SA Footy

human_torpedo wrote:Woodville in essence this weekend could pick 9 batsman, 2 all rounders, win the toss and bowl, set defensive fields, let TTG bat the first day, force them to make the play, but with no fielding restrictions they can bowl wide of off stump and set fields to that.. then just bat out a day with a side full of batsman and they win the flag..

Surely some sort of compulsory declaration has to be enforced, the side should have at least 80 overs to chase the runs.. I like the idea of the side being able to bat on for 10-15 overs on day 2, leaving 80 overs minimum to chase what they need..

Were quite happy with the rules and understand our position. We messed up last round and lost top spot, thats out fault and our 'bed to lay in'. Last year we won the toss and batted v Woodville in the semi, needing the win. Still achieved that result, so its more than achievable to get the result no matter the rules.

Footy Smart wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:Woodville in essence this weekend could pick 9 batsman, 2 all rounders, win the toss and bowl, set defensive fields, let TTG bat the first day, force them to make the play, but with no fielding restrictions they can bowl wide of off stump and set fields to that.. then just bat out a day with a side full of batsman and they win the flag..

Surely some sort of compulsory declaration has to be enforced, the side should have at least 80 overs to chase the runs.. I like the idea of the side being able to bat on for 10-15 overs on day 2, leaving 80 overs minimum to chase what they need..

Were quite happy with the rules and understand our position. We messed up last round and lost top spot, thats out fault and our 'bed to lay in'. Last year we won the toss and batted v Woodville in the semi, needing the win. Still achieved that result, so its more than achievable to get the result no matter the rules.

I reckon just about every player in A & B grade (where these rules apply) are happy with the current arrangements and it makes for tougher cricket. Teams used to bowl negatively because they didn't need wickets to win - now they do.

People that are saying the current rules promote negative cricket are clearly out of touch because the opposite is true! We want blokes to be able to bat 4+ hours at the next level and this is the best format to allow it.

C Horse wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:Woodville in essence this weekend could pick 9 batsman, 2 all rounders, win the toss and bowl, set defensive fields, let TTG bat the first day, force them to make the play, but with no fielding restrictions they can bowl wide of off stump and set fields to that.. then just bat out a day with a side full of batsman and they win the flag..

Surely some sort of compulsory declaration has to be enforced, the side should have at least 80 overs to chase the runs.. I like the idea of the side being able to bat on for 10-15 overs on day 2, leaving 80 overs minimum to chase what they need..

Were quite happy with the rules and understand our position. We messed up last round and lost top spot, thats out fault and our 'bed to lay in'. Last year we won the toss and batted v Woodville in the semi, needing the win. Still achieved that result, so its more than achievable to get the result no matter the rules.

I reckon just about every player in A & B grade (where these rules apply) are happy with the current arrangements and it makes for tougher cricket. Teams used to bowl negatively because they didn't need wickets to win - now they do.

People that are saying the current rules promote negative cricket are clearly out of touch because the opposite is true! We want blokes to be able to bat 4+ hours at the next level and this is the best format to allow it.

Summed up perfectly C Horse. The players dont mind the rules and it adds a bit of strategy and plan execution to the games. This season, Northerns batted to long, leaving us roughly 40 overs (off the top of my head) to get 180-190 odd. We lost a couple quick wickets midway through the chase meaning we then shut up shot to avoid the loss. The ability to play for the draw is important in first class cricket so why not play similar conditions? it really is a non issue IMO

Congratulations to both Woodville and Tea Tree Gully on making the final. Certainly the two best teams throughout the season overall.

Cheers

Footy Smart wrote:Summed up perfectly C Horse. The players dont mind the rules and it adds a bit of strategy and plan execution to the games. This season, Northerns batted to long, leaving us roughly 40 overs (off the top of my head) to get 180-190 odd. We lost a couple quick wickets midway through the chase meaning we then shut up shot to avoid the loss. The ability to play for the draw is important in first class cricket so why not play similar conditions? it really is a non issue IMO

That is fine for the regular season where both sides can either win, lose or draw and the points reflect well the outcome. 5 points is better than none, but you'd need to draw 4 games to get as many points as a win.

Home ground advantage and the possible impact of weather are enough of an advantage for finishing top. The way the fixture is you could have a bye during a one-day game and you don't get the opportunities to accrue as many points as another side anyway, not to mention a wash out in one part of Adelaide and play continuing in another part.

The new points system in the Sheffield Shield rewards runs and wickets taken in the first 100 overs of the 1st innings. Perhaps something similar needs to happen in Grade cricket. The reason for its introduction was to encourage attacking aggressive cricket that translates to winning Test matches.

Either way, both teams should get an opportunity to bat and bowl to win a game. Not to draw a game.

Aerie wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:Summed up perfectly C Horse. The players dont mind the rules and it adds a bit of strategy and plan execution to the games. This season, Northerns batted to long, leaving us roughly 40 overs (off the top of my head) to get 180-190 odd. We lost a couple quick wickets midway through the chase meaning we then shut up shot to avoid the loss. The ability to play for the draw is important in first class cricket so why not play similar conditions? it really is a non issue IMO

That is fine for the regular season where both sides can either win, lose or draw and the points reflect well the outcome. 5 points is better than none, but you'd need to draw 4 games to get as many points as a win.

