DISCUSSION POINT - SUGGESTION

[pinmanguy]

I am against this much change.

If the point is to get players who are in that 21-24 window playing time a better solution to me would be to allow the existing youth matches to have a couple of designated seniors.

A lot of real life seconds/youth leagues allow a number of older players. You could have it so you are allowed something like 2 players who are under 24 and the rest of your line up must be under 21. You could even just go for one.

This would also help newer teams get into the youth leagues too, at the moment the gap there is larger because youth players are so expensive.

But really, trying to juggle how you get experience for players who aren't at the same level as your regular seniors is what these kind of games are about right? If you want to develop a young lad you need to make sacrifices while they learn?

At least that's the opinion of this guy who just posts cats in the discord.

[Kaetor]

I am heavily in favour of the following:

- U20 becomes U23
- Training curve is adjusted to be much more effective earlier in age and tails off much harder.

The reason I feel this is important is that we currently have two squads, one which a player is there for ~5 seasons, and the other for ~10. This leads to a large imbalance in how the squads are set up, with it being very difficult to overcome the 'dead zone' of players in the 21-26 age range.

IMO if the 'youth' squad was extended, and by the time a player reaches the 'senior' age in their early 20s they were at least 90% of their full training potential, then we wouldn't see the current issues of the dead zone, and we also wouldn't see the homogenous senior squad of players 28-30 dominating, it would be viable to have players from 23-30.

I do like the idea of change, but I think perhaps a dedicated U24 game is not the way, this forces players in to having an unusual combination of players to fulfil the requirements for this, i.e either having to field youths or to sacrifice a portion of the already valuable senior squad slots to compete in this league, which I'm not keen on.

[GA-James018]

To be clear, speaking as an admin, that "dead" zone between around 21-25 is exactly what this proposal is trying to address. It makes the game feel very wonky if players are just not playing at all, other than occasional walkovers against bots and other mismatches, for several seasons in between U20 and their mid-to-late twenties. For me personally, it's probably the one thing that makes FTP feel the least like actual cricket.

A U24 competition gives players in that age range the chance to play some meaningful matches. It would replace YT20 since five leagues would be unsustainable and YT20 is the least impactful to remove (bear in mind it didn't exist at launch and was added a long time later). The proposal for the youth cup is in part to offset that, with it being YT20 so the format doesn't die out. The rejig of the schedule is to make things smoother fatigue-wise for all players given all the proposed changes. That's the logic behind everything.

It is just a proposal and this is why we're floating it first to get input. I appreciate (and was expecting!) some people to not like parts of it, and would be keen to hear other ideas. Just changing U20 to U23 is an interesting option and worth debating, though I can see people who like the U20 setup as it is not being a fan of that, and I also wonder if that would just shift the problem to 16 to 18-year-olds not getting a game.

[Kaetor]

I think of course shifting U20-U23 would have that effect where you could have a couple of extra seasons of youths where they sit on the sidelines but I think if this comes alongside cutting back the number of seasons the players sit on the sidelines in seniors it is worth it anyway.

The 16 year old market is still massive, and I would still anticipate high demand anyway.

IMO one of the biggest issues is that relatively speaking, the senior squad covers 2x the age range of youths, so game time is just that much more difficult. Couple this with the fact that wages are higher for seniors in general and you have the issue where teams will not take on those players in the dead zone.

If you are a competitive div 1 team, you won't have a player who is ready to play until 26 at the least. That means if you trained a player from 21-25 (5 seasons) with an average wage of around 12k or so, you're dropping 840k in wages, as well as trying to get them game time. You're almost always better off just buying players who are 28-30 at that point.

I just think an U24 league can't really work without the dedicated squad. Or course, we could go for just one monolithic squad too..there is barely any reason to split them anymore given the academies are the same anyway. Opening it up gives players more room to use their 50 player cap.

[pinmanguy]

To be clear, speaking as an admin, that "dead" zone between around 21-25 is exactly what this proposal is trying to address. It makes the game feel very wonky if players are just not playing at all, other than occasional walkovers against bots and other mismatches, for several seasons in between U20 and their mid-to-late twenties. For me personally, it's probably the one thing that makes FTP feel the least like actual cricket.

