Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Cricket Admin, Facilities and Fundraising => Cricket Administration => Topic started by: uknsaunders on April 27, 2015, 10:52:08 AM
-
I'm a bit old fashioned and if a club has 2 teams and doesn't have enough players it drops the 2nd XI. Even when they have lost half the 1st XI. The downside is you take a few beatings but the guys you bring up become better cricketers by playing a higher level, colts come on quicker and eventually you find a level for your 1st XI. What seems to be happening a lot in our league is teams are scrubbing the 1st XI and dropping their remaining players into the 2nd XI several divisions down. Effectively they are a 1 team club but with a strengthened 2nd XI for that division. The teams in that division get a stuffing and the club re-emerges in a higher league again.
While I can understand from a clubs perspective that throwing players into a much higher level can be pretty demoralising, isn't that part of the swings and roundabouts of a clubs fortunes. What incentive does the club have to recruit players to replace those left if they are just going to play the get out of jail card every time they struggle for a decent team? To me clubs are taking the soft option, rather than trying to work at player recruitment.
-
I think you need to raise this matter with your league.
It's not allowed in our League, if you have 2 teams and you want to drop one out it's the 2nd XI that have to go first.
It's a good system and stops teams taking the easy way out when they find life a bit tough in the higher division.
In our local football leagues it is very common for teams to start in division 7, win 10 nil every week and theink they're a good team. They do it again in the lower leagues until they get to Division 1 or 2 then pack up when they can't have easy victories every week. They will then form again under a different name and repeat the process. Thankfully this doesn't happen in our cricket.
-
I'm a bit old fashioned and if a club has 2 teams and doesn't have enough players it drops the 2nd XI. Even when they have lost half the 1st XI. The downside is you take a few beatings but the guys you bring up become better cricketers by playing a higher level, colts come on quicker and eventually you find a level for your 1st XI. What seems to be happening a lot in our league is teams are scrubbing the 1st XI and dropping their remaining players into the 2nd XI several divisions down. Effectively they are a 1 team club but with a strengthened 2nd XI for that division. The teams in that division get a stuffing and the club re-emerges in a higher league again.
While I can understand from a clubs perspective that throwing players into a much higher level can be pretty demoralising, isn't that part of the swings and roundabouts of a clubs fortunes. What incentive does the club have to recruit players to replace those left if they are just going to play the get out of jail card every time they struggle for a decent team? To me clubs are taking the soft option, rather than trying to work at player recruitment.
Difficult, isn't it? Farnham Royal did this last season, dropping theit first XI from the HCPL and renaming their TVL4 2s as their firsts. They won the division fairly easily in the end but, in truth, D3 is about their level and it would be harsh on their youngsters to spend four seasons getting pulverised to sink that far...
-
RF has stated a common theme, create a new club, thrash everyone, move up league after league until you are a mid table side..then fold.. Start again. Why?? Because people like winning, like scoring goals etc. sad but true, just look onus forum, there are a lot of people who put winning and enjoyment in the same place. Rather than enjoying the game for what it is, win, lose or draw.
tbh nick, if a club is struggling that much (at that point they probably don't have youth teams and won't attract them if they lose (parents equate first team level with quality of youth set up) and will struggle to attract players anyway if hey lose each week).. So I'd say it is probably a better idea for them to keep the 2's, win games, get the fun/smiles back a the club and rebuild.. No one likes losing each week, especially if they are getting hammered. It's harder to stop the rot if you lose all the time and drop the leagues in free fall
-
RF has stated a common theme, create a new club, thrash everyone, move up league after league until you are a mid table side..then fold.. Start again. Why?? Because people like winning, like scoring goals etc. sad but true, just look onus forum, there are a lot of people who put winning and enjoyment in the same place. Rather than enjoying the game for what it is, win, lose or draw.
tbh nick, if a club is struggling that much (at that point they probably don't have youth teams and won't attract them if they lose (parents equate first team level with quality of youth set up) and will struggle to attract players anyway if hey lose each week).. So I'd say it is probably a better idea for them to keep the 2's, win games, get the fun/smiles back a the club and rebuild.. No one likes losing each week, especially if they are getting hammered. It's harder to stop the rot if you lose all the time and drop the leagues in free fall
It's an odd one. I played for Yorkshire Post/Headingley and we went through this process, thanks to the Wetherby League's idiotic reasoning to make us start from the bottom. We went unbeaten for 3 years and set all kinds of records, however it was boring. 3 weeks in a row we were in the pub by 4pm, all we wanted to do was play cricket and be challenged. Now Headingley have a 1s,2s,3s all in decent competitive divisions and the achievement in winning is greater.
