Print

[Buzz]

Increasingly I am hearing stories of players in "Unders Matches" having to retire at 30 or 50 to "give everyone a game".

I am really against this because it stops batsmen learning how to build an innings and encourages players to give it a smack and try to get to 30 asap.

are their any significant upsides to having to retire at what is in reality a pretty low score?
I think it should be up to the team organiser/coach to know who has not had much of a game on a match by match basis and even it up over a season.

[StonyFielder]

At younger age groups in limited overs games, I think retiring is essential in order to a) prevent a huge imbalance in teams due to one or two players and more importantly b) provide a way to allow less able kids to experience time in the middle with less pressure.

Whilst building an innings should be (and is) encouraged by coaches, the only way my under 12s would score anything in excess of fifty over their 20 overs would be to either slog (which we want to discourage) or hog the strike (even worse). In addition, the less able batters need to experience time at the crease and if they open the innings or bat very high they often feel pressure which does not come with batting 5 or 6 with a few runs already on the board. The best way for these kids to learn is to hit a few runs without pressure so that when they come up against a tougher situation they can remember the time when they were sucessful and draw confidence from that.

[trypewriter]

I agree with Stony, but even at retire on 25 in 20 overs games, I've seen these youngsters hog the strike. However, the retire rule does involve more players, and you do see improvements through the season. The team my youngest played for last season were abject at the start, but won their final three games on the bounce, against teams who had previously beaten them easily. What was nice was that they did it by chasing totals, and also by defending one, the latter when they only had 10 players.

[GarrettJ]

I think retire at 50 is good for "friendly" leagues where the teams arent really serious cricketers and just having a bit of fun .... usually midweek cricket nade uip of work teams, pubs, rugby clubs etc.
 
It stops teams signing up 2 or 3 players and just having them winning the game for them single handedly.

Any other cricket it is a waist of time.

On a separate note, the poster above mentions u12 cricket and 20 overs .......... that is way to excessive i think for 12 year olds, with the amount of wides and no balls it must turn into a 40 over match ........ assuming you are nforcing the rules correctly and letting them off with wides and no balls.

20 overs shouldnt be introduced until around under 15.

I think that it should 8 a side cricket until 15 years old (did play for the under 15s under age though), bat in pairs for 4 overs and lose 8 runs per wicket. Each team starts on 200 and the net score is calulated. It encourages players not to get out while keeping the score ticking over. It gives everyone a bat and everyone a bowl.

[tim2000s]

We see this in the T20s we play. LMS is at 50 and the T20 league is at 25. it's designed to give everyone a game as some of the teams are considerably weaker than others. The reality is that the stronger teams have 3 people who hit a rapid 50 and then hang around for a bit while the weaker teams never get there.

[ajm90]

I dont mind the retiring at 60 thats played in some of the older age groups U15/16/17 as this allows people to get a reasonable score whilst making sure that a "One man innings can't be played".

[StonyFielder]

On a separate note, the poster above mentions u12 cricket and 20 overs .......... that is way to excessive i think for 12 year olds, with the amount of wides and no balls it must turn into a 40 over match ........ assuming you are nforcing the rules correctly and letting them off with wides and no balls.

20 overs shouldnt be introduced until around under 15.

This is ECB driven.

In my experience it works fine and I think you are underestimating just how good these under 12s are!

In my game on Sunday mine only bowled 5 in 20 overs.

[Buzz]

Lots of really interesting comments here - basically everyone disagrees with me (no bad thing!)

[Simmy]

in the under 13 15 we had to retire at 50 unless it was a cup game and in under 17's it was 100

only one person i remember got 100 and that was tim bresnan lol

[trypewriter]

Buzz, at least the rules aren't as complicated as the under age football rules enforced by the FA! The biggest joke is 'non competitive football' at the youngest ages. - What they mean is that you can't have a tournament, or league winner and no knock out cup competitions.

[GarrettJ]

I know how good these u12's are but i just think the 20 over game is too long for them. I like that 4 over pairs format as the key is not to get out so it discourages slogging as you are punished heavily. Our opening bat went the whole season without getting out!!! He did captain England u19 eventually before falling by the wayside through burnout.

Do they play on the smaller pitches or are they forced to play on a proper sized pitch? Surely they arent forced to play on a real pitch at 11 and 12 years old.

If the ECB demand 20 overs then there is nothing you can do........ they must think it is the way forward, i would have loved that, once got 49* in a 4 over pair at under 13:)

[Colesy]

In our midweek league, consisting of our club (the host) and a few work teams we have to retire at 50. I think this was more to limit how many of our batsmen scored big scores however we're failing quite badly with the bat recently.

[Jimmyg]

Re junior cricket, the U11s in pairs matches are 20 overs long, 10 players batting in pairs for 4 overs and bowlers can bowl a maximum of 3 overs. The wicket is 2 yards shorter than normal. I tend to think pairs helps progress the less able players but by 11 the more able cricketers find it abit restrictive and enjoy the challenge of none paired cricket. Progress onto 24 overs, batsmen retiring at 30, bowlers max 4 overs. Obviously it's dependant on what league the club is entered in.

[junter97]

I am against it as well being a junior! Last season it was retire at 35 and this season it's retire at 40. It's really annoying. Playing adults last season got to 36, at this point in junior cricket I would have had to retire. This was my highest score in senior cricket so when getting towards 50, I had no experience about how I should carry on my innings. Got out next ball. The rule really should be changed, yes it gets everyone a chance in the short term, but in the long term it means so you don't have any experience of batting long periods of time. It's ridiculous!

[MJB3]

I only stopped playing Junior cricket last season, and am still playing school cricket and i have never seen anyone being told to retire at any score, except at 200 in a 20 over game! I believe this is detrimental to the spirit of the game, yes we want to get all involved, but why should a kid who loves the game and looks forward all week to batting to be having a great innings or indeed the inninngs of his life, only for it to be cut short? A danger of turning people away from the game rather than attracting more.