ASCA

[storyoftheyear]

Again, they should have grown a pair and made Morphies or Havens come up. To let Sutton Derby in is a joke. I hope the Exec did their due diligence. In addition to this, they should stipulate that premiership points will be docked from WYC’s Sec 3 side if they name any of their Sec 1 players from last year who are “not playing anymore”.

[Moe]

Again, they should have grown a pair and made Morphies or Havens come up. To let Sutton Derby in is a joke. I hope the Exec did their due diligence. In addition to this, they should stipulate that premiership points will be docked from WYC’s Sec 3 side if they name any of their Sec 1 players from last year who are “not playing anymore”.

WYC should have been told to stay in section 1. If they had a bad season, then they are relegated. If the story is true about recruiting players from Fitzroy, then they really haven't lost much at all. If they lost a whole team, then how have they managed to still nominate 3 teams?

The placement of some teams in section's is absolutely ridiculous, and there will be some humongous thrashing this season, which will lead to forfeited games or teams pulling out.

[woodublieve12]

Again, they should have grown a pair and made Morphies or Havens come up. To let Sutton Derby in is a joke. I hope the Exec did their due diligence. In addition to this, they should stipulate that premiership points will be docked from WYC’s Sec 3 side if they name any of their Sec 1 players from last year who are “not playing anymore”.

WYC should have been told to stay in section 1. If they had a bad season, then they are relegated. If the story is true about recruiting players from Fitzroy, then they really haven't lost much at all. If they lost a whole team, then how have they managed to still nominate 3 teams?

The placement of some teams in section's is absolutely ridiculous, and there will be some humongous thrashing this season, which will lead to forfeited games or teams pulling out.

Wait, they recruited and asked to go down??? I totally misread a previous. ASCA should've told them to stay

[auto]

Again, they should have grown a pair and made Morphies or Havens come up. To let Sutton Derby in is a joke. I hope the Exec did their due diligence. In addition to this, they should stipulate that premiership points will be docked from WYC’s Sec 3 side if they name any of their Sec 1 players from last year who are “not playing anymore”.

WYC should have been told to stay in section 1. If they had a bad season, then they are relegated. If the story is true about recruiting players from Fitzroy, then they really haven't lost much at all. If they lost a whole team, then how have they managed to still nominate 3 teams?

The placement of some teams in section's is absolutely ridiculous, and there will be some humongous thrashing this season, which will lead to forfeited games or teams pulling out.

True they got a bunch of players from fitzroy.

Sent from my SM-J530Y using Tapatalk

[whitepointers]

I think the decline in standard would apply to most associations.
Most people are time poor and that includes better players.

It's certainly worth seeing how WYC go.. they have certainly recruited a few from Fitzroy, just how good they are remains to be seen.
Personally I think many teams take the soft option and often the ASCA cater for their requests... not necessarily ASCA's fault as they can only take the clubs word for it. But I think clubs should tough it out more and whatever happens, happens.
I don't think clubs having A Grade teams in Section 8 achieves anything positive for those that have to play them.
Regardless of depth they are still going to have that x factor player or 2 or 3.
Difficult job for ASCA but I think they need to be stronger with clubs from now on and tell clubs where to play rather than the other way around.

[Moe]

How does ICC win section 3 premiership, yet go down to section 4?

[V0ice0fthev0iceless]

Rumour circulating the competitions newest Section 1 side may struggle to field a team this afternoon. If they do, there is potential it may only be the minimum of 7 players aswell. If true, this is a grim look and one of the poorer starts to a season in ASCA history.

Let’s hope it’s only rumour and they come out and compete.

[The Bedge]

Sutton Derby copping bit of a reality check in their first game.

[Dr Feel Good]

Anyone with half a brain could predict this was going to be the case. The executive got hoodwinked well and truly.

Expecting forfeit's by Christmas

[The Bedge]

They only lost because their match was unfairly moved, which resulted in thousands of fans being able to flock to the ancestral and spiritual home of Sutton Derby.