Winning is nothing unless you earn it.
Just touching on RF's re-forming theme. This does happen as part of the demotion process. If you scrub your 1st XI, half your players drop to the 2s. You win that lower division almost by default. You highlight the "Division X Champions" and this in turn encourages players to join, some to play in the higher league and as you say, we all like to play for winners. This in turn recreates the 2nd XI and the club continues to march up the leagues. Sounds great doesn't it? However, players join the club from other clubs thereby weakening the other clubs lower down, who have struggled on for years at 1st/2nd XI level without complaining. It doesn't always happen like that. Some clubs just wind down, the good players stick with it for a season and when they don't go back up they move on.
Our league don't care about the impact. No common sense assessment of the playing strength has taken place ie. they have 6 first teamers left, therefore they should play in Div 2, not Div4 were their 2nd XI is. They won't change the fixtures at this stage, even though no games have been played. I imagine it's not as easy as moving one team up in the top couple of divisions and slotting in one further down. Re-arranging fixtures have a funny knack of impacting other clubs in weird and wonderful ways.
-
It's an odd one. I played for Yorkshire Post/Headingley and we went through this process, thanks to the Wetherby League's idiotic reasoning to make us start from the bottom. We went unbeaten for 3 years and set all kinds of records, however it was boring. 3 weeks in a row we were in the pub by 4pm, all we wanted to do was play cricket and be challenged. Now Headingley have a 1s,2s,3s all in decent competitive divisions and the achievement in winning is greater.
Winning is nothing unless you earn it.
Just touching on RF's re-forming theme. This does happen as part of the demotion process. If you scrub your 1st XI, half your players drop to the 2s. You win that lower division almost by default. You highlight the "Division X Champions" and this in turn encourages players to join, some to play in the higher league and as you say, we all like to play for winners. This in turn recreates the 2nd XI and the club continues to march up the leagues. Sounds great doesn't it? However, players join the club from other clubs thereby weakening the other clubs lower down, who have struggled on for years at 1st/2nd XI level without complaining. It doesn't always happen like that. Some clubs just wind down, the good players stick with it for a season and when they don't go back up they move on.
Our league don't care about the impact. No common sense assessment of the playing strength has taken place ie. they have 6 first teamers left, therefore they should play in Div 2, not Div4 were their 2nd XI is. They won't change the fixtures at this stage, even though no games have been played. I imagine it's not as easy as moving one team up in the top couple of divisions and slotting in one further down. Re-arranging fixtures have a funny knack of impacting other clubs in weird and wonderful ways.
I agree about winning only feels good if it's a hard closely fought game but many many people don't care. Just look at the number of overseas who smash big runs or take millions of wickets? Look a the clubs paying 'star' players who score run after run and basically carry a team? That's just the same issue essentially. At the end of the day, If you asked totally honestly I bet more would take scoring 50 each week but a few diva down (if we assumed travel/wicket/umpire/tea quality stayed the same) over scoring 10-20 most weeks with the odd good score. Why? Because they'd be winning, they'd be enjoying the batting/bowling etc. some people are purely attracted to a team just so they can go 'I play x level', some aren't that interested even though they are good enough etc etc
-
Agree with @RF on this one Nick, our league wouldn't allow this and the club's lowest placed team would have to be the one to drop out. I can't see why a league would allow it without special circumstances
-
I think the way cricket participation is going,,this is gonna happen more and more
-
I think the way cricket participation is going,,this is gonna happen more and more
Sadly I agree. I can't see participation rising tbh, in cricket but also the various adult sports.
