New junior rules will significantly change cricket in Australia

Well this is a collection of bad ideas. The biggest drop-off when I played wasn't in juniors (my club had two teams in every age group) but the transition from juniors to seniors. After one horrible season in seniors where me and my barely-17 year old friends had to play with and against 40-50 year olds drunk most of the match, I am not going to play cricket again for a long time.

So these changes are now rolling out to WA. I've got boys going in to U12 and U11. Issues: I) my eldest broke a kids thumb last year. putting him closer to a batsman who has no clue is dangerous. There have ALWAYS been allowances so that kids that can't bowl very well get to bowl from a bit closer, but even I don't like facing up to the faster bowlers in the side. ii) my youngest's team had 12 players last year. Has to be culled to 7 for the new format. I don't understand how batting in pairs will work, and the cull will likely mean kids lost to the game. iii) These kids just want to play real cricket, see bails fly, play on at least synthetic wickets. I don't mind efforts to focus on shorter format cricket, but the basics are shot. Just noting that until a few weeks ago Cricket Australia almost couldn't organise an Ashes Squad!

Your r kidding Cricket Australia has no idea, Kids will be hurt an u12 at our club bowls 115 km shorten the pitch 3 m What a joke. What a shock for any kid going to seniors will not cope.

Thanks @Joe, your summary is what I suspect to be the case. Can anyone point me in the direction of any analysis/evidence of long term impact of these changes? Any idea where the extra coaches will come from? I coach under 10's and can tell you 3-4 of my kids would be downright dangerous any closer than 20m, 15m would be shear lunacy. I bet CA still want coaches to take responsibility for a safe environment? My team participated in a Milo T20 comp this season, which is the suggested comp for my entire team under these changes. While they did have fun, the kids didn't want to play it again, they wanted to play real cricket. Trying to get more kids into the sport by making it easy isn't going to teach them the game, what it will do is stunt the development of those with real talent. Not playing the full rules until under 16 (I don't know anywhere with u15s), what's that 1-2 years before facing adults..... Think about that for a minute... The reality is the first year in any sport is difficult as they are learning the game, what ever sport it is. The second year they improve and get more runs/wickets. My advice is to invest in coaching and support structures, whilst still getting coaches to teach the fundamentals of the game. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to accept changes if I can see merit in them

We need remember is the game's numbers growing in your junior area or declining. Most Associations usually have a 2 or 3 tier system (A/B/C) where the better kids are involved in the highest level and generally of a good standard, the other levels however needs to focus on encouraging more active participation. Girls cricket is growing each year for this very reason, the players both girls and boys who want to learn more about the game will and those lower level players will hopefully continue in the game and not leave for another sport. Most sports these days have a shortened version - Futsal, Fast 4 Tennis, Fast 5 Netball, Rugby 7's , League 9's, World Super 6 Golf, European Golf are looking to introduce 6 hole limits with music and time limits. Growing a sport, you either need to get new audiences or new products - so there's a bit of a conundrum and where is cricket's main audience coming from now.

Ssider - you mention the changes would attract more kids, surely that is the main aim of the changes??? not much point keeping things the same, time poor parents don't want their kids playing a game that takes too long compared to most sports. All sports, even golf are looking to attract more players, especially the younger age is their game will die. World Super 6 Golf, Fast 4 Tennis, Fast 5 Netball, Rugby 7's , League 9's, Futsal etc don't replace their main game but enhance it. If kids are keen on the longer forms they will move there but what about the kids who don't won't to - they leave any play another sport!

For me, these smack of promoting 20/20 over longer form 'real' cricket. Keep it as it is currently in under 12's-14's. In our association, they have 23 overs per side on day 1 and then the same again on day 2. Thats 46 overs per side in total. Each days play is about 3 hours, and both teams get to bat and bowl each day. There's no need to change that. Kids currently get a 30 ball max in U-12 and 50 in U-14 before temporarily retiring, although they can come back in once everyone else has had a bat and you cycle back through the card. Keep it as is.I reckon the longer a kid is out in the middle batting, the better he/she gets at it. I agree with shortening the boundaries, but especially the straight boundaries, as we want to encourage kids to play straight drives rather than hoiks to cow corner. Shorter pitch, yeah thats o.k maybe up to under 11-12's but really after that, the kids should be physically able to cope with a full size pitch. Agree with the size of the ball changes.

Are we catering for the underachievers? Maybe up to u10 this might be worth while but after it will be detrimental to the game.

