natural that you both want to implement a youth rule. If I was in your shoes, I'd be saying the same thing. But if a rule only truly benefits a small number of people, then in my opinion, it's not worth having the rule in the first place.

Thats again as I said not mine and hedgers fault. Seems to me people dont want to improve their youths even though there are clear financial rewards for it, whether that be improved gate receipts, prize money or player sales. After all better players tend to go for more money. Not to mention you wouldn't have to shell out for a new senior player as you had one ready to step-up from your youth squad. If people dont want to play the game by training youth and seniors thats fine but its hardly a reason not to have the rule. It does spice the matches up a little bit.

Maybe we could have gone about discussing the rule better instead of having a mob mentality and asking for change, and for that Hedger, I apologise 'cause I know you put a lot of effort into this. But I still stand by my view that the youth rule isn't to my liking.

Yes exactly! You should all be posting to thank hedger really!

My thoughts are basically the same as Iridium's. Many people don't play the game by training both youth and senior squads up at the same time, because it's more efficient that way. Why should they be discouraged by making them play youths?

How does making them play a youth discourage them from focusing on their senior side?? Experience isn't gained from friendlies therefore the player who misses out for the youth player doesn't suffer any loss in experience so what does it matter?? And chewie I dont see how you can complaint at all... you have one of the best senior sides and a few NAT U19's dont you?? How exactly is this rule effecting you??

Why do people want to play just seniors?? The teams with the strongest line-ups will win most of the time so it will get predictable and boring. All hedger was trying to do was to shake things up a little. Is that so bad?? I mean seriously is it actually killing people to play an U19??

 

[Chewie]

You obviously didn't understand my post. I was saying that if there was a requirement to play a youth, then those who focus solely on the senior side would see the rule and think, man this is annoying, I'm gonna lose just because I don't care about my youth team. That's where I think it's not fair.

I probably have the most to gain from this but I don't care about that. I'd rather the competition be about who has the best team on PlanetCricket. It's the World League. Why can't it be a battle of the best players everyone has.

Not everyone is capable of improving their youths as well as their seniors. There's much more reward to be had by focusing solely on your seniors when you start playing because that's where all the prize money and gate takings are. You say it's cheaper because you don't have to buy new senior players every time they get old. Unless you pull some gun players, you're still going to have to buy youth players to train, which are more expensive than the senior players.

 

[jdeus]

Most of my youth are homegrown!! And tbh I havent really pulled any stunning youth (like the one you made your millions on for example!!). So its possible to make it cheaper. Out of all 21 players in my youth squad I believe I've only bought 2 of them (dont quote me on that but Im fairly sure).

Can I bring in a real world example?? The Scottish FA make their premier league teams must select 3 U21's in their matchday squads. That doesnt seem to affect the league at all. And you dont hear as many clubs moaning about it as you do here!!

I still think a ruling should be in place but maybe theres a compromise that could happen?? U24 has been suggested but thats a little high for a start I only have like 5 players older than 24 at my club. Id say U22 is about right.

 

[Chewie]

SPL face fresh criticism over under-21 rule - Telegraph

 

[jdeus]

Its the same rubbish about having to play youth when they aint good enough to play. Well its been a rule for a while now and if clubs wont get better youth so they can capitalise on it how is it the FA's fault??

Isn't that the same thing thats happening with our rule?? People dont want to try improve their youth so they are just moaning??

And I stand with what I said... theres not as much complaining as there is here where like 90% of managers are moaning unlike just a few in Scotland!! I never said there was none moaning now did I??

 

[hedger_14]

Going reasonably well but just lost 2 quick wickets, Pettinger for 34 and Omara for 2 an over later. Going to come down to this partnership though, between 2 of my best batsman. (Well Pettinger is better than Murch but Murch still is better than the rest of my batsman).

End of over 14 (3 runs) - Hedger's Team(76-2) RR 5.43
A. O'Leary 1 (1b) , J. Murch 33 (42b) , S. Roberts 2-0-14-1

 

[Iridium]

Lost to Chewie. Again.

 

[hedger_14]

O'Leary and Mol moving the score along now. Anything above 250 will be very tough to chase down on an uneven pitch, especially as I am playing 1 fast bowler, 2 FM's as well as my medium pace all-rounder (Yousif) and one spinner. It probably didn't help that they played 3 spinners.

End of over 35 (9 runs) - Hedger's Team(182-3) RR 5.20
R. Mol 35 (50b) , A. O'Leary 60 (62b) , S. Roberts 8-0-42-2

----------

Lost Mol but O'Leary is still going strong.

End of over 39 (2 runs) - Hedger's Team(203-4) RR 5.21
M. Oldroyd 2 (2b) , A. O'Leary 71 (74b) , S. Roberts 10-0-47-2

37.4 W Pickett to Mol : [stumped] Mol wanders down the pitch to do some gardening, not realising the ball is still alive. Ali whips off the bails and Pickett turns to the umpire with an almighty shriek! With a nod of the head, the umpire sends Mol packing. He needs to be more alert next time.
R. Mol st C. Ali b. G. Pickett 42 (60b 5x4 0x6) SR:70.00

 

[Zohaib]

Aussie XI didnt accept my challenge, so he I guess he forfeits