Technique Coaching for youth

I'm coming towards the end of my first season with ICC 2006. At the start of the season, i picked a few youth, who have been on batting and bowling technique {as applicable} for the whole year.

A few of them have started to put in good performances in the first team - one batsman has struck 5 50's in 7 FC innings and currently averages 66.50. Yet another has already struck a one-day hundred though he's yet to come good in FC. His 2nd-team avg though has shot up from 42.98 (when i picked him) to 55.49 now (dunno if its the technique sessions). Another legspinner picked up a fiver on debut in FC and though he tapered off a bit after that, he's starting to come up again - picked 4/36 in 8 overs in a Pro 40.

How long do you think should i keep them on batting/bowling technique? Should i continue with the same next year too or should i switch to batting/bowling practice now, since they've been on technique coaching for a year. I've observed that the coaching effect (in terms of percentage) doesen't show up until you put them on practice. What works best for you?

Keep 'em on technique until they reach about 26. I normally stop once they turn 27. It would be fair to say I've had a pretty large amount of success in my time in this game So providing they haven't changed anything from Icc 2005, would surprise me if they have considering they haven't really changed anything since ICC 2002, then that should still be the basic idea.

That's interesting...26? Hmm, in that case more than half of my team deserves technique tutorials!

I would've believed a year or probably 2 of technique would be enough. As it is, the no. of coaching sessions is limited, and there wouldn't be any left for the youth players picked in later seasons if i have the youth players picked in the first season getting coached for 6-7 years.

Do the players really improve after 1-2 years of technique sessions?

I generally find for my county since I only sign youth players who look like they have talent, that I have more than enough spaces to coach them all. I stick the majority on technique until they reach 26. If their second team averages are rubbish no point in signing them, or keeping them, so ditch them and free up money and spaces.

Basically if they are aggressive/v aggressive batsman an average of around 40-50 or more is normally a sign or a decent player, and anything above 50 for the rest of the aggressions will turn out to be decent players. As players get older they get less reponsive to technique training, and personally I find anything over 26 they stop responding.

With the ball, if their bowling average is around 22-25 but with an economy of 2.85 or lower they will be a useful bowler and are worth signing if they can bat (batting average of around 20 or more), more so in one day cricket, whilst anything under 20 with any economy will be a good bowler.

Nice info, Puddle. Looks like i'll have to ditch a few of my youth who i had picked as wild cards based purely on their playing style (they haven't performed well in the first year, even after coaching so it's bye-bye to them). Thanks a lot!

BTW, as you must've noticed, unless you remove the technique sessions (either for a batter or a bowler) and shift them to practice sessions, the percentages for coaching effect (in the Form tab) do not start showing up. Does this mean i would have to shift them to practice after technique to have the actual effect to show up? Right now, all the players on technique for about a year have the coaching effect at 0%, and it starts to increase only after i put them on practice (irrespective of whether they play in first team)

No that's because Technique works on their actual game and has long term benefits so you only notice it in terms of performance. Whilst practice is a short term fix that will increase form and hopefully performance in the short term.

For example if I was in charge of England with a squad of 12 for a home test match, I would normally technique just about anyone under 26, yet practice the players most in need over 26.

Oh yeh nice strat mate... Thanks

interesting, i might try that, ive always had a fair amount of success with technique up to about 30, but ive never tried less, maybe im just wasting my time!!!! lol cheers

young bowlers' batting can be improved by using batting technique. for eg in my yorkshire team mark lawson has turned into a good batsman and has 3 FC centuries now!

satishmania said:

young bowlers' batting can be improved by using batting technique. for eg in my yorkshire team mark lawson has turned into a good batsman and has 3 FC centuries now!

Click to expand...

Hehe thats very cool. I let him and Richard Dawson go after the first season (2006) in favor of Derek Pearce, another legspinner who i picked from the youth team with a bowling average of 22. Doing good for me.

I generally concentrate on coaching the stronger area of the players. I find that if i start to "technique" the weaker side, somehow they start losing form and performance in the stronger area.

mark lawson has turned into a good one day bowler who has the knack of picking up wickets but his bowling is not effective in the 4 day games though he opens the batting! imagine a bowler opening the batting with a FC average of 32 and 3 FC hundreds

satishmania said:

imagine a bowler opening the batting with a FC average of 32 and 3 FC hundreds

Click to expand...

LOL strange things do happen, but maybe he's a batter who can bowl and not the other way round. It's happened to Jayasuriya, Styris and many others. I personally found, when i had Lawson, he used to concede about 4 r.p.o in CC games and was very inconsistent with wickets.

Lanceknight said:

when i had Lawson, he used to concede about 4 r.p.o in CC games and was very inconsistent with wickets.

Click to expand...

for me lawson has been a wicket taking bowler in one day matches. he has two six wicket hauls, one of them in a 20/20 match.however in FC cricket he averages 40 with the ball.