DISCUSSION POINT - SUGGESTION

[leaguegod]

I like the idea of the U24 T20 replacing the current YT20, not only to help the dead zone but also find the current YT20 fairly pointless, i think having a progression in the middle of YOD and when players get to their peak in SOD would be entertaining change.

i personally don't see the need for YT20 cup especially when the first change is already a pretty drastic change.

[RevRob]

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.

I like this - A win/win situation for all!

[gregsy34]

If you want to address the "dead zone" it has to be to the benefit of all players in all Divs not the biggest benefit for the highest ranked teams.
The "dead zone" is mostly dead due to Experience and strenghth and a perhaps a primary pop or 2 IMHO
If you wanted to have an U23/U24 league, I think there would have to be a maximum number of "over 21" players allowed. And/Or a "max average age" of the team to encourage a blend and also a way to allow lower ranked teams to benefit more than higher ranked ones. Like maybe an exp bonus for players under the average age of the team or for the 4 lowest exp players in the team.
By giving proportionally more benefit to lower ranked players & teams (and I am only talking slightly here) you give lower ranked teams more chance to produce a sellable U21, u22 or u23 year old.
In theory a "max average age" would allow people to choose how to play (either to EXP max or try to win the league) and should make each league season more competitive as the season goes on, as you have to think carefully about who to play...
If you really wanted to make it interesting, you could make the max average age decrease slightly the lower the div level. So div 1 would have a lower max average age than div 2 or div3...
Some crazy ideas i know.... Ready to be shot down.

[Hawwy]

I've been playing this game on and off since about 2010 and I have always felt there is too much of an age gap for 21yo's to be relevant for senior squads in the game, often referred to in previous replies as the 'dead zone'.
Many people may not know that the original age for youth squads was 16 to 19 (players turning 20 promoted to seniors).

Post by GA-James018 » Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:34 am

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.

Managers can already do this if they want to. My affiliate team completely ignores Youths.

Personally I feel the game desperately needs to find a way to make 21yo -25yo players more relevant in FTP. I think the only way to do this is to introduce a new squad to the game for 21yo to 25yo.

Youths 16yo to 20yo (U21)
'Middle Age' 21 yo to 25yo (U26)
Seniors 26yo+

Obviously the logistics of making this work wouldn't be easy by introducing new matches (comps), training and national teams, but I think it could work if all 'middle age' matches, training and events occurred at exactly the same time as Youth events. Basically the middle age squad becomes and extension of the youth squad.

I see absolutely no reason why this scenario wouldn't work. We already have only one academy. Fatigue shouldn't be an issue. The only thing the game would need to figure out is balancing the finances to make it work.

* As someone who likes to train up youths and keep them for the duration of their FTP life, I would love for this to be applied to the game

[Sockit151]

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.

Fully agree, flatly raising youth ages would just make the 16-18yos obsolete..

It is only the top talent who can compete v 19-20yo's in the first season or 2 as it is

[tonk6464]

I think the U24 league suggestion makes sense - young senior players are not competitive except in lower divisions or against weak teams in the MKMC.

I suggest the following alternative - make both youth leagues U21 and as Crowfan suggested, increase the training speed for youths and slow down the training speed more as players get older. This would make players somewhat more competitive in seniors by the time they graduate to seniors. And it would be a less complicated change than having a new age division.

I am not a fan of changing the weekly schedule - I think the current schedule works well as it is. If Senior T20 were to be moved to Monday, then there would be no fitness update between MKMC and Senior T20, which I don't think would be good. I don't think we need a youth cup.

[optimist]

Another Idea would be to have 3 teams Youth (U21), Junior (U24 or U25) and Senior (no age limit). max. squad size may be reduced to force few U25 selection in Senior games. Wages may be reduced to make 3 teams affordable. I like the idea to fix the dead zone. Another idea could be to have random Super Gifted/Talented youth players who will have senior level skills when 21.

[CricketGodMate977]

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.

Totally agree. I'm not a fan at all of this change if I'm being honest. As someone who primarily focuses on the Youth squad, I think this could heavily impact the ability for these players to develop.

[GA-James018]

Just reiterating that if we went back to one single youth league (cutting out YT20), the amount of experience obtained from that one game would be increased so players aren't hindered in their development. It would be an easy change, since it would just be returning to how things were before YT20 was introduced in the first place.

[Cynic]

T20 in this game earns the lowest experience anyway. I wouldn't miss it.

[AlbertCamus]

I'd hate the youth part of the game to become lessened as developing the 16-21 age group is something I find fun & rewarding.

Saying that, having 3 teams has been mentioned and for those wanting more realism this would appear to be the way to go with Academy, Seconds and Senior sides taking place.

Academy 16 to 19.14, Seconds 20 to 23>14, Seniors 24+

Schedule could be:
Monday: Academy One Day (+ Academy Training)
Tuesday: Seconds One Day - Academy players also available (+ Seconds Training)
Wednesday: Senior T20 - all ages available (+ Senior Training) - why is there currently a day during the week when there's no game?
Thursday: Seconds Cup - Academy players also available - Friendlies available for those knocked out
Friday: Senior One Day - all squad members available
Saturday: Friendlies
Sunday: Senior Knockout Cup (all squad members available)

Have a high training effect at Youth level, lessening at Seconds and lesser still for Seniors.

