Youth Cricket 20 Over Batting/bowling Restrictions

Top Contributors
S

shortextracover129

Member
A frequent problem with the 20 over format is that from U12 upwards, it's often the same three, five or five players dominating matches. You end up finding that the players who bat in the top three or four, then also bowl their maximum bowling allocation. This can be potentially harmful for the other players in the team who may feel undervalued and lose interest in playing (which can then also destabilise the team/squad).
There must be many variations on batting / bowling restrictions for youth cricket 20 over competitions in England and around the world.
My preferences are:
bowlers have 4 overs max
batters retire at 25
and one as yet untried idea: a player who bats in the top four in the order may only bowl 2 overs and if fielding first, a player who bowls more than 2 overs may not then bat in the top four.
Has this last idea been tried anywhere and does anyone have any other suggestions for encouraging inclusive cricket in this format?
 
A frequent problem with the 20 over format is that from U12 upwards, it's often the same three, five or five players dominating matches. You end up finding that the players who bat in the top three or four, then also bowl their maximum bowling allocation. This can be potentially harmful for the other players in the team who may feel undervalued and lose interest in playing (which can then also destabilise the team/squad).
There must be many variations on batting / bowling restrictions for youth cricket 20 over competitions in England and around the world.
My preferences are:
bowlers have 4 overs max
batters retire at 25
and one as yet untried idea: a player who bats in the top four in the order may only bowl 2 overs and if fielding first, a player who bowls more than 2 overs may not then bat in the top four.
Has this last idea been tried anywhere and does anyone have any other suggestions for encouraging inclusive cricket in this format

I think this has been discussed elsewhere, but coming at it from a slightly different perspective e.g where the team has far more boys than required. I may have raised the same points that you are making on the basis that the sitaution that you're reporting here is part of the reason that my older son was left out of his side at the end of the season when they played in the quarter, semis and the final, when all the through the year he was integral to them being in that sitaution and other people made the point that if he had have been in either the semi or the final the end result would have been different e.g. we'd have won rather than have waited 20 years at the club to be the runners up in the league.

But the crux of the issue at the end of the day is the perenial situation where you're faced with the dilemma of -

1. Do you follow an inclusive approach where the team never achieves anything because it always rotates the players mixing good, okay and crap players, never reaching a point where the side gels and becomes a unit.

2. Do you build a team with regular players that are picked on merit only bringing in new blood when people don't turn up (Holidays and family committment etc) hence giving the 'Not so good players a go'.

Our own club to my own sons detriment seems to have a policy more akin to the option 2. Anecdotally he appeared to be a safe member of the team, taking wickets, bowling exceptionally well and doing pretty well in the field, but being bigger and stronger and therefore faster than most of the other kids he ends up costing the team runs through byes and leg-byes and edges off the bat going for 4's and when a Stalking Horse was pushed forward by his 'Pushy' parents, another kid got a go and did okay and was in the running for a place on the team in place of my own son.Initially as said, many people couldn't beleive the decision to side-line my son and bring the new kid in, it looked daft, but then if you looked at the stats, this other kid had the edge and my son had to attend as a spectator as they went through the last three matches of the season to watch them end up as runners up, normally kids that don't get a place in the XI don't generally watch the matches, but we did despite every week seeing that he wasn't selected.

The bottom line though is, if cricket is to be competitive and at some point it does have to change from being purely fun and games to a game where winning is an aspect of it, then a merit based system has to do be put in place. Therefore if you're one of the kids that's not within the first XI you then have to review your game and attitude towards it. You have to ask yourself what is it that I do? Am I football player or am I cricket player and if I want to be in that 1st XI next year and play competitively in the league or do I have to make some decisions - like get fit instead of sitting on my Jacksy watching tele and playing XBOX all day? Should I stop kicking a football around most of the time and try throwing the stumps down and learning how to bowl and bat?

It's decisions like this that need to be made perhaps? On a more positive note though, you'll find that at this age group, the boys get a better shout in their second year, because they become the older players in the team and the younger players are less likely to be holding at place in their first year, but they do have to stick it out and possibly accept that they're not of a higher enough standard to break into the 1st XI. I'd also argue, if that then leads to them giving cricket up at that point, they're probably not the right kind of kid and that maybe they should go back to texting and XBOX's or whatever it is that they do?

Format differences - Our team do some of the things that you have mentioned, the bats retire at 25, and the top four generally don't get to bowl more than 2 overs, but rather than this being policy it seems that it's more likely to be that at this point the boys are all beginning to come through as specialists. The situation that you mention might happen if say you were in a position where your club didn't have a lads that felt that they were bowlers and therefore didn't train in a way that was conducive with being seen as bowlers. A club I suppose might have a top order of 'All Rounders', but I'd be very surprised that there were no specialist bowlers down the order?