-
This is what I feel is wrong with the league that I play in we have a division that was set up for clubs with just one team all the teams in the division were around the same strength which made the division competitive.
But for season 2015 there are only 2 teams in the division with one team and i predict it to be a complete mismatch of sides on certain match days as 2 clubs who have retained most of there 1st team have been allowed to drop 4 divisions 2 more clubs have had there third teams promoted into the division which is made up of 3 other third teams and I fourth team.
You can now more or less predict who is going to finish where at the end of August but more concerning is that most of the thirds and fourths have young players I hope I am wrong but I can see them getting hammered by certain teams.
-
This is what I feel is wrong with the league that I play in we have a division that was set up for clubs with just one team all the teams in the division were around the same strength which made the division competitive.
But for season 2015 there are only 2 teams in the division with one team and i predict it to be a complete mismatch of sides on certain match days as 2 clubs who have retained most of there 1st team have been allowed to drop 4 divisions 2 more clubs have had there third teams promoted into the division which is made up of 3 other third teams and I fourth team.
You can now more or less predict who is going to finish where at the end of August but more concerning is that most of the thirds and fourths have young players I hope I am wrong but I can see them getting hammered by certain teams.
What league is this?
-
I think there's a bit of "My genitals are bigger than yours" about this too.
People love saying they play in a 1st XI, but they want to win too. If they drop their top side they can still tell everyone they're a 1st teamer and win matches, which the may not've done at the higher level.
We had a classic example of this a couple of years ago. A player (who was a regular in our 3rd XI) left us to go and play 1st team cricket for someone else.
The club he joined had a 1st XI in a lower league than our 3s, but his ego got a massage when he told everyone "I'm a 1st team regular".
-
Absolutely. We've had a couple of people refuse to play in our 2s on the basis that they're ones cricketer's yet barely averaged 10 in the seconds...!
-
Absolutely. We've had a couple of people refuse to play in our 2s on the basis that they're ones cricketer's yet barely averaged 10 in the seconds...!
I agree that it's an ego thing BUT, clubs and those in first teams don't help this out with the way some act. We played a club in a pre season friendly, not one of their players did anything facility related, left it for some old guy who only did it because they'd just left it.. classic first teamer mentality 'I'm too good to do x or y'
Again though, it depends on how clubs/leagues treat the different teams. Some clubs only care about 1's, everything is dedicated to those playing 1's and so if you are not int hat team, it can feel like you are there purely to subsidise that team. so why not leave and join someone elses 1's and be in that main team? shouldn't happen but makes sense really
-
Our 1s and 2s are only 2 divs apart, both fairly low down.
But lots of the older guys, who are still good enough for 1s almost flat out refuse to move up when we're short. It's not as if they'd be batting lower than in the 2nds either.
-
Our 1s and 2s are only 2 divs apart, both fairly low down.
But lots of the older guys, who are still good enough for 1s almost flat out refuse to move up when we're short. It's not as if they'd be batting lower than in the 2nds either.
Personally, if I was a 2's player and was asked to 'step up', I'd expect to bat in my normal position, not shoved down the order. Why? because it's less of a game and tbh, I'd rather play 2's and get a good game. I personally don't blame anyone for not wanting to play 1's unless, they are going to be used in their normal slot (ie, if you open in the 2's then you should bat top 3 in the 1's etc - not suddenly be at 6+)
At the club I'm with, I sit on the selection committee and each week have to argue the point that if you are bringing someone up you have to give them a game in their natural position, otherwise you'll just pee them off and they won't want to come up next time. tbh, it really doesn't harm the team either way
-
Yes you are right if a players an opening bat he is an opening bat it would not be natural for them to bat at four or five for example.
-
That's why I find it so difficult to understand in our club - people do bat in their proper position/get a decent amount of overs when they step up. And the standard of cricket is similar.
-
That's why I find it so difficult to understand in our club - people do bat in their proper position/get a decent amount of overs when they step up. And the standard of cricket is similar.
