What to do with 21 year olds

[boscorp]

Ash dod suggest at one stage redoing the levels so people would see more pops and yes show more difference as well.
His suggestion went further to make it numbers instead of words.

I think that would be a good starting point.
Just how bad is the lack of variety? I'd have thought a combination of a primary, technique, power, fielding, endurance and experience would have resulted in a good variation of players, especially after adding 1 of 10 different training speeds from the academy.
Do new recruits need bigger variation from the start or do the academy bonuses need an adjustment?
Are there too many players? Maybe we should only get a new recruit every second week?

[GM-crowfan65]

At the top end the players are only separated by talents and many of them are similar esp bowling

[Jujoh]

Would it help to modify how wages are calculated? It would make well rounded club/ div 2 players more valuable, and managers will have to choose what skill to train. Strength early in would make more sense if you know a player is not going to be affordable otherwise. Could also give us some more allrounders. some new training programmes could be introduced for 25+ yos to have better and more diverse low level players:
- Training talents - give up on a second talent and select whether you want a batting, keeping, bowling or ar talent, not a specific one. Drop the gifted talents for this and introduce more trigger and role talents
- Tactical training - multiply Experience and Captaincy gains
- mentor - increase exp of (in match) team members slightly quicker
- Slogging - train batting, fitness and power (for bowlers)
- part time bowler - train bowling, fitness and power

[boscorp]

At the top end the players are only separated by talents and many of them are similar esp bowling

I've still got reservations about it all, Kenya couldn't send 20 players with WC bowling summaries, neither could SA and I doubt its only the 2 of us. When there are 20 separate National sides you need a large base of similar but different players to select from plus cater for all the divisional sides.
Is it the training platform or the way we use it that is restricting variety.
A few of seasons ago there seemed to be more variety in bowlers than there is now. Some with Elite primaries, some with WC and more on exceptional. Last couple of seasons its dwindled down to only 4 or 5 with WC bowling and tech out of 5 bowling varieties. I've gotten the impression that for some reason a trend has formed to train primary, tech, power and fielding all to exceptional (not in that order). Word is fielding has to be WC to make the National side (reality is a lot different 2 WC, an even mix of spec and exc and 2 outstanding from a squad of 30). Thats our fielding and SA has some of the better fielding sides in competition. I think the glut of similar players is more likely the div1 and div2 standards than the top end.

[GM-crowfan65]

Of the top 1300 bats 964 are WC summary, 80 are elite

Of the top 1000 bowlers 741 are WC , 43 are elite or better

[boscorp]

Of the top 1300 bats 964 are WC summary, 80 are elite

Of the top 1000 bowlers 741 are WC , 43 are elite or better

You would kind of be wanting numbers like that to cover the 128 Div1 and 256 Div2 sides around the world. I presume there would be a fair few over 30 with deteriorating skills included in the figures. 1408 div1 players and 2816 div2 players fill the teams I think so you do kind of need a lot similarly skilled (not identical) players to fill those roles.

[GM-crowfan65]

not many over 30 esp looking at that level

[Mike778]

Ash dod suggest at one stage redoing the levels so people would see more pops and yes show more difference as well.
His suggestion went further to make it numbers instead of words.

To be honest, I dont really see the point.

My main issue with the clone builds are all players are built to the same specification, they dont have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Doing this, doesnt change that in the slightest, if anything might make it worse if people try and get primary and technique identical.

[GM-crowfan65]

It was in response to someone talking about visible levels, so I responded with something in kind

[boscorp]

Ash dod suggest at one stage redoing the levels so people would see more pops and yes show more difference as well.
His suggestion went further to make it numbers instead of words.

To be honest, I dont really see the point.

My main issue with the clone builds are all players are built to the same specification, they dont have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Doing this, doesnt change that in the slightest, if anything might make it worse if people try and get primary and technique identical.

I think doing something like that would help show that these so called clones are not really as identical as we believe. Sub-levels play a big part in differentiating players as the levels get higher. When i'm selecting a side I'm not wanting players all the same skill for each batting position. True people should try to have a balance in skills but it varies depending on their role and and the other skills needed. Some roles rely on higher endurance, some power, some more so technique and then theres a couple with extra fielding.
Seeing the differences might help managers understand the differences in their players performances better.

[Mike778]

There are two different issues here
1. Clone players
2. The 21-24 problem

I actually think the second is a slightly bigger issue so will start a separate suggestion

[GA-James018]

While they are two separate issues, I do think it makes sense to talk about them together since both have to do with player development. If a change is made to make 21-24 year olds more viable, it may well have an impact on players' homogeneity (for example, just making them peak earlier and stay at that peak for longer would mean even more clone players), and vice versa. The best solutions, I think, are those that will address both.

[boscorp]

What are some of examples of these "clones"? I've tried searching for players with matching ratings and wages but had no success.

[Mike778]

While they are two separate issues, I do think it makes sense to talk about them together since both have to do with player development. If a change is made to make 21-24 year olds more viable, it may well have an impact on players' homogeneity (for example, just making them peak earlier and stay at that peak for longer would mean even more clone players), and vice versa. The best solutions, I think, are those that will address both.

Realistically, use of potential is probably the only solution that would address both and I think that is probably off the table. So you would need separate solutions.

There are a lot of ways the clones could be looked at. Outside of potential, I dont think there are many other options for the 21 to 24s outside of my suggestion. Having a under 25s competition feels like a white flag we cant fix this approach.

[GM-crowfan65]

u25 comp i think is a valid solution, something we spoke about 5yrs ago tbh

And why is potential off the table??