You're also right about the destabalisation of the team, if the balance isn't managed and I'd imagine the balance is in a state of constant flux - linked to how popular the club is, its catchment area, the level of involvement of the parents, the clubs constitution as its written down Vs the clubs constitutions as it's played out in reality. The club will have good phases and bad phases, where membership will increase and decrease (also linked with how good the national team is and whether the cricket is restricted to SKY TV). If your clubs got barely enough players to get XI out at the weekends, yeah the boys will always get a game, but they'll more than likely be a poor side? So, to me it seems straight forward, if a kids in that situation, he needs to get a ball and or a bat and start putting the hours in - especially if he's a slow bowler (Spinner).

In a way it's kind of harsh, but it is also a true reflection of life and it hints at what is to come in the future once you're an adult and I've not even gone into the Favouritism aspects!
 
SEC129, a subject close to my heart - how to ensure that all players feel part of a team. Obviously this is easier at the younger age groups for two main reasons - the difference in ability is less pronounced and the pairs format stops the domination by a couple of key players.

The transition to normal format 20 over cricket is not always easy and needs to be managed so that everyone (players, parents, coach and club) are clear about what the goals of the club are and how this will impact on coaches and players. Someone found this document for me http://www.bathcricket.com/client_files/news/U11 & U13 Youth Team Plans 2011.pdf and I think it is an excellent place to start, with clear boundaries set as to team selection and opportunities within the team and is something I will be looking to formally introduce at my club next season. This year we had a selection and opportunity policy (unwritten) similar to SEC129's preferences - max 4 overs, those who get more of the 20 batting lower down, those who dont get a bowl batting higher up. I doesnt always pay off in terms of results but does seem to be accepted by players and parents alike that participation and each players development is more important than an extra win or two during the season, this was for under 11s and 12s teams, obviously as they move up the age range then there will be more focus on results, but again hopefully not at the expense of that team ethic.

In an ideal world all coaches/clubs would subscribe to this model and adjust their selections/batting and bowling orders to fit the opposition but that cant be guaranteed, we did play one match (older age group) where we limped to 45 in 20 overs only to then see two of their opening three bowlers opening the batting with the lad batting 3 being the other opening bowler - they managed to cruise to victory 'using' only 6 of their 11 players!
 
TonyM said:
SEC129, a subject close to my heart - how to ensure that all players feel part of a team. Obviously this is easier at the younger age groups for two main reasons - the difference in ability is less pronounced and the pairs format stops the domination by a couple of key players.

The transition to normal format 20 over cricket is not always easy and needs to be managed so that everyone (players, parents, coach and club) are clear about what the goals of the club are and how this will impact on coaches and players. Someone found this document for me http://www.bathcricket.com/client_files/news/U11 & U13 Youth Team Plans 2011.pdf and I think it is an excellent place to start, with clear boundaries set as to team selection and opportunities within the team and is something I will be looking to formally introduce at my club next season.

Tony
Thanks for this fine reference document. Based on my own experience of running U9-11 pairs matches I would make some adjustments to the guidelines, my comments added below in italics.

Guidelines for Pairs to U11 (Swords / Daggers / Spears)
Full rotation of all players within squad Caveat: players with parents who stay to support/watch and help out -with drinks/scoring/setting up- will tend to be selected more often).
Identify strongest players and try to ensure a presence of these players
in each team selected. Agree!
Attempt to identify stronger / weaker opponents and adapt selections to
match opponents. Agree!
Winning is of secondary importance to full participation. Agree!
All players will bat as part of the game and all players should also bowl an equal share. Not quite – if a bowler bowls only wides it is unfair on the batsman to allow a second over.
Several ( 3 ?) captains used across the season. Agree certainly worth looking at more than one if there are multiple contenders.
Coach to sort out batting pairs. Agree!
–“experienced”/confident players to bat with less able teammates. No! I found it best to pair batters of a similar standard together. A strong batter with a weak batter can end up with the strong batter hitting a single and the weak batter not scoring from the remainder of the over, if this sequence is then repeated for the next three overs it causes much frustration. Similar batsmen batting together will mostly get a similar amount of strike.
Coach will input during games – explain and teach as the game progresses, without necessarily running the game. Avoid having a coach shouting instructions from the boundary. Best for the umpires to keep the game moving and give low-key encouragement/advice to the players when appropriate.
Coach may seek agreement to take occasional “time-outs” as necessary to enable talks with fielders and/or pairs of batters. OK but too much of this can make the game overrun and delay a senior match scheduled for the same pitch, better to use natural gaps e.g. drinks for timeouts!
Click to expand...
 
someblokecalleddave said:
But the crux of the issue at the end of the day is the perenial situation where you're faced with the dilemma of -

1. Do you follow an inclusive approach where the team never achieves anything because it always rotates the players mixing good, okay and crap players, never reaching a point where the side gels and becomes a unit.