It's may be because they wish to stay together with there mates I was told last week about a group of guys who have formed there own team this season because there club wouldn't allow them to play together as a team.
-
there was a club in our league a couple years ago that dropped their 2xi but kept the 1st and 3xi . apparently the 3rds were all kids and was only a division or 2 below the 2nd team so it made sense.
i certainly dont see the point it dropping a 1st xi just to strengthen the 2nd. just have to lose a couple of games and reassess at the end of the year
-
apparently the 3rds were all kids
This annoys me, I don't see the point in setting up a third team that's composed mostly/entirely of kids, I don't think it is fair on other teams that field mostly adult players, only to turn up and find themselves playing, and in my experience steamrolling their way through, a bunch of 15-18 year olds. It isn't fair on the kids either, turning up and getting hammered by more experienced players every week. Its a problem in the league I play in now, all but 1 team from the second division downwards is either a third or second team, last season it must have been a team consisting of 5-8 kids and a few seniors at least once every 3 or 4 games down in division 4 where my club's second team were. I don't have a problem with the side having one or two kids in to give them senior cricket experience, but sending out a side full of them is just not cricket in my opinion. I can't count the amount of times last year that "they were a team of kids, we hardly got a game" or something similar was said in the changing rooms and in the car on the way home after a game.
A few teams in other leagues locally also have issues finding players to play in their second teams, mostly because of a general attitude of "i'm too good for second team cricket" that seems to be the norm amongst the higher level leagues' players.
-
This annoys me, I don't see the point in setting up a third team that's composed mostly/entirely of kids, I don't think it is fair on other teams that field mostly adult players, only to turn up and find themselves playing, and in my experience steamrolling their way through, a bunch of 15-18 year olds. It isn't fair on the kids either, turning up and getting hammered by more experienced players every week. Its a problem in the league I play in now, all but 1 team from the second division downwards is either a third or second team, last season it must have been a team consisting of 5-8 kids and a few seniors at least once every 3 or 4 games down in division 4 where my club's second team were. I don't have a problem with the side having one or two kids in to give them senior cricket experience, but sending out a side full of them is just not cricket in my opinion. I can't count the amount of times last year that "they were a team of kids, we hardly got a game" or something similar was said in the changing rooms and in the car on the way home after a game.
A few teams in other leagues locally also have issues finding players to play in their second teams, mostly because of a general attitude of "i'm too good for second team cricket" that seems to be the norm amongst the higher level leagues' players.
How do you expect young players to come through then??
This for me is exactly what the lower teams in a club should be all about.
-
I'm not 100% sure i subscribe to the step up and "play in the same spot" perspective. I think it really depends on the diversity the club has and the gap between the leagues (therefore standards)
The step up to the firsts is often articulated from a batting perspective but if the opening bowler moved up to the firsts would you expect them to open the bowling? If they were really good enough to open the bowling they would be in the firsts already.
I don't play very often but when i do i typically play in our first team, i bat around 7, the highest i would expect would be 5 the lowest 8. thats about my ability TBH. Given i can't play often If i had my choice i would prefer to play seconds as i would get more of an involved game but would i expect to bat 7 - not really. If the top order were on top form and they had all been scoring then i might expect that but in the seconds i would expect to bat top 4 at least - i would even be angling to open. It doesn't mean the captain would agree but based on capability (not form) thats where i think i should be. I agree opening might have a specific skills set but even then i'm not 100% sure how much of a difference that makes at lower levels of cricket. After all i wonder how many teams put openers in not because their openers but they are simply not good enough to score at any other rate that might be required at another time in the innings.
I personally think the bigger issue in moving 2nds to 1st is when the automatic decision is to take the 2nd better player based on batting and bowling... i often think that the better club decision would be to give experience to a younger member, they get to face better bowling if they get a bat, they get to bowl against better batting if they bowl and importantly the firsts usually get a more competent fielder.i know its horses for courses but i don't think that happens enough.
