SA Footy

heater31 wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Perhaps SACA should merge with ATCA and in the 2nd season formulate a 10 or 8 team promotion/relegation system.

Clubs will maintain their identity, players that wanna push for state selection will hopefully move to div 1 clubs.

I can hear the scoffing around the Grade Cricket committee table and the SACA board room now......


All that is going to encourage is what happens on a small scale now. Clubs with funds poaching the players of clubs with out funds! Any interstate First Class recruit is only going to speak with 2 or 3 clubs and take which ever one offers him a house rent free or cash to pay rent....

Yep, and the better players play in div 1 so they play against better opposition each week.

Clubs will need to be more financially viable to compete in div 1, we've gotta stop settling for mediocrity. WE can't continue to do the same thing and achieve a different result, we need to force changes.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

heater31 wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Perhaps SACA should merge with ATCA and in the 2nd season formulate a 10 or 8 team promotion/relegation system.

Clubs will maintain their identity, players that wanna push for state selection will hopefully move to div 1 clubs.

I can hear the scoffing around the Grade Cricket committee table and the SACA board room now......


All that is going to encourage is what happens on a small scale now. Clubs with funds poaching the players of clubs with out funds! Any interstate First Class recruit is only going to speak with 2 or 3 clubs and take which ever one offers him a house rent free or cash to pay rent....

Yep, and the better players play in div 1 so they play against better opposition each week.

Clubs will need to be more financially viable to compete in div 1, we've gotta stop settling for mediocrity. WE can't continue to do the same thing and achieve a different result, we need to force changes.

The reason the majoirty quality players playing ATCA instead of Grade Cricket is either $$ or they cant be arsed with longer days play and harder training sessions. Thats fine and thats their choice. Including ATCA sides to play against Grade sides would achieve nothing. Those quality ATCA players would probably just slide down grades.

IMO the High Performance set up at SACA has long failed many talented young players. Grade Cricket does what it can with the resources it has. They develop the talent at a younger age but its the SACAs job via their HP set up to turn them into First Class players. The AFL has a similar problem with the lower $$ clubs not having enough to spend in their football department. They recruit the 'best' talented kids yet they dont develop them in their HP system.

Also dont get me wrong, i totally agree that there are too many grade clubs. 1 maybe 2 need to go.

I'm more for trying to find a way to reduce the amount of teams in our Grade system, you can't expect clubs to part with history and tradition if they are running at a profit.

Lightning McQueen wrote:I'm more for trying to find a way to reduce the amount of teams in our Grade system, you can't expect clubs to part with history and tradition if they are running at a profit.

How about SACA not provide funding to clubs who cant meet certain criteria? Start a 'break away' comp in sorts. If you want the $$ you join the league and must meet the required criteria. They would get rid of 1 easily enough with no juniors, and another may have to merge to meet certain criteria.

Premier League has run its course also.

Could be an option.

Lightning McQueen wrote:Could be an option.

It still doesnt change what the problem is IMO and thats the HP set up, turning the talented young cricketers into first class players.

Footy Smart wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Could be an option.

It still doesnt change what the problem is IMO and thats the HP set up, turning the talented young cricketers into first class players.

IMO the problem is the jump from Grade cricket to state level is too big, they need to be playing against better opposition from week to week to counteract the gap.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Could be an option.

It still doesnt change what the problem is IMO and thats the HP set up, turning the talented young cricketers into first class players.

IMO the problem is the jump from Grade cricket to state level is too big, they need to be playing against better opposition from week to week to counteract the gap.

Is their any proof that the standard of grade cricket instertate is much better than here? its a good debate but plenty of variables

Footy Smart wrote:Is their any proof that the standard of grade cricket instertate is much better than here? its a good debate but plenty of variables

Apart from our inability to regularly produce competent First Class cricketers for the last 20 years or so, none.

rocketeer wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:Is their any proof that the standard of grade cricket instertate is much better than here? its a good debate but plenty of variables

Apart from our inability to regularly produce competent First Class cricketers for the last 20 years or so, none.

It may not be better, but the pitches are totally different. Not flat, dead roads,where the quicks and medium pacers have the keeper up after the 30th over and the ball doesn't get over waist height.
All this does is create front shoe bullies, where the pitch doesn't change and batsmen can bat with very little risk all day.
Probably why we get rolled on 4th day pitches in Shield Matches where there is variable bounce.

heater31 wrote:

RustyCage wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:"be patient" - That's one thing the SACA haven't been. Since Fleming, Elliott, Botha etc we've been after a quick fix by recruiting our way out of a mess.

Perhaps by doing this it takes the focus off the grade competition, which, many of us ( and people much more learned on the subject than me ) believe is in need of an overhaul?

The Grade system "wont" change, clubs will not be willing to merge or break with tradition nor history unfortunately.

Expecting teams to just to just die and merge off is just like expecting SANFL clubs to merge or die off for the betterment of the AFL. There needs to be a solution that will work for both

Some Grade clubs are not overly flushed with funds. So change may happen in a commercial sense.