2. Do you build a team with regular players that are picked on merit only bringing in new blood when people don't turn up (Holidays and family committment etc) hence giving the 'Not so good players a go'.

Dave thanks for that.
Here are some thoughts on inclusiveness/team selection and the problem with option 1:
I would argue it’s still being inclusive if you decide to pick the weaker players only for matches where they are likely to contribute.
It is not right to pick the weaker players if they are:
- - very unlikely to bat or bowl
- - or likely to get blame from the rest of the team for costing us the match.
Friendly matches and intraclub matches need to be organized to give the weaker players a chance to play and maybe do something good.
For any match the ideal is a closely fought game of cricket where everyone contributes (and you also win). But you want both teams and all players go home buzzing (and your squad/team that gels to emerge). So team selection needs to be made with those objectives in mind.
Click to expand...
 
If you follow the more inclusive approach, do you think there will be the potential to lose your better players to other local clubs that follow a far more merit based approach? Losing game after game must be soul destroying to boys with natural flair, who see the coaches bringing in kids that lack the ability to compete at the expense of more able boys? Would you say that your clubs policies are also tied in with a longer term goal of feeding the players into the adult teams, and couldn't you be losing more able players on the basis that they get fed up with being on the losing side, I've seen it happen here at my club. The longer term affect then might be that the adult team could be weakened?

If you extrapolate the inclusive logic forwards, you then may end up with the situation that has occured in schools here in the UK where competition becomes a dirty word and the idea of winning is never even mentioned all in the name of 'It's not about the winning, it's all about the involvement'. I can see that for small kids that may make sense to some degree, but there's then got to be a point where reality rears its ugly head and the notion of winning and competitiveness has to be addressed and 12 seems like the kind of age where that should start to happen? My observation of my own son (13) seems to be that his instinctive/learned competitiveness has accelerated this year in his 12/13 phase and he wants to win and feels the need to win. Furthermore he's now observing cricket in a way where he's analysing the things he's being told and making sense of it through empirical practice. I know for sure too, that our 1st XI, whilst they would encourage a lesser ability kid during a game and do and say all the right things, would be gutted to see one of the better ability kids dropped to include such a kid or two with the chance that it might have a detrimental impact on a game or their position in the league. Which to me, is not only an instinctive response, but also a learned response from seeing for instance the impact of footballers being removed from matches in premiership games for instance? We don't live in a Disney cartoon or in Spielberg film, so the chances of a 2nd XI type kid coming into a 1st team situation and playing like Garfield Sobers and winning the game single handed isn't going to happen.

So, whilst it's nice and cosy to be altruistic and inclusive I think that many of us may have to put up with the fact that the agendas at clubs may not be as written down in the constitution and as spoken about in meetings and that they may be more 'Real Life'?

I am being Devils advocate to some extent, but am able to do so with some degree of comfort as both of my sons are half decent bowlers and enthusiastic fielders, which counters their inabilities with the bat, but at the same time they do get omitted from the team as players are moved around for reasons other than SEC has suggested. I'm not sure how aggrieved I'd feel if my lads were of lesser ability and were in that 2nd XI catergory and only ever got a game in the 1st team once or twice a year because the ethos of the club was one of primarily winning in practice and inclusion on paper. I suppose a factor I've not considered is one of how they would feel? I think in my own experience as a kid, I knew that I wasn't any good at football and that there were other lads who were far better than me, so I don't think I'd have ever tried to impose myslef on them to the point where I'd expect a place in their team? I think if my Dad was to have argued and insisted that I had a place in a team where I wasn't much more than a decoy, I'd have been mortified. My own solution back in the day was to do other things that I was good at that made me feel equal to the football kids, they played football well, I swam and ran long distances better than all of them etc. The solution our team employs its seems (I'm not a coach you'll be relieved to hear) is to have inter-club matches, where all abilities are mixed and they play full games.