A U24 competition gives players in that age range the chance to play some meaningful matches. It would replace YT20 since five leagues would be unsustainable and YT20 is the least impactful to remove (bear in mind it didn't exist at launch and was added a long time later). The proposal for the youth cup is in part to offset that, with it being YT20 so the format doesn't die out. The rejig of the schedule is to make things smoother fatigue-wise for all players given all the proposed changes. That's the logic behind everything.

It is just a proposal and this is why we're floating it first to get input. I appreciate (and was expecting!) some people to not like parts of it, and would be keen to hear other ideas. Just changing U20 to U23 is an interesting option and worth debating, though I can see people who like the U20 setup as it is not being a fan of that, and I also wonder if that would just shift the problem to 16 to 18-year-olds not getting a game.

Just spit balling...

In the U23 proposal, could you have some form of proper 'youth' or 'grade' cricket type system below our clubs? Like each week you can flag a set limited number of U20s (or maybe younger) who are sent to play for the abstract younger division/local clubs, gain a minimal amount of experience, but the game doesn't require you to actually manage those matches/set full squads/engine doesn't need to simulate those. Basically like an additional training session for experience only the younger players can be assigned to? Like how in the Cricket Captain games you can set some of your players not in a match squad to play in the 2nds, or in football manager you can send players down to a youth squad where you don't manage them but they are still getting some lesser benefits.

[ryanalex]

Opinions from someone who has been in and out of the game for 15 years, its currently the most enjoyable I feel..
Long time reader, first time poster.
I really like Caspers original suggestions about running a U24 Cup the same as the MKMC on the sunday also.

A U24 competition gives players in that age range the chance to play some meaningful matches. It would replace YT20 since five leagues would be unsustainable and YT20 is the least impactful to remove (bear in mind it didn't exist at launch and was added a long time later). The proposal for the youth cup is in part to offset that, with it being YT20 so the format doesn't die out. The rejig of the schedule is to make things smoother fatigue-wise for all players given all the proposed changes. That's the logic behind everything.

I think if we had a dedicated squad for 21-24, including a wednesday or a saturday U24 round-robin competition it would be a good idea.

I wouldnt like to reduce the current games, I think the flow works well.
Squad size ages 21-24 maximum 15 or 18 players would make an extra dynamic to consider, and payment from the games or sponsorship to reflect the extra wages.

I think changing youth to be U24 across the board is a bad idea as it will move the problem up a few years, and have the same issues. it will just change the balance of the level of those comps.

Faster trng early with a bigger slowdown
differeing talents etc

I think changing the talents is interesting, adds a dynamic to the game that is random.

I would be opposed to any proposal that results in a reduction in the number of youth matches. For me, the youth competitions are one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game, and I would be very disappointed to see them reduced or removed.

I have no objection to the introduction of new competitions or formats, I am open to ideas that add something new to the game. However, I strongly believe that any additions should complement the existing youth structure rather than come at its expense.

By all means expand the game, but please don’t do so by reducing the area that brings me a lot of joy.

I totally agree with this sentiment here!

[OliverWyane]

Right know we don't need an extra league

[GM-crowfan65]

Right know we don't need an extra league

thats why we are discussing dropping one for the other

[ranti]

Seniors perform best when they are 29-31 yo. Likewise youths do so at 20. If teams play with their best squad, you will get to see better competition; else training players for just to earn money and to train another bunch, without being competitive in leagues, is somewhat against the true spirit of the game.

Who will field underprepared 16-20 yo players if U24 replaces youth? The 'Dead Zone' will still exist. It will just shift from seniors to youths. So IMO, replacement shouldn't be an option. Yeah, if you want to introduce another age restricted competition, I believe only YT20 can be swapped. SOD, ST20, YOD must stay as it is now.

Regarding U24: I feel rather than immediately starting a league of U24, we can introduce a similar age group competition in nats for few seasons and wait for the outcome. It will be an additional responsibility to the Senior Nat manager.
Alternatively UT20 leagues can be created but sufficient income for a minimum 15 man squad should be arranged.

