Booney wrote:Or, SACA could take it out of the clubs hands and give them two years to create a merger agreement with another club or you're out.
Well that went well recently.....
Bonney makes a great point. The difference is, going from 13 to 12 teams makes no difference whatsoever. If they said we are going to 8 teams in 2019/20 season, gives clubs two years to sort it out. Merge or gone. Think clubs would be more receptive to this, rather than trying to bully a team out because their neighbouring club can't field 16 Whites.
I personally don't think the number of District Clubs has anything to do with it, just a cop out excuse. We have the least number of clubs in 1st Grade than any other State. It all comes down to the High Performance department, it is their responsibility and maybe Tim Nielsen should be moved on instead of trying to lay the blame elsewhere.
Booney wrote:Or, SACA could take it out of the clubs hands and give them two years to create a merger agreement with another club or you're out.
Well that went well recently.....
Bonney makes a great point. The difference is, going from 13 to 12 teams makes no difference whatsoever. If they said we are going to 8 teams in 2019/20 season, gives clubs two years to sort it out. Merge or gone. Think clubs would be more receptive to this, rather than trying to bully a team out because their neighbouring club can't field 16 Whites.
I personally don't think the number of District Clubs has anything to do with it, just a cop out excuse. We have the least number of clubs in 1st Grade than any other State. It all comes down to the High Performance department, it is their responsibility and maybe Tim Nielsen should be moved on instead of trying to lay the blame elsewhere.
Reducing the competition to 8 clubs isn't just going to solve the problem, for sure, what will solve the problem is the pathways through to that 8 team competition being more elite. Imagine the U16 competition with 8 teams, from an early age you, as the elite, are pitted against the other elite and you'll make or break a 1st class career there. It wouldn't be at grade level that the change is noticed but under age level before they get to grade level.
Lightning McQueen wrote:Excuse my ignorance but didn't we finish top last season?
Exactly, people just bring out the excuse of too many teams etc to validate their argument.
And that's a pretty small sample size to look at when you consider our performances over the last 20 years ( since we on it ).
Since '95/96 we've made 1 final ( last year ) not been 2nd, 3 times 3rd, 4 times 4th, twice fifth and 10 times, yes 10 times dead last in the last 20 years! Stick your "didn't we finish top last year". We've been consistently shit.
We finished last the year before last, so went bottom to top.
I'll refer to my post yesterday..... 3 of our supposedly gun First Class batsmen don't feature in the top 50 averages for First Grade this season. The question needs to be asked why are they not dominating the amateur First Grade players that have a full time job outside of cricket and train twice a week after work?
heater31 wrote:I'll refer to my post yesterday..... 3 of our supposedly gun First Class batsmen don't feature in the top 50 averages for First Grade this season. The question needs to be asked why are they not dominating the amateur First Grade players that have a full time job outside of cricket and train twice a week after work?
Like the old Australian Team adage, "Easier to get into it than get out of it".
Lightning McQueen wrote:Excuse my ignorance but didn't we finish top last season?
Exactly, people just bring out the excuse of too many teams etc to validate their argument.
And that's a pretty small sample size to look at when you consider our performances over the last 20 years ( since we on it ).
Since '95/96 we've made 1 final ( last year ) not been 2nd, 3 times 3rd, 4 times 4th, twice fifth and 10 times, yes 10 times dead last in the last 20 years! Stick your "didn't we finish top last year". We've been consistently shit.
We finished last the year before last, so went bottom to top.
Nice stats Booney! There is no hiding from the fact the redbacks have been consistently shite since their last Shield title.
I see the odd district game each year but what is the standard actually like? How does it compare/differ to Sydney or Melbourne district cricket?
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
Booney wrote: And that's a pretty small sample size to look at when you consider our performances over the last 20 years ( since we on it ).
Since '95/96 we've made 1 final ( last year ) not been 2nd, 3 times 3rd, 4 times 4th, twice fifth and 10 times, yes 10 times dead last in the last 20 years! Stick your "didn't we finish top last year". We've been consistently shit.
We finished last the year before last, so went bottom to top.
Not that it's the case in this instance but what would you prefer? A: A flag every 5 years but finishing 4, 5 or 6 in between. B: A flag every 10 years but being around the top 4 most seasons. C: A flag every 15 years and making the final on a regular basis.
Booney wrote: And that's a pretty small sample size to look at when you consider our performances over the last 20 years ( since we on it ).
Since '95/96 we've made 1 final ( last year ) not been 2nd, 3 times 3rd, 4 times 4th, twice fifth and 10 times, yes 10 times dead last in the last 20 years! Stick your "didn't we finish top last year". We've been consistently shit.
We finished last the year before last, so went bottom to top.
Not that it's the case in this instance but what would you prefer? A: A flag every 5 years but finishing 4, 5 or 6 in between. B: A flag every 10 years but being around the top 4 most seasons. C: A flag every 15 years and making the final on a regular basis.
A for me. Flags are all that matters, I'd be happy winning one every 5 years and finishing stone motherless last the other 4 years