I'm trying to envisage a scenario where my younger son would end up in the 2nd XI catergory (He's 10) and figure out how he'd feel about it. To be honest, I don't think he'd be that bothered if he could see that the system was merit based and that the boys that were playing were better than he was. Whether he'd be motivated enough to up his game or not is debatable at his current age, but at the same time I'm not sure whether it would lead to him wanting to leave the team? Added to that what with being 10 years old I'm not sure I'd let him leave the team, his ability to make such decisions are a tad fickle and given that kind of option would lead to him sitting indoors every day of his life playing Fifa 2011 on his XBOX.
 

It's a complex issue and as I said, I am playing Devils advocate to some extent. I'm constantly being asked to be more involved in our team and to become a coach, but I'm inclined not to because it involves all of these issues and they're difficult to resolve especially when there seems to be a public face and a private face. At the same time I'm not being judgemental on this public/private presentation of the clubs approach, I just acknowledge that it happens and that its an aspect of club cricket. Club cricket involves a handful of people who put in a lot of their time, effort and sometimes money to get things going and moving along, so if there's some non-adherence to an ideal scenario, I'm not going to get that wound up by it and yeah, I'm able to say this fairly readily because my kids are in in the 1st XI scenario. But, I also have to point out that they are in that situation because they probably practice 4 x as much as most of the other kids.
 
Dave, appreciate you are to a degree being devils advocate but its worth the debate (and there isnt a right and wrong with all this anyway). From a personal perspective, I am less concerned about polishing up the odd 'gem' for the first team and would far rather that 10 of the 15 or so I had in my under 12s squad playing cricket in 10 years time than one of them was still playing albeit at the same club, I think that will tend to take care of itself anyway. We are now looking at expanding the age ranges we play at, this year was 10s (Kwik), 11s (3 friendlies), 12s & 14s league, next year should be 10s (Kwik), 11s, 12s, 13s & 14s league with 15s friendlies once we have full squads at each age group then I think opportunities may become more limited and we may lose a few but I think so long as players (and parents) see they are improving then results are less of a concern.

We recently had our end of season awards and the player of the year at each age group was (relatively) easy, I am pleased to say it was far trickier to pick 'best newcomer' and 'most improved player'. These were the ones that were the 'prestige' awards on the night because they were all about development and making the most of what ability a player had and every single player stood an almost equal chance of winning - that isnt about dumbing down but a genuine recognition that effort and application are seen to be valued within the junior section of the club
 
shortextracover129 said:
For any match the ideal is a closely fought game of cricket where everyone contributes (and you also win). But you want both teams and all players go home buzzing (and your squad/team that gels to emerge). So team selection needs to be made with those objectives in mind.
Click to expand...

Nail on the head SEC129, I considered our under 12s had a very successful year, one loss to a better team, one (big) defeat to a team intent on winning where we just didnt turn up and 5 league games which went down to the final over or so (won 3 lost 2 - almost irrelevant). Best game of the season by a mile was a defeat where with 3 balls left all three results still possible, they needed one run, we needed 1 wicket - they got the win but both teams 'grew up' that evening and your comment about teams that 'gels' certainly applied from that point onwards in our season

Also totally agree about limiting bowling to those that can bowl (or rather dont bowl excessive wides which is unfair on the opposition batter) - being more of a bowling coach I am happy for anyone to have a go at batting so long as the bowling is relatively tidy and whilst this has restricted the batting opportunities of a couple of our bowlers (including my lad) they would all far rather bowl than bat anyway

Also agree about Kwik cricket pairs, what we have tried to do is bat a stronger pair first and last with the weaker players in the middle, if you have a good relationship with the opposing coach you can then agree to adjust the bowlers accordingly and still come up with competitive match ups (ie put the good bowlers on first and last to give them a proper test)
 
I think this is a problem that coaches/captains have to address at every level in every sport. There is no one right answer, but there are obviously wrong answers (when people start leaving the club).

Its obviously important to balance winning with inclusion. In a more serious competition, you might bowl 6 rather than 4 bowlers, and you might keep a couple of spots in the top 6 for people who didn't (or won't) bowl, and you make sure that those troopers who don't bowl and don't bat high up at least get given some small task to do - be it a specialist fielding position or whatever. Everyone wants to feel like they're playing a part, but most people are happy to play a small part in a winning team rather than a big part in a losing team.

I love 20-20 games that have restrictions like retire at 25 and max 3 overs per bowler, because quite often the team that wins is the team that gets the best performance out of its less experienced players. But you put your team at a massive disadvantage unless you get the other team to agree to play by the same rules.
 
SLA said:
I love 20-20 games that have restrictions like retire at 25 and max 3 overs per bowler, because quite often the team that wins is the team that gets the best performance out of its less experienced players.
Click to expand...