Ok a few weeks in to U11's modifications: 1. Field Size Awesome 2. Team size Seven, one or two too short 3. Pitch Size 15m bloody dangerous, kids are hit frequently in the upper body and helmets. There is no reaction time 12.6m from popping crease to popping crease. 4. 17 guaranteed balls (first half the season no dismissals) good. 5. 20 overs per innings, not enough. 6. The kid who wants to be a keeper, loses some development as he can only keep 10 overs a game. Bad 7. Spin bowlers are struggling, short fields and hardly any fielders, no outs. Bad. 8. The unicorn and rainbow philosophy from Cricket Australia doesn't work. You are actively discouraged from coaching technique, its all about backyard cricket and innovation. 9. And from my son, Dad the pitch is too short, I am scared! And he is one of the kids that can bat.\ 10. he wants to play the game he sees his heroes play, not this.

This is not going to increase participation past u13 level and it is definitely not going to strengthen or improve our standard of cricket.

Yes to ball size under 13. Yes to pitch length under 10. What about looking at the over restriction on bowlers??? This is the biggest hindrance to the development of fast bowlers who are fit enough to survive the rigours of modern first class cricket. These rule changes look to be made by development managers who survive by bums on seats or in participation rates. Go and ask elite coaches what is required first and then ask junior coaches - and I mean junior coaches, ex players and not administrators. Degfinitely another backward step.

You mean the extra 2 teams in NSW and Victoria that helped contribute to over 80,000 people coming to watch a domestic game of 20/20 cricket last year and sent shockwaves reverberating through the cricketing world? Yeah, mere details that. Scarcely valid at all. Big names already came to the shield? Since when? Unless you’re referring to when guys like Botham, Viv were here in the 1980’s. I recall Graeme Hick playing for Queensland in the early 1990’s too. But I doubt you are. You have your views, I have mine. I disagree with your completely disagree. Also well done on claiming the states “supposedly” own the BBL franchises and using that as the basis to scoff at my claim despite not having a clue yourself. Superlative logic there mate.

Completely disagree that wrestling the game away from the state associations set the BBL up for its popularity. Big name players already came to the Shield and the BBL so that is not a valid argument. Player movement is not a reason to ditch the old state identities either as players could and still do move from state to state. The only reason that had any validity is that they wanted more teams in NSW and Vic. Team names and colours seem irrelevant for most of the people watching. The CA run the game any way so they did not need to wrestle the BBL out of the states hands. The states supposedly own the BL franchises any way so I don't know where you are coming from with all that.

Your reasons for watching the BBL are much the same as mine. However had the BBL been anchored to the various state cricket associations you’d have squads consisting of the same players who play shield. By taking it out of the states hands and making it a franchise based model overseen by CA it has allowed for greater flexibility in player movement and the big name overseas signings that have been such a big part in raising the quality of the competition. I will give you that much of the success was pre-destined once the competition was up and running but CA deserves credit for setting the competition up on such solid foundations for growth.

The BBL has been a raging success, but do you think that is because of the administrators, beyond wrestling the product away from the States, or simply a reflection of Australia's love of cricket? I don't really have any affinity for the Brisbane Heat, despite living here, I just watch the BBL because it's summer, I love cricket, and it's on Prime Time every night. In other words me, and my friends, would watch the "product" regardless of the stupid names and colours. One of the best parts of the BBL is the commentators, but that's not even CA's doing... Still cricket where credit is due.

I think CA deserves some credit for wresting the BBL out of the hands of the state cricket associations. The franchise model has proven to be a big success and certainly such rapid success would have been impossible had the competition been straitjacketed by the dead hand of the state cricket associations.

Brisbane cricket team playing in Teal and called “heat” That to me says more about peoples need to have things marketed to them for those things to have perceived value to them. I agree that the CA research does not deliver results on the field or make any rational sense to cricket folk. If their research did improve the standard of cricket but didn't make rational sense then I think the cricket society would be more on board with any changes they would recommend in the future. The only thing CA has been involved with that can been seen as a success in my eyes, and probably many others, is the large crowds for the BBL. To me that has more to do with the free to air TV deal and the much bigger marketing push that any changes CA made to teams or the game.

limit the game to 9 innings per team and after each 3 outs, the other team bats..... if the game is tied, it goes to extra innings.

The same research that resulted in a Brisbane cricket team playing in Teal and called "heat" or that bowlers should be bowled in rotation during the year and the Captain should be a selector. Honestly, I sometimes feel that cricket thrives in this country despite, not because, of its administrators. Probably a reflection of the (lucky for cricket) ingrained cultural affinity for the sport in large pockets of Australian society.

Yep the irony is delicious! Why don't they have the teams reduced to 9 players, let the bowlers throw the ball, and so we can fit more games on a field make it played on a diamond shaped pitch. Oh and so kids don't hurt their precious little hands give them gloves to catch with and then --------------------- cricket will take over the sporting world!