Retiring youngsters...

[Kimbo]

I'm not sure what it is like in other parts of the world but here in NZ in junior cricket a lot of retiring goes on. By that I mean batsmen are getting retired at about 30 etc. These kids will never be given a chance to bat long innings. Compare that to the greats like Sachin who were making big centuries at a very young age. They become much more developed players as youngsters.

I think things really have to change if NZ is to produce a great batsman. I know its meant to be about fun to encourage the kids to play but wouldnt it be great for them to see a top test player to aspire to? At the moment you ask a kid who they idolise in NZ and it's Nathan Astle, it has to be, his test average of 38 is comparable to Alec Stewart. It's guys like Sachin that they really want to become but they don't have the same oppurtunity.

 

[Top_Cat]

Maybe but there is the 'burn-out' factor. Sachin has had chronic back troubles for years because he was using a big heavy bat and batting for long periods of time well before his back muscles actually reached maturity.

Unless these kids are being retired at, say, U/16's level, well I don't really see much of a problem with it. If the kids want it bad enough, they'll get it and will have plenty of opportunities to bat for longer when their bodies mature.

 

[Eclipse]

I used to hate having to retire at 50 personaly but I could understand other players wanted to get a bat as well.

 

[Kimbo]

Using a bat that's too heavy is another issue altogether.

I remember when I was 12 we were retired at 30. It was bloody ridiculous. That was just a crappy girls grade though. In girls cricket there is such a difference in standard from the better players in the team to the lesser ones, the decent players get severely held back and many lose interest completely. I went into womens grade at a really young age because I was getting worse not better...

It's not a very good incentive to score runs and be positive if you have to retire. You should be trying to spend as much time at the crease as possible. If there is a problem with people not getting a bat then chop and change the order from game to game.

 

[masterblaster]

At junior levels, its mostly about promoting the game, and making it as enjoyable as possible for the little kids. In that, everybody needs a go, and has to have a go.

I can understand this philosophy, as kids can easily get disgruntled if they dont 'have a bat' or 'have a go' at a particular thing.

After maybe 12 years of age, this philosophy should be dropped, and the more competitive philosophy be introduced. This seperates the extremely talented players from the 'casual' players who play for fun.

But young kids need to learn about the game, and have a go in all areas of cricket.

 

[Kimbo]

I can see what you guys are saying. I have played games with young kids for hours.. or days in the backyard where I have been in for hours, if I offer to retire they reject it. I guess if they are keen enough they want to get you out properly.

The other thing is that kids aren't stupid and you can just let a good bat get their runs quickly so you can spend more time bowling at the not so talented players. Therefore its not good for bowling either...

 

[lord_of_darkness]

I havent seen that in under 15 or under 17 level.. the batsmen chose to retire if they want.. I have seen guys go on to score 130* n.o and 156 Out

Maybe at a lower junior level were they are made to retire at 30 so as to not put stress on them or to give everyone else a go thing, that went on at that age..

 

[Kimbo]

Oh yeah it certainly isnt happening at that age group. Just around 10-12 year olds that I think this retiring nonsense should be stopped.

I know for a fact that the decent young players get really frustrated about it, and its those players that you want keen. Them doing well should be enough inspiration for the rest of the team.

 

[Neil Pickup]

In the junior leagues here, U13s retire at 25 and U15s at 40.

District and County level there's no retirement.

It's necessary IMO at local level because otherwise whoever's getting hammered (and yes, it usually is us) just gets disheartened.

I like the system as it is - nothing at higher levels - but personally I would prefer 40 over declaration games with no retirements at junior level to add a whole new dimension to it, and challenge the good sides against us minnows!

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Where/

I have b=never been retired and never seen anyone been reteired excpet in Freindlies

 

[lord_of_darkness]

In the junior leagues here, U13s retire at 25 and U15s at 40.

Jesus christ .. thats a really sad rules.. 25 and 40.. so you would never be given the chance to score a 50 and that i know disheartens young players a lot.. getting above 50 or 45 is like a huge morale boost to them and keeps their interest going..

No wonder you guys dont have any new aspiring youth players.. because most of them have become rebels or sit home smoking pot or sipping ale because cricket isint fun no more

 

[Kiwi]

I see both points of view. I hated it being retired at 30 when I was playing JAB cricket. It just seems to be the way Kiwis do things. About Compeating and not winning. I hate that saying but it is the Kiwi way.

Then on the other hand I help some coaching of our 2nd grade side. They are mostly around the 14 year old age group, and I have 9 people in the team complaining because they are not opening the batting, and another 9 complaining because they are not opening the bowling.

 

[Kimbo]

I don't see the problem if the batting order is rotated. Kids have to learn that in cricket stuff doesnt always go your way. It's part of the game, it's part of all games, heck it's even part of life.

Scoring 40 and being retired is the meanest thing I've heard, quite funny really. Why not make it 49...

 

[PY]

No wonder you guys dont have any new aspiring youth players.. because most of them have become rebels or sit home smoking pot or sipping ale because cricket isint fun no more

Sweeping generalisation

What about the other team's enjoyment?

I'm with Neil, retiring doesn't quench people's appetite if they are doing well because they look forward to being able to score those big scores and it disheartens the opposite team if one man scores 150* off a 20-over game while the rest get 12 between them.

Believe me, I've been on the receiving end of some very big scores against me. I'm sure Neil can give exact numbers but some of them take the ****, I carried on because I enjoyed it anyway as fielding is interesting when you are at cow-corner when a guy is slogging() but some people might give up because even the taking part in a game gets boring when you're getting absolutely mashed.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sweeping generalisation

What about the other team's enjoyment?

I'm with Neil, retiring doesn't quench people's appetite if they are doing well because they look forward to being able to score those big scores and it disheartens the opposite team if one man scores 150* off a 20-over game while the rest get 12 between them.

Believe me, I've been on the receiving end of some very big scores against me. I'm sure Neil can give exact numbers but some of them take the ****, I carried on because I enjoyed it anyway as fielding is interesting when you are at cow-corner when a guy is slogging() but some people might give up because even the taking part in a game gets boring when you're getting absolutely mashed.

Biggest thrashing we got was at Grimsby in 2001 when Scott Harneiss thrashed 102* off 20 overs, and Matt Webb's 66 inside 6 overs (highly because of an over of short, slow, straight, shocking leg spin from me (1-0-22-0)) came close. We've been knocked for 170-180 in total more times than I care to remember.

Pete just gets himself out at 39.

The point is - these retirement rules only apply in the lowest level of cricket - look, I played it - and the players making 25/40 are usually a class apart. There are no limits once you step out of this formative league into the district (which still isn't that hot) and county sides.

 

[marc71178]

Scoring 40 and being retired is the meanest thing I've heard, quite funny really. Why not make it 49...

Because kids would get to 46, 47 or 48 and have a slog!

 

[marc71178]

an over of short, slow, straight, shocking leg spin from me (1-0-22-0)

You should bowl it flat!!!

 

[Kimbo]

Because kids would get to 46, 47 or 48 and have a slog!

True. Make that 43. Retire at 43.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

You should bowl it flat!!!

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Doesnt he already ? :O :O :O :O