Retire at 25 has worked really well in our league for the last 2 years. With no-one stodging anymore, the batting order is not so contentious because even no 11 can expect a reasonable bat (even when there are many decent batters in the team). Previously with retire at 35, 8-11 would regularly not bat.
Some coaches do not like retirement at 25 because
1) their star bat would prefer to carry on and score a 50
2) some teams only have a couple of decent batters and so are disadvantaged
My preference is still to implement the inclusive rule, retire at 25, urge the coaches to improve the remaining batters in the team, and encourage the stars to be more team aware.
20 overs is the short form of the game so if you've scored a rapid 25, well done, now let's see what the next player can do.
 
someblokecalleddave said:
If you follow the more inclusive approach, do you think there will be the potential to lose your better players to other local clubs that follow a far more merit based approach? Losing game after game must be soul destroying to boys with natural flair, who see the coaches bringing in kids that lack the ability to compete at the expense of more able boys? Would you say that your clubs policies are also tied in with a longer term goal of feeding the players into the adult teams, and couldn't you be losing more able players on the basis that they get fed up with being on the losing side
Click to expand...
Dave
Squad rotation must be done carefully. There is a duty to the opposition to field a competitive team. They will arrive expecting a decent game of cricket. It is also unfair on the team captain to select a number of weak players ahead of stronger ones when you know the opposition are strong. The captain will therefore not have an opportunity to involve the weaker players anyway and that may cause bad feeling. Explain to the weaker players that there will be opportunities in Intra-club, friendlies and against weaker opposition sides. Remember to discuss the level of their involvement with the captain beforehand. This is still being inclusive. I would want/expect the team to win most of their matches across the season, if so there is no damage to self-esteem and certainly no need for star players to leave.
 
shortextracover129 said:
Dave
Squad rotation must be done carefully. There is a duty to the opposition to field a competitive team. They will arrive expecting a decent game of cricket. It is also unfair on the team captain to select a number of weak players ahead of stronger ones when you know the opposition are strong. The captain will therefore not have an opportunity to involve the weaker players anyway and that may cause bad feeling. Explain to the weaker players that there will be opportunities in Intra-club, friendlies and against weaker opposition sides. Remember to discuss the level of their involvement with the captain beforehand. This is still being inclusive. I would want/expect the team to win most of their matches across the season, if so there is no damage to self-esteem and certainly no need for star players to leave.
Click to expand...

I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head with this one, because this is sounding more like what actually happens at our club and maybe I misconstrued what you were driving at initially - I thought you were advocating the inclusion of the weaker lads in league level cricket at the cost of the competition.

I don't think the opportunities are as plentiful as you've indicated they could be, there are certainly a number of intra-club matches and there are opportunities through the year for individuals and pairs to come into the 1st XI because of people being away, ill or some other reason and I get the sense that they're cut some slack and no-one blames them for the loss of the match, which would be utterly wrong. I reckon despite the fact that there is an ethos of winning especially with the season we just had where we were the runners up, the selectiom of the team was done on merit, but I don't think it was done in an unfair way and that's borne out by the fact that as far as I'm aware no-one has left (one did but he soon came back) and all the team from U13 down have grown massively in squad sizes this year.

This coming year in our U13's should be interesting as the group of boys that I'm most closely associated with become the senior players of the U13's with an influx of new players moving out of the U11's. I think this should allow some of the U13's who were left out in the cold last year to stake a place in 1st XI, so the kids in the U13's that may have felt aggrieved at not seeing many or any competitive games will have the opportunity over the winter to show-case their abilities and secure a place at the start of the season ahead of the new kids fresh out of the U11's.

By everyones reckoning last years senior U13's will now move into an exceptionally weak Under 15's and strengthen that team. So it's a case of swings and roundabouts and things generally balance themselves out and it would seem that the boys understand their place within the club and probably have it explained to them in a way that that keeps them on board.
 
i played in 20 over matches for the first couple of games of the season but we had it that we retire on 30 or after 10 or so overs and our team me and my opening parter in bowling bowl 3 overs so that everyone else gets as least 1 over which i think is the way to go
 
swingking01 said:
i played in 20 over matches for the first couple of games of the season but we had it that we retire on 30 or after 10 or so overs and our team me and my opening parter in bowling bowl 3 overs so that everyone else gets as least 1 over which i think is the way to go
Click to expand...
Well said Swingking, quite agree! Retire at 25 is even better than retire at 30, everyone gets a bat and keeps the whole team keen to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top