BLCA 2016-17

[bennymacca]

Couldn't think of anything worse in 35 degree weather than having to stay out in the field when your team has already been smashed

Bat better, were here here to play cricket, if you dont want to play dont put your hand up at selection

This is fair enough for A grade - but surely the lower grades is as much about participation. and forcing fill ins to stand out there in the heat just makes them not wanna play.

Youre right it is about participation, not much fun for the guys who bat 4-7 and dont get a hit for a month. Id rather look after the regular players than the fill ins, I couldnt give two hoots about the fill ins. Or if youre a change bowler in a bad batting team, you dont get a bowl either.
90% of players play because they want to spend the afternoon playing cricket. Costs alot of money to play for all involved, clubs, players why wouldnt you want to play the day out. I dont want to cater for blokes who dont really want to play cricket i want the guys that want to play to get the most out of it. We have 1st class facilities, alot of them better than even the grade clubs and we play one afternoon a week, why we wouldnt we utulize them as much as we can.
The top 2 teams played each other in the 2s yesterday and one of them batted first and made bugger all. The score was passed one down. The bowling team didnt want to come off and the batting team didnt either. They continued to bowl their better bowlers and try and take some wickets because they have some pride in their performance. Teams that want to walk off have a pea heart and thats why they find themselves in the position they are in on a regular basis.
I dont mind the a grade calling if off, most of their games go 35plus in the 2nd innings anyway.
I want someone to tell me what is the difference if i bat first and make 300 and then the opposition crawl to 8/130 off 40 and then if that happens in reverse. They got their 40 why shouldnt i get my 40? If they arent good enough to bat 40 they are getting a shorter day anyway.
They are only a shorter version of the 2 day limited overs cricket anyway that nobody has a problem playing out.

i get where you are coming from, i think it should be on a case by case basis. As a skipper ive continued to bat on more often than I have called it early most probably, but have done both.

Mostly my decision in the past was based on whether it mattered whether I got the extra points. I.e if you are top and chasing points vs second on the ladder then batting on is completely fine.

But if it was batting on against the bottom team for no other reason than to give people a hit - maybe do it for a few overs and then call it a day.

[whufc]

I'm not sure what your point system is, i have always generally played in comps where there win points and then bonus points for performance.

Playing in the Stanley Association is the first time i have played in a cricket comp where there points system is simply 2 points for the win 0 for the loss, 1 for the draw and that is it.

I actually think that lends it self to teams being more willing to 'give everyone a go' as there not on the hunt for points, they know the possibly ladder implications of the a win/loss ala no fear of missing out on bonus points and missing the finals by etc etc.

On the weekend we bowled a team out for 134, had our usual 2 openers open and were then able to bat everyone who didn't get a bowl as we knew it didn't matter when we hit 134 (45 over game) or how many we got in total so long as we got them. In the end we got them 4 down 6 blokes got to get a bat and everyone in the team either bowled or batted on the day and was done by 4:45 i think.

My experience of 'playing on' normally means guns get to show off all their talent and smack depleted sides around while securing batting/association trophies more than 'giving everyone a go' is done.

[bennymacca]

10 points for a win (20 for outright), then 0.01 points per run and 0.2 per wicket.

thats for A1 to A3, for 4s and 5s its a one day only comp and its just based on win with a NRR

[whufc]

10 points for a win (20 for outright), then 0.01 points per run and 0.2 per wicket.

thats for A1 to A3, for 4s and 5s its a one day only comp and its just based on win with a NRR

Yeah similar to what i have always played. I like this system but i have found that it tends to lend itself to teams always chasing points etc (i dont mind that in the A grade but not in your c,d and e grades) i have also seen where it provides for slightly unbalanced 'ladders' an example being Salisbury West and Salisbury North small ovals where on average 250+ is hit it becomes a very big advantage for them playing there every second week especially in the one dayers. Obviously you still have to win etc but the bonus points they gain from playing on such as small oval is worth at least one win in bonus points i reckon.

[daysofourlives]

Is it much fun going out and hitting runs against a side who is 'giving every one a bowl' with half hearted fielders a captain who is just trying to get through the overs as quick as possibly with your own teams umpire who doesn't even want to be out there. (personally that's not my idea of fun batting, i would rather be sucking winners piss with my teammates)

In my opinion by playing on you keep a couple of blokes happy but risk losing a whole team especially if they are just light on ability and needing players to help them get through the year. Whole clubs are more important than a couple of players here and there. In our comp I'm certain Long Plains would have to fold this year if they were made to stay out and get hit for 300+ every week of the season after they had already lost games. The league cant afford to lose them and they are just a club struggling for players who are having to play really young lads.

Personally i think the issue is bigger than just playing on.