I think in principle the rule of folding your lowest club has to be correct but i do also think there should be a process a club can go through to approach the league. club talent will defiantly eb and flow, teenagers going to Uni, Guys having families and taking time out from the game. People moving with work. If you can clearly show that your level of talent has left the club then surely forcing the remaining members to play at a standard that only some of them will respond too is not good for the individual or the club itself.
-
This annoys me, I don't see the point in setting up a third team that's composed mostly/entirely of kids, I don't think it is fair on other teams that field mostly adult players, only to turn up and find themselves playing, and in my experience steamrolling their way through, a bunch of 15-18 year olds. It isn't fair on the kids either, turning up and getting hammered by more experienced players every week. Its a problem in the league I play in now, all but 1 team from the second division downwards is either a third or second team, last season it must have been a team consisting of 5-8 kids and a few seniors at least once every 3 or 4 games down in division 4 where my club's second team were. I don't have a problem with the side having one or two kids in to give them senior cricket experience, but sending out a side full of them is just not cricket in my opinion. I can't count the amount of times last year that "they were a team of kids, we hardly got a game" or something similar was said in the changing rooms and in the car on the way home after a game.
A few teams in other leagues locally also have issues finding players to play in their second teams, mostly because of a general attitude of "i'm too good for second team cricket" that seems to be the norm amongst the higher level leagues' players.
We have our 5th XI as an Academy Side with 7/8 kids every week. We have a 6th XI made up of the more experienced players and I'm prepared to bet the kids would beat them 9 times out of 10.
And as an FYI I was part of said Academy Side, we won promotion in 2011. The team of kids beat a load of your "mostly adult players" teams who, like yourself, turned up and assumed they'd win easily and be in the pub by 4pm.
Of that Academy Side there are now several 1st/2nd XI players, who without being blooded into adult cricket the way they were wouldn't have even got a game that season.
-
I'm not 100% sure i subscribe to the step up and "play in the same spot" perspective. I think it really depends on the diversity the club has and the gap between the leagues (therefore standards)
The step up to the firsts is often articulated from a batting perspective but if the opening bowler moved up to the firsts would you expect them to open the bowling? If they were really good enough to open the bowling they would be in the firsts already.
I don't play very often but when i do i typically play in our first team, i bat around 7, the highest i would expect would be 5 the lowest 8. thats about my ability TBH. Given i can't play often If i had my choice i would prefer to play seconds as i would get more of an involved game but would i expect to bat 7 - not really. If the top order were on top form and they had all been scoring then i might expect that but in the seconds i would expect to bat top 4 at least - i would even be angling to open. It doesn't mean the captain would agree but based on capability (not form) thats where i think i should be. I agree opening might have a specific skills set but even then i'm not 100% sure how much of a difference that makes at lower levels of cricket. After all i wonder how many teams put openers in not because their openers but they are simply not good enough to score at any other rate that might be required at another time in the innings.
I personally think the bigger issue in moving 2nds to 1st is when the automatic decision is to take the 2nd better player based on batting and bowling... i often think that the better club decision would be to give experience to a younger member, they get to face better bowling if they get a bat, they get to bowl against better batting if they bowl and importantly the firsts usually get a more competent fielder.i know its horses for courses but i don't think that happens enough.
I think in principle the rule of folding your lowest club has to be correct but i do also think there should be a process a club can go through to approach the league. club talent will defiantly eb and flow, teenagers going to Uni, Guys having families and taking time out from the game. People moving with work. If you can clearly show that your level of talent has left the club then surely forcing the remaining members to play at a standard that only some of them will respond too is not good for the individual or the club itself.
whats the incentive for someone to go from having a good game to a little one and paying for it
-
whats the incentive for someone to go from having a good game to a little one and paying for it
It all depends on how the team (and the club) make that player feel valued. Its also a big difference between bringing a player in a few games a year too asking them to basically be a first team stand game in game out. If its the latter then there is no incentive. If its the former then the team has to embrace the reason they are doing it... its not just about filling a gap on the team sheet. Its about giving that player a chance to see what a step up in level means, what it means to save every run int he field and the to see better players bat and owl and learn from them in a match situation. if the team embrace that then the player can get an awful lot from being part of a better standard. If they sit them in the corner, ignore them and field them fine leg to fine leg... well then... what does that tell you about the club.
edit..what does that tell you about the team v the club
-
We have our 5th XI as an Academy Side with 7/8 kids every week. We have a 6th XI made up of the more experienced players and I'm prepared to bet the kids would beat them 9 times out of 10.