[whitepointers]

They only lost because their match was unfairly moved, which resulted in thousands of fans being able to flock to the ancestral and spiritual home of Sutton Derby.

Don't forget their inability to train on the oppositions ground in the week leading up to the game.

[Keefy]

They only lost because their match was unfairly moved, which resulted in thousands of fans being able to flock to the ancestral and spiritual home of Sutton Derby.

[emoji38] [emoji38]

Don't forget their inability to train on the oppositions ground in the week leading up to the game.

What are they going to think when they head south again for Round 2 and have to contend with roo poo?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[footy1992]

Sutton Derby an absolute farce.

This afternoon's to the executive was pure comedy! One shakes their head at this "club" who seems to think they are running a national team under the control of the "ICC" with hundreds of fans. My question, if its sooooooo far for the players and fans to travel for the game, when did they think they were going to make it to practice at the oval?

PS they have Porties away this weekend - and a hint for them..... thats further down the road!!!

Secondly, more forfeits in S9 again..... Flagstaff Hill II & Mitchell Park V. When will these clubs make the right decision and not enter the teams in the first place!

[footy1992]

Sutton Derby an absolute farce.

This afternoon's to the executive was pure comedy!

One shakes their head at this "club" who seems to think they are running a national team under the control of the "ICC" with hundreds of fans. My question, if its sooooooo far for the players and fans to travel for the game, when did they think they were going to make it to practice at the oval?

PS they have Porties away this weekend - and a hint for them..... thats further down the road!!!

Secondly, more forfeits in S9 again..... Flagstaff Hill II & Mitchell Park V. When will these clubs make the right decision and not enter the teams in the first place!

For context re email to association...

Dear Adelaide Suburban Cricket Association,

I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the decision to change the venue for the opening round of the cricket season from Billabong Oval to Hackham Oval.

As you know, Billabong Oval is the home ground of the Sutton Derbys ,we have booked the ground for 2023/24 and we have been playing there for many years. We have a strong connection to the ground and our fans, and we were very excited to start the new season at home.

However, just days before the match, we were informed that the game would be moved to Hackham Oval because the ICC had deemed Billabong Oval to be unacceptable. We were not given any specific reasons for this decision, but we find it to be very unfair.

Billabong Oval is a well-maintained ground that has been used for cricket for many years. We have never had any problems with the ground in the past, and we are very disappointed that the ICC has deemed it to be unsuitable for play.

We believe that the decision to move the game to Hackham Oval is unfair to our club and our fans. Hackham Oval is a long way from Sutton, and it will be difficult and expensive for our fans to travel to the game. Additionally, we have not had a chance to practice on the ground, which will put us at a disadvantage on match day.

We urge you to reconsider your decision and allow us to play our opening and all round Home match at Billabong Oval. We believe that the ground is perfectly suitable for play, and we are confident that we can provide a safe and enjoyable experience for our players and fans.
I have already send the recent video of the ground previously.
Thanking you

Yours Sincerely,

Kaushik Dasgupta

President, Sutton Derbys Cricket Club

[Lightning McQueen]

They only lost because their match was unfairly moved, which resulted in thousands of fans being able to flock to the ancestral and spiritual home of Sutton Derby.

Not to mention the loss revenue from the sell out crowd they had for the home match, I heard KISS stayed in Australia for the pre-match entertainment.

[whitepointers]

I heard Flaggies forfeit was due to 10 players going on a footy trip so may be a once off hopefully

[Barkeroo]

Where is Billabong oval?

[footy1992]

It’s at St Peter’s surrounded by a billabong!

Where is Billabong oval?

[Trader]

Granted I don't follow ASCA all that closely, and Sutton Derby sound like a difficult club based on that letter posted, however, I must admit without knowing the details, I can sympathise with them a little.

If it's their home fixture, and their ground (billabong oval) was available, why did the association move the game on them?
Why did the away team (ICC) get to request it being moved?

Sure, talk of training on an oval first, and fans at lower grade cricket, is clearly a long bow from the SD lads, but the underlying sense that they should be allowed to host their home game does seem reasonable.

[Booney]

Train on the oval before hand?