If a club is serious about giving everyone a hit swap your batting order for low run chases, games you should comfortably win (we all know the teams we should do well against and shouldn't most country teams know everyone from the other team and how 'strong' they will be on the day. I bet its fair to say in nearly every team in the comp has the top 4 batsmen who is also a top three bowler.

At our club this year the captain spoke to me at the start of the year and said i understand that normally i open the batting but in the current team we have my greater asset to the side is my spin bowling therefore i will be bowling every week but batting around the 6-7 mark as the two openers and the blokes who will now bat 4-5 (that i could of probably batted ahead) wont get a bowl very often if at all. Great communication the ball was then in my court and i have happily accepted my role in the team. If i didn't want to accept it i move on and the club is in a better position for not having a bloke like me around.

If you are continuously having your number 6-7 not getting a hit rotate them with a couple of the better b grade batters making sure when their in the b grade they bat up the order. At the end of the day if your number 6-7 aren't getting a hit often then having a couple of slightly less talented guys in there for the odd game isn't going to hurt you.

I'm sure we don't need to tell you the difference between playing a game for points and then it turning into a glorified scratch match. How often would you do overtime at work if you weren't being paid for it.

I take my cricket as serious as anyone and i love winning but in the case of teams being forced to stay on and get smashed i think you need to look at whats best for the struggling/losing team/club rather than whats best for the winning team. I'm certain those blokes who have missed out on a fair few hits throughout the year will still have their name up for selection come week one of the finals. Will the losing club still have a team to enter in the comp the next season?

The opposite to what you saying is if a team hits 300 first up (that may have been done with 3-4 batsmen, then bowls a side out for 60 with 30 overs remaining do they then let the other team bat again to finish of the last 30 overs, or do they play a third innings to let everyone get a hit for the last 30 overs etc

I can understand your point in comp like yours in the clare valley where many clubs are just one team towns. We have 6 grades available for each club to insert their teams into a grade that is suitable foo them. Many clubs have 2 to 4 teams. It is very rare that a team is made to play higher than what they nominate. in other words clubs get what they nominate and therefore they are saying they should be competitive in that grade. If they havent done their homework on who is playing that year and get caught short that shouldnt be the problem of the other teams in that grade.
I agree with you about the way Greenock handled that game, 2 of their batsman that made runs are over 50yrs old. Its a very compatitive grade that one with 12 teams and just 4 qualifying for finals. I understand they had to play on but as you say other shouldve been given a go.
I wouldnt mind seeing people able to retire and thus being registered as not out. At the moment if you wanted to do that you need to fake an injury and retire hurt.

[whufc]

Agree about the retirement rule, maybe a rule could be implemented where there is a retirement rule with a by-clause along of the lines of 'if the result has been completed then a batsmen may retire etc etc at least teams could then 'secure' the result and then give everyone a go.

In theory i honestly understand what your saying just my playing history leads me to be a bit cynical and think that it would be used to improve averages, win individual trophies, gain bonus points more so than giving everyone go which imho if you are going to continue that's what it should be about,

Cricket is such a tough one and to be honest its probably only been since i have moved into Clare that i have fully appreciated the need for 'everyone to be participating' etc. From a team numbers point of view the Stanley comp is in a bit of strife in my uneducated opinion.

I would hate to ever see rules such as players having to bat top 4 cant bowl until 4th etc etc to force teams to give everyone a go but i do believe it should be in the forefront of a captains and clubs mind especially when situations allow, chasing low scores, having teams 5/50 chasing 300.

Will we see a league get a tad crazy one day and have a rule where a team gets 1 bonus point if every player in the team either bats or bowls to encourage it. Just throwing a pie in the sky idea.

[bennymacca]

Agree about the retirement rule, maybe a rule could be implemented where there is a retirement rule with a by-clause along of the lines of 'if the result has been completed then a batsmen may retire etc etc at least teams could then 'secure' the result and then give everyone a go.

hadn't thought about this but I think its a very good idea - allowing players to retire not out once the total has been passed would allow then to let others in.

[whufc]

Agree about the retirement rule, maybe a rule could be implemented where there is a retirement rule with a by-clause along of the lines of 'if the result has been completed then a batsmen may retire etc etc at least teams could then 'secure' the result and then give everyone a go.

hadn't thought about this but I think its a very good idea - allowing players to retire not out once the total has been passed would allow then to let others in.

I guess the only question would be about whether the batter can return and if so when (at the end of a wicket, at the completion of all other batters having batted)

[bennymacca]

i would say whenever a wicket falls - but the whole intent would be to allow others to have a hit

[Jim05]

Agree about the retirement rule, maybe a rule could be implemented where there is a retirement rule with a by-clause along of the lines of 'if the result has been completed then a batsmen may retire etc etc at least teams could then 'secure' the result and then give everyone a go.

hadn't thought about this but I think its a very good idea - allowing players to retire not out once the total has been passed would allow then to let others in.