Wages? I've no idea how incorporating a third team would be fair to all due to wage demands so people smarter than I can work that one out!
And whatever changes are made, it mustn't only favour those with already hefty back balances or currently in the top divisions otherwise there would be no incentive to engage in the Senior team.

One last thought which could be incorporated at Academy and Seconds level. If a player has no passive/trigger talent when he is initially recruited, is there a way they can develop, say, becoming an opener if he bats at #1 or #2 over a length of time? Or becomes a new/old ball bowler if, again, that's where he bowls the majority of his overs? Have it work similar/same as the way experience develops maybe? It seems odd that no player ever develops these particular skills during their FTP lifetime.

[dellis]

I too enjoy the youth leagues and wouldn’t really want to see YT20 lost. However, I also wouldn’t have that many players for an U25 league as well as two youth leagues if fatigue means that a youth player cannot play all three matches a week. I don’t know how many 21-24 year olds in the ‘dead-zone’ other clubs have, but for me it’s usually three or four at most. So I would need 7 or more youth players to make a U25 team.

I like this game because it is ‘easy to play but hard to master’ (which is probably why I rarely get into Div 2!). I feel that a lot of the changes suggested would add more complexity which would take away slightly from the ‘easy to play’ nature of the game.

Two alterative ideas could be:

A. Instead of a U25 league, have a Second XI league which would be open to players of all ages. The league could run at the same time as another league. If, for example, it ran at the same time as SOD matches, then players chosen for the SOD match couldn’t play for the Second XI team. The teams in each Second XI league could mirror those in the respective SOD league. As the aim is to increase experience for the ‘dead-zone’, there would be no promotion, relegation, prize money or sponsorship (i.e. no financial motive for picking stronger players over the ‘dead-zone’ players). There would be experience gains and fatigue from the Second XI matches.

B. Make some friendly matches give experience. So as not to disadvantage non-Pavilion members, only Sunday friendlies (which can be arranged by members and non-members) could award a low/medium amount of experience. A more optional way of getting experience for ‘dead-zone’ players, although a fatigue hit might be necessary to prevent managers simply getting even more experience for their main players. It also relies on enough managers wanting to arrange and/or accept friendly matches, although it would provide more opportunity to play teams in other countries.

[cork16]

I'm personally not a huge fan of chopping and changing big things in the game regularly, and I would be against removing YT20. However, if we wanted to look at bridging the gap in Senior Teams, I would probably do the following...

Keep Youth games (U20) and also introduce U23 matches.

Keep the schedule how it is, with the U23 team playing in the evenings of Mondays and Wednesdays.

I would have an U23 One Day Cup in the second half of the season on Saturdays. This could work as the vast majority of players
are out of the MKMC and the ones that are still in won't be playing many U23 players anyway.

Squad limits could be increased slightly to reflect this, not too much to the point where most managers pick eleven 22 year olds for an U23 game. The limits would still be set to encourage mangers to make decisions about which players make their U20 matches and which make their U23 matches, hopefully drawing in more 16/17 year olds to U20 matches, and some 19 years old making it to U23 games. Managers who aren't youth focused can still ask their assistant to pick orders, and perhaps there could be an option to make certain players available for certain matches (similar to FM - for example if a manager wants a 22 year old player to be playing senior cricket week in week out, they can be made available only for senior games and won't be the match orders screen for U23 games unless that option is de-selected again) The other option of course is to have 3 separate teams.

With the extra experience players between 21 and 23 are receiving, they will be a more attractive option for senior teams. I would also slightly increase the training speed of Power for players aged between 21 and 24, still a gradual increase in these years so realistically gives managers an option to start training Power at 23/24 if they wanted to without affecting their development too much. I would also slightly increase how long it takes for experience pops beyond outstanding. With these changes, plus a few other small tweaks it could help bridge the gap in senior teams.

[BigglyG]

I am against the change to the Y20 competition. I try and go with a home grown, high academy approach. In order to afford my academy I run with a young senior team as I have to sell players when they get to be expensive. I am OK with this approach but if we move to an U24 competition I would essentially put out my U20 team into the U24 competition.

I think this proposal works for first division teams who can afford a bigger squad and who don't play their U24 players.

I think the game is skewed to the benefit of first division teams anyway and this would just make it harder for everyone else to get close to D1. I also don't think it would help grow the game.

[ukrooster]

I am against the change to the Y20 competition. I try and go with a home grown, high academy approach. In order to afford my academy I run with a young senior team as I have to sell players when they get to be expensive. I am OK with this approach but if we move to an U24 competition I would essentially put out my U20 team into the U24 competition.

I think this proposal works for first division teams who can afford a bigger squad and who don't play their U24 players.

I think the game is skewed to the benefit of first division teams anyway and this would just make it harder for everyone else to get close to D1. I also don't think it would help grow the game.

I agree with you. There are a significant number of managers who enjoy building their clubs around youth development, academies and home-grown players, and I don't see why adding something new needs to come at the expense of that experience. Youth development is fundamentally part of what the game has been built around. Changes have already been made to remove any additional financial benefit for managers choosing a youth-focused strategy, and now those same managers are potentially being asked to give up an entire competition. Where does that end? I have no problem with introducing new competitions or providing more opportunities for U24 players, but surely the objective should be to add to the game rather than replace something that a sizeable group of managers already value and enjoy.