Home ground advantage and the possible impact of weather are enough of an advantage for finishing top. The way the fixture is you could have a bye during a one-day game and you don't get the opportunities to accrue as many points as another side anyway, not to mention a wash out in one part of Adelaide and play continuing in another part.

The new points system in the Sheffield Shield rewards runs and wickets taken in the first 100 overs of the 1st innings. Perhaps something similar needs to happen in Grade cricket. The reason for its introduction was to encourage attacking aggressive cricket that translates to winning Test matches.

Either way, both teams should get an opportunity to bat and bowl to win a game. Not to draw a game.

Sorry mate but I can't agree with any of that.
First of all, a one day bye is advantage because it means you play 9 two dayers instead of 8 and more opportunity for outright points.
The last two seasons it's been 3 v 4 in the grand final anyway, so it didn't matter where you finished. 1st might be 3 wins ahead of 4th, lose a toss on a wet one and be out straight away with the previous set of rules. At least this way they can draw if good enough.
Lo and behold, this season we have 1 v 2 in the Grand final. Last year it was 3 v 4 with same rules as Footy smart said TTG (and Port) both won away semis.
So there has been one draw out of 4 semis in the last 2 yrs AND KENSINGTON WON THE TOSS ANYWAY!!!!!!!!
What they should do is bring back a preliminary final.

C Horse wrote:What they should do is bring back a preliminary final.

Starting the season on Oct 17 was ridiculous and means we could have had a PF this year

In years gone by, although the A Grade only played 80 over matches during the minor round, the Semi-Finals and Finals were 150 over per side matches, with the matches being allowed to continue into the Monday. I think it would not be a bad move to re-introduce this at A Grade level.
It would be a bit like the Sheffield Shield, with the final(s) being allowed an extra day.

Cheers

Listening to MMM tonight where Keith Bradshaw mentioned a meeting with SACA clubs a couple of weeks ago and that wrt team reduction, decisions would now be made on their behalf. Any insight into this?

Also, with the debate on the Grade format, it's up to the clubs to take on an opponent in the spirit of the game. Those who think blocking every f-ing delivery is preparation for the next level is kidding themselves.

Lame Choice wrote:Listening to MMM tonight where Keith Bradshaw mentioned a meeting with SACA clubs a couple of weeks ago and that wrt team reduction, decisions would now be made on their behalf. Any insight into this?

Also, with the debate on the Grade format, it's up to the clubs to take on an opponent in the spirit of the game. Those who think blocking every f-ing delivery is preparation for the next level is kidding themselves.

Think you will find LC that the SACA will say you and you are merging . The old buggers on the GCC have had enough chances to change and wont! yet are the first to complain that cricket in SA is $hit. Take the nice little incentive away from being on the GCC and see how many would then put their hand up.
And before you say they have a constitution, it will be changed to accommodate any merger directed by SACA.

The Hound wrote:And before you say they have a constitution, it will be changed to accommodate any merger directed by SACA.

Which means we have another SACA vote sham ordeal to go through again

Anyone else feel that reducing the number of clubs isn't the magic bullet?

Tony Clifton wrote:Anyone else feel that reducing the number of clubs isn't the magic bullet?

It willno doubt improve the quality, but the main issue as I have said is the High Performance development of the players. This isnt a grade cricket issue but a SACA issue.

Footy Smart wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Anyone else feel that reducing the number of clubs isn't the magic bullet?

It willno doubt improve the quality, but the main issue as I have said is the High Performance development of the players. This isnt a grade cricket issue but a SACA issue.

Club's can only do so much 'high performance' development but are severely hamstrung by time and money constraints.

heater31 wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Anyone else feel that reducing the number of clubs isn't the magic bullet?

It willno doubt improve the quality, but the main issue as I have said is the High Performance development of the players. This isnt a grade cricket issue but a SACA issue.

Club's can only do so much 'high performance' development but are severely hamstrung by time and money constraints.

Players in all states dominate grade cricket yet dont make the grade at FC level. Its the High Performance development done via the futures league and emerging programs that makes them into a FC player rather than a good Grade level player. Hopefully for SA's sake the kids like Grant, Nielsen, Page, Bullimore etc can get that expert HP coaching and dont end up like so many 'promising' grade players that done make it at the next level. Head, Lehman and K Smith are the only crop from recent junior programs to make the FC grade. Then a big gap to Ferg, Putland and Cossies age group. Thats 5.5 current players from 10 years......

What's the tip for the Bradman tonight?

Burras wrote:What's the tip for the Bradman tonight?

Jake Brown or Sam Raphael

Jake always takes a few wickets along with runs so will pick up plenty of 2 and 1 votes from the Umps.

Raphael will jump out of the blocks early but had a quiet end to his club season.

heater31 wrote:

Burras wrote:What's the tip for the Bradman tonight?

Jake Brown or Sam Raphael

Jake always takes a few wickets along with runs so will pick up plenty of 2 and 1 votes from the Umps.

Raphael will jump out of the blocks early but had a quiet end to his club season.

Think those two will be the top of most peoples list.. Tim Evans would be in a similar boat to Browny wouldnt he? takes wickets and socres runs, reckon he's a bit of a smokey

Woodville and Tea Tree Gully will get a lot of votes. Won plenty of games.

Tom Andrews?

Tim Evans 3 in front with 3 rounds to be counted