Come on Benny, it’s not juniors.
Surely players have enough pride in themselves and their club to stick it out for the remainder of the game.
I’m with Days on this one

[Tony Clifton]

Without dead cricket to pad their averages there would be a lot of senior players give the game away

[bennymacca]

Agree about the retirement rule, maybe a rule could be implemented where there is a retirement rule with a by-clause along of the lines of 'if the result has been completed then a batsmen may retire etc etc at least teams could then 'secure' the result and then give everyone a go.

hadn't thought about this but I think its a very good idea - allowing players to retire not out once the total has been passed would allow then to let others in.

Come on Benny, it’s not juniors.
Surely players have enough pride in themselves and their club to stick it out for the remainder of the game.
I’m with Days on this one

well it was days' idea for the retirement

(and trust me, I have been the prick of a skipper that has kept batting past the total before - we rolled them for 67 and made 406 in reply)

http://mycricket.cricket.com.au/common/ ... ID=2361683


personally i think the rule of a couple of years ago was the best - bonus points for ODIs, bat as long as you want in 2 day games

[whufc]

Agree about the retirement rule, maybe a rule could be implemented where there is a retirement rule with a by-clause along of the lines of 'if the result has been completed then a batsmen may retire etc etc at least teams could then 'secure' the result and then give everyone a go.

hadn't thought about this but I think its a very good idea - allowing players to retire not out once the total has been passed would allow then to let others in.

Come on Benny, it’s not juniors.
Surely players have enough pride in themselves and their club to stick it out for the remainder of the game.
I’m with Days on this one

What pride is to be had, you take some junk time wickets and still have been belted and bowled out for a ridiculously low total

In most cases no pride is regained and the batting team continues to pound the other side

TBH you would gain more pride by getting off the park and having a few extra beers with the opposition despite being flogged

[Jim05]

Agree about the retirement rule, maybe a rule could be implemented where there is a retirement rule with a by-clause along of the lines of 'if the result has been completed then a batsmen may retire etc etc at least teams could then 'secure' the result and then give everyone a go.

hadn't thought about this but I think its a very good idea - allowing players to retire not out once the total has been passed would allow then to let others in.

Come on Benny, it’s not juniors.
Surely players have enough pride in themselves and their club to stick it out for the remainder of the game.
I’m with Days on this one

What pride is to be had, you take some junk time wickets and still have been belted and bowled out for a ridiculously low total

In most cases no pride is regained and the batting team continues to pound the other side

TBH you would gain more pride by getting off the park and having a few extra beers with the opposition despite being flogged

I’ve seen too many sides miss finals or be relegated by only a minuscule amount. Every run and wicket counts and with the amount of cricket being lost to weather points become even more crucial.

[whufc]

See that's where I would say it's a point scoring system issue, most comps I have played have had the bonus points system and I remember missing finals by like 5 runs one year but I think it's more important these days with a lot of clubs battling for numbers that games are as user friendly for really bad sides as possible so blokes come back

TBH I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer, crickets such a unique sport

[daysofourlives]

Juniors are not called off when the score is passed surely if they can handle it a few sooky seniors should be able to spend an extra hour in the field which they expected to do at the start of the day.
We also play 2 day cricket so points is an issue.ie we cant not have them as the premiership table is for both 1 and 2 day games.
We are not in any shape or form struggling for clubs to keep a club going like other comps who went to full time 1 day cricket long time ago.
I also spend up to 10hrs a week preparing a turf wicket.when it comes to saturday i want to use the fn thing and the majority of the comp is turf now. Prep 10hrs play 2hours doesnt make sense. So with all due respect to Whufc who comes from a hard wicket comp and tony who comes from a premier vricket perspective you dont know enough about the competition to pass an informed opinion.
There is 2 grades that cater for this already. If everyone wanted this those grades would be a higher standard. They are definitely not, players still choose to play the higher grades.
It is only 7 games a season, this year will be 5, so i say put on your big boy pants and take your medicine.

[whufc]

I'm the first to concede I'm not an expert on your comp, a comp that by all reports is a very well run comp, I love the split competition system in place and think most comps should run that way.

Your comp would be one of the very few that aren't struggling for players if that's the case which is great news

[norm11]

For what it’s worrh. Game over game over in one day games for me. Why should a team that hasn’t made enough runs still be given an opportunity to get points by taking wickets ???

[daysofourlives]

Angaston win the one day GF in a canter
Freeling didnt get enough runs finishing at 9/191 off their 40
Angaston reaching the score 2 down with about 9 overs to spare.
They didnt bat on

[Dogwatcher]

I was at a function yesterday with a heap of Freeling folk and I heard 8/65 at one point. Is that right?