And as an FYI I was part of said Academy Side, we won promotion in 2011. The team of kids beat a load of your "mostly adult players" teams who, like yourself, turned up and assumed they'd win easily and be in the pub by 4pm.
Of that Academy Side there are now several 1st/2nd XI players, who without being blooded into adult cricket the way they were wouldn't have even got a game that season.
Before things get unintentionally heated, I didn't mean to cause any offence with what I said. I just personally have my doubts about playing against teams full of kids.
-
All depends how the kids play it,,,,if they are a bunch of gobby up themselves little oiks with delusions that they can play the game better than you etc, then they deserve to be played off the park.
But, and a massive but,,,if the team genuinely uses it as a way of bringing youngsters/beginners through, then a level of respect and patience has to be applied, and encouragement when it's due.
We played a friendly yesterday with a local ish team, that turned out to be mostly first teamers, with an opening bowler that was lethal on our astro.
Now I don't mind that sort of bowling, but when we have 13 and 14yr olds in, that's different
Especially with a cheap rock hard wildly swinging ball
-
whats the incentive for someone to go from having a good game to a little one and paying for it
Apsolutly none and maybe not getting a bat or bowl ending up just paying for your tea and to field.
-
Before things get unintentionally heated, I didn't mean to cause any offence with what I said. I just personally have my doubts about playing against teams full of kids.
I don't think you caused any offence, I just think you were talking a load of (No Swearing Please) lol!
A well run Academy side (3 or 4 senior players, the rest up and coming youngsters) can be just as good as a side full of experienced players.
It's more about man (or should that be boy) management - keep the youngsters grounded (you're not better than everyone else because they're thrice your age) and make sure they play hard but fair.
As for developing youngsters, at the OAP age of nearly 21, I've been asked to be one of the "older players" for Sunday friendlies this season. Another way to get the kids into adult cricket without the pressures of the league.
-
I suppose my viewpoint does come from bad experience (as an OAP 21 year old counting down the days until he can get back from uni to play cricket again). I play in a low level league that teams from the better leagues use for their 3rd teams in the lower divisions (div 1 is first teams only), and they don't seem to want to be there half of the time.
-
Personally, if I was a 2's player and was asked to 'step up', I'd expect to bat in my normal position, not shoved down the order. Why? because it's less of a game and tbh, I'd rather play 2's and get a good game. I personally don't blame anyone for not wanting to play 1's unless, they are going to be used in their normal slot (ie, if you open in the 2's then you should bat top 3 in the 1's etc - not suddenly be at 6+)
At the club I'm with, I sit on the selection committee and each week have to argue the point that if you are bringing someone up you have to give them a game in their natural position, otherwise you'll just pee them off and they won't want to come up next time. tbh, it really doesn't harm the team either way
Great that you do that. Sad that you have to do it every week.
I'd have you on the selection panel any day of the week. Basically if you pick the second's opener for the firsts and bat him at 8 you're telling him he's not up to it - pointless and bad man management.
-
Great that you do that. Sad that you have to do it every week.
I'd have you on the selection panel any day of the week. Basically if you pick the second's opener for the firsts and bat him at 8 you're telling him he's not up to it - pointless and bad man management.
I was chairman of selectors at our club for a number of years and had to do a similar arguing spot.
I had to get the captains who were short to say where the gap was and fill it accordingly.
If an opener wasn't available. Take the 2nd team opener or move someone up the order and take a middle order player instead.
Also think of where they'll do most good for the team. For instance, if you are taking someone to bat at 8, take someone who can do that and field really well. No point taking the old man who can run but can bat.
You also need to balance expectations of 2nd teamers and if they do it for a couple of weeks, swap them with another for a couple of weeks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk