vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
But if it weren't for the suggestion of U/19 cricket, everyone would be happy with the second set. People are just saying "Oh, I'd like the 1st set" so that they qualify.steds said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How old were you....
- Thread starter Mr Mxyzptlk
- Start date
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
It just advantages those of us who are genuinely young. How about everyone starts at the age of 17 in CW years (else we have the daft situation of 13 year olds like Harry, Callum etc ripping it up), so you get two years of eligibility for U19 stuff.vic_orthdox said:
steds
Hall of Fame Member
I actually think the first set is a good idea because of Grade cricket. Cricketers don't just appear from nowhere when they're 17. And with the younger new signups starting in Grade cricket and then playing Dev league, it gives the impression of them working their way up through the ranks.vic_orthdox said:
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
How about scaling back from 19 at signup?
real age 17/18 -> dev age 18
real age 15/16 -> dev age 17
real age 13/14 -> dev age 16
real age 11/12 -> dev age 15
real age 17/18 -> dev age 18
real age 15/16 -> dev age 17
real age 13/14 -> dev age 16
real age 11/12 -> dev age 15
Loony BoB
International Captain
Just an idea, I personally don't care if it gets used or not...
If we're going to make ages come into play with things around here, I think the best way to go about it would be to have people automatically start with an age between 15 and 25 and then if we use Neil's sim, as they age their mental strength attributes could improve over time.
We could then have it set so that there is indeed a retirement age, although at 65 it would take someone a good 50 seasons of Dev League cricket to get to there.
Strength and speed would naturally decrease after a certain age, though, I would imagine (35? 45? 50? I'm not really sure). I think this would enhance the whole 'career' aspect of this league as well as realism.
Of course, there are probably more important things to think about, but if Neil's sim does indeed come into play in future seasons then it would be great to allow players to "mature" from youth and then at some point begin natural degeneration. It only makes sense to have the average 15 year old to increase in strength and intelligence as he reaches the age of 30 or so, and for his agility to decrease from that point on, and then eventually strength decreasing as well. It might also be reasonable to say that fast bowlers would become fast-medium bowlers if their running speed decreased at a certain age to beyond what would be required for a fast bowler.
The reason I'd have people starting at a young age regardless of their offline age would be to allow older people who might happen to sign up to be given the full distance.
It would also add to the realism of a bunch of youths making up the first ever CW XI and then over time, the youths mature into seasoned players (those who would be 15-20 in the first season would be 25-30 by now).
EDIT: I say "15-20" because I think people should be able to trade off the U-19 option in favour of a stronger mentality & physical strength.
If we're going to make ages come into play with things around here, I think the best way to go about it would be to have people automatically start with an age between 15 and 25 and then if we use Neil's sim, as they age their mental strength attributes could improve over time.
We could then have it set so that there is indeed a retirement age, although at 65 it would take someone a good 50 seasons of Dev League cricket to get to there.
Strength and speed would naturally decrease after a certain age, though, I would imagine (35? 45? 50? I'm not really sure). I think this would enhance the whole 'career' aspect of this league as well as realism.Of course, there are probably more important things to think about, but if Neil's sim does indeed come into play in future seasons then it would be great to allow players to "mature" from youth and then at some point begin natural degeneration. It only makes sense to have the average 15 year old to increase in strength and intelligence as he reaches the age of 30 or so, and for his agility to decrease from that point on, and then eventually strength decreasing as well. It might also be reasonable to say that fast bowlers would become fast-medium bowlers if their running speed decreased at a certain age to beyond what would be required for a fast bowler.
The reason I'd have people starting at a young age regardless of their offline age would be to allow older people who might happen to sign up to be given the full distance.
It would also add to the realism of a bunch of youths making up the first ever CW XI and then over time, the youths mature into seasoned players (those who would be 15-20 in the first season would be 25-30 by now).
EDIT: I say "15-20" because I think people should be able to trade off the U-19 option in favour of a stronger mentality & physical strength.
Last edited:
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
Not a bad idea Towns.Loony BoB said:Just an idea, I personally don't care if it gets used or not...
If we're going to make ages come into play with things around here, I think the best way to go about it would be to have people automatically start with an age between 15 and 25 and then if we use Neil's sim, as they age their mental strength attributes could improve over time.
We could then have it set so that there is indeed a retirement age, although at 65 it would take someone a good 50 seasons of Dev League cricket to get to there.
Of course, there are probably more important things to think about, but if Neil's sim does indeed come into play in future seasons then it would be great to allow players to "mature" from youth and then at some point begin natural degeneration. It only makes sense to have the average 15 year old to increase in strength and intelligence as he reaches the age of 30 or so, and for his agility to decrease from that point on, and then eventually strength decreasing as well. It might also be reasonable to say that fast bowlers would become fast-medium bowlers if their running speed decreased at a certain age to beyond what would be required for a fast bowler.
The reason I'd have people starting at a young age regardless of their offline age would be to allow older people who might happen to sign up to be given the full distance.
It would also add to the realism of a bunch of youths making up the first ever CW XI and then over time, the youths mature into seasoned players (those who would be 15-20 in the first season would be 25-30 by now).
EDIT: I say "15-20" because I think people should be able to trade off the U-19 option in favour of a stronger mentality & physical strength.
Robertinho
Cricketer Of The Year
Argh, Xavier, why do you make such pointless posts?!
A little "Indeed" here, a little "I was only making a harmless little quip" there.. grr
Anyway, having the minimum age of 17 is fine..
A little "Indeed" here, a little "I was only making a harmless little quip" there.. grr
Anyway, having the minimum age of 17 is fine..
steds
Hall of Fame Member
You've had your time. Let someone else be the kid.kwek said:
I still prefer the staggered system Neil suggested a bit back. The vast majority of signups are under 17, so we'd end up with a load of 17 year olds each season, but no one else with any different ages. So bloody mechanical.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The thing is that not everyone will sign up with an age of 17 (ie <=17), so we would still have a varying age range I'd think. Personally, I'm a huge fan of simplicity, so I'd prefer the 17 base level. As Neil said, 2 years of U19 is enough, though players currently listed as 19 will be allowed to play for our U19 team until they turn 20.steds said:You've had your time. Let someone else be the kid.
I still prefer the staggered system Neil suggested a bit back. The vast majority of signups are under 17, so we'd end up with a load of 17 year olds each season, but no one else with any different ages. So bloody mechanical.