About the days: For league weekdays and for knock-outs weekends.

[ukrooster]

I’d be very interested in any discussion on U20's to U23's. I think there could be some real merit in that approach and it would be good to explore how it might work in practice.

[CapnSim]

If it's about stopping the dead zone (which I don't think is 'that' unrealistic, lots of players who have great success at U19, U21 level struggle to get professional first XI game time) would be switch from two squads to three smaller squads for three 'ages' of cricket hopefully skipping dead zones, I don't know what would be perfect but something like:

U19s (16-19 eligible)
U23s (20-23 eligible)
24+

With squad sizes around 17ish at younger levels with seniors staying the same, maybe dropping to the low 20s

So at each stage it promoting players would be the weaker members of the next squad, potentially competitive in the case of the very best, likely having a year or two's apprenticeship before becoming first teamers at that level.

In terms of schedule it could be along the lines of playing Wednesday/Saturday (if two formats), if you want age group cups (whatever the format), they could play at the same time as other comps (e.g. U19s when seniors play, as they're unlikely to be needed, and U23s when U19s play because they'd be ineligible)

Just a thought.

[RobP27]

I think there is two pathways to changing youth to U23.

We could either go:
U19 - U23 - 24+
U23 - 24+

Splitting youth into U19 & U23:
It would mean doubling youth games, would managers want to set tactics for 6 matches a week?
You could also then look at Nats, would that mean splitting the youth nats too? would the youth nat manager want to have dual responsibility or have two managers, you could mitigate workload by having tour weeks split etc.

Moving purely to U23:
Could 16-17yr (maybe 18) olds gain experience purely from training every week so that the potential impact at a lower age is considered? Or
the experience curve for youth is far greater, meaning U23 could walk into the senior squad around Expert/Outstanding, maybe pushing spectacular. but then dropping the curve significantly so that every 29+ isnt legendary...

[Kaetor]

I also propose that we could have U20, U25 and seniors. Three squads.Very similar to the above comment with different age ranges.
We could leverage Wednesday and Saturday.

I know s that some managers already struggle for 4/5 games a week but I think the majority of us don't - it doesn't take long to set orders

[RevRob]

Let me first say that this game is excellent! I spend more time on-line than off. The writer (Crowfan?) did a brilliant job putting it together!
Having digested and reflected on all the comments made so far, I just wanted to add some more of my own -

1) Please PLEASE!!! - Don't make any big changes. If you alter (or do away with) either, any of the squad age structures or the weekly fixtures, or the training algorithms, as they currently are, I honestly think you are likely to put more current players off, than enrich the game for existing players,
let alone attract new ones.

2) I do understand this 'dead zone' situation for players once they hit 21. But, honestly, I actually think this is one the BEST and most challenging parts of the game!! And it is more than possible to transition good yth players into snr's who go on to have succesful careers at snr level.
Eg. I run 1 team - and this team has been in both top snr divisions for 10 consecutive yrs, and I'm pretty sure I will stay there. It is possible to nurture former yth players into highly successful snrs who are good enough to bring success at the top level. The challenge is playing them enough in the first teams when they are in their early 20's in order to for them to gain XP. But it is possible to do this and be BOTH successful in a top division whilst also transitioning older players for former yth players. IMO this is the BEST, MOST ADDICITVE AND REWARDING PART OF PLAYING FTP!!! SO PLEASE DONT CHANGE THINGS!!!!

3) (See above) I wouldn't alter or remove anything! But, if another competition can be simply ADDED then BRILLIANT!
That is the only way you'd have a win/win situation. eg Can a new U25 competition be brought in for a Saturday? This would be perfect!
Alternatively, along the lines of Casper J's suggestion - what about bringing in an U25 cup competition to run alongside the MKMC?
ie. on Sundays but running from Wk 4 till a final in Wk14? This would also enrich the game without detracting from it in any way!!

Just to repeat - I love this game!!

[GA-James018]

Another suggestion to raise, if one of the main sticking points is whether 5 leagues is too many or more is better, might be the ability to opt in and out of formats. To play in as many or as few as you'd like.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily for that idea, but it may be worth discussing.