That's one way it changes could happen naturally

helicopterking wrote:

rocketeer wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:Is their any proof that the standard of grade cricket instertate is much better than here? its a good debate but plenty of variables

Apart from our inability to regularly produce competent First Class cricketers for the last 20 years or so, none.

It may not be better, but the pitches are totally different. Not flat, dead roads,where the quicks and medium pacers have the keeper up after the 30th over and the ball doesn't get over waist height.
All this does is create front shoe bullies, where the pitch doesn't change and batsmen can bat with very little risk all day.
Probably why we get rolled on 4th day pitches in Shield Matches where there is variable bounce.

howdy all, long time reader of this thread and first post, im a country person who always picks up the sunday mail reads through the grade scores and wonder why there are so many scores under a 100! especially if what you say is correct and we have great batting decks. wasn't there a side that got rolled for 30 a few weeks back? therefore we have a awful drama of very good batting decks and from what I see bugger all runs. not good.

djd wrote:

helicopterking wrote:

rocketeer wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:Is their any proof that the standard of grade cricket instertate is much better than here? its a good debate but plenty of variables

Apart from our inability to regularly produce competent First Class cricketers for the last 20 years or so, none.

It may not be better, but the pitches are totally different. Not flat, dead roads,where the quicks and medium pacers have the keeper up after the 30th over and the ball doesn't get over waist height.
All this does is create front shoe bullies, where the pitch doesn't change and batsmen can bat with very little risk all day.
Probably why we get rolled on 4th day pitches in Shield Matches where there is variable bounce.

howdy all, long time reader of this thread and first post, im a country person who always picks up the sunday mail reads through the grade scores and wonder why there are so many scores under a 100! especially if what you say is correct and we have great batting decks. wasn't there a side that got rolled for 30 a few weeks back? therefore we have a awful drama of very good batting decks and from what I see bugger all runs. not good.

Glenelg got rolled for 30 odd, but that was at Park 25, a batters paradise, flat deck and fast outfield.

helicopterking wrote:

djd wrote:

helicopterking wrote:

rocketeer wrote:[quote="Footy Smart"]
Is their any proof that the standard of grade cricket instertate is much better than here? its a good debate but plenty of variables

Apart from our inability to regularly produce competent First Class cricketers for the last 20 years or so, none.

It may not be better, but the pitches are totally different. Not flat, dead roads,where the quicks and medium pacers have the keeper up after the 30th over and the ball doesn't get over waist height.
All this does is create front shoe bullies, where the pitch doesn't change and batsmen can bat with very little risk all day.
Probably why we get rolled on 4th day pitches in Shield Matches where there is variable bounce.

howdy all, long time reader of this thread and first post, im a country person who always picks up the sunday mail reads through the grade scores and wonder why there are so many scores under a 100! especially if what you say is correct and we have great batting decks. wasn't there a side that got rolled for 30 a few weeks back? therefore we have a awful drama of very good batting decks and from what I see bugger all runs. not good.

Glenelg got rolled for 30 odd, but that was at Park 25, a batters paradise, flat deck and fast outfield.[/quote]
Yep from what I heard it was just bad batting. East Torrens just kept putting the ball in a spot and Glenelg just kept getting out.

After bowling the opposition out for 32, East Torrens then put on 230 in almost 50 overs.

Glenelg got rolled for 30 odd, but that was at Park 25, a batters paradise, flat deck and fast outfield.[/quote

]

Yep from what I heard it was just bad batting. East Torrens just kept putting the ball in a spot and Glenelg just kept getting out.

After bowling the opposition out for 32, East Torrens then put on 230 in almost 50 overs.

[/quote]
Same round, Uni made 400+, Adelaide 395, TTG 397 and Southerns 350

rocketeer wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:Is their any proof that the standard of grade cricket instertate is much better than here? its a good debate but plenty of variables

Apart from our inability to regularly produce competent First Class cricketers for the last 20 years or so, none.

Had a quick look at Vic premier league and the scores ranges are very similar each week to what we have in SA.

Id still suggest the issue is the states HP development of players

Footy Smart wrote:

rocketeer wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:Is their any proof that the standard of grade cricket instertate is much better than here? its a good debate but plenty of variables

Apart from our inability to regularly produce competent First Class cricketers for the last 20 years or so, none.

Had a quick look at Vic premier league and the scores ranges are very similar each week to what we have in SA.

Id still suggest the issue is the states HP development of players

What does Jake Haberfield think?



Interesting that Sydney Frist Grade switched to a First Class standard ball as have we. It was either November or December they were bitching about the high scores and lack of movement for the bowlers. Not sure if We have made similar rumblings or maybe we are just getting on with the cards we are dealt.

heater31 wrote:What does Jake Haberfield think?

Does he still play?

Lightning McQueen wrote:

heater31 wrote:What does Jake Haberfield think?

Does he still play?

In Victoria yes he does.

Andy Delmont would be another well placed to comment.

They should play last seasons grade premiers in a state v state competition similar to foxtel cup.