Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Your Cricket => Topic started by: six and out on October 21, 2018, 10:55:11 AM
-
Interesting article... it's quite long but worth a read and poses an interesting debate....
Are there too many Cricket clubs?? In my area, Milton Keynes (and surrounding villages) I believe there certainly is and the cricket player 'market' is just completely saturated.
https://www.wisden.com/stories/your-game/club-cricket/club-debate-walking-dead-cricket-clubs (https://www.wisden.com/stories/your-game/club-cricket/club-debate-walking-dead-cricket-clubs)
-
Are there too many clubs or are there too many ‘super’ clubs who have 3+ senior teams or mulitiple junior sides ? You could argue this means those players who will never make it are just playing in a 2/3/4/5th team and bank rolling paid players ?
Tbh, it comes down to whether you believe fewer bigger dubs are better than more clubs but only 1/2 senior teams per club
-
If I were in charge of cricket, rural clubs would be limited to 2 teams and a Sunday side, city/urban clubs would be allowed 3 teams and 2 Sunday sides. There would be an easy player transfer system for occasional games, and a limit on how many players you could have on your books.
This would (hopefully) lead to stronger, more competitive leagues across all clubs and standards.
-
My club has 4 league XIs and I certainly wouldn’t class us as a “super club” our colts section is actually dwindling along with a few others locally and I put that down to a couple of clubs who run 6 league XIs but more importantly have a colts section of over 250 kids with multiple XIs in each age category. There is an argument that they have the set up and put the resources in to earn the right to have that many kids but they just swallow up all the kids in the area. I think an even distribution of colts and juniors across clubs and measures to prevent poaching will significantly help.
-
My club has 4 league XIs and I certainly wouldn’t class us as a “super club” our colts section is actually dwindling along with a few others locally and I put that down to a couple of clubs who run 6 league XIs but more importantly have a colts section of over 250 kids with multiple XIs in each age category. There is an argument that they have the set up and put the resources in to earn the right to have that many kids but they just swallow up all the kids in the area. I think an even distribution of colts and juniors across clubs and measures to prevent poaching will significantly help.
I’d be interested to know if everyone was honest, do all these kids and players actually get ‘better’ coaching or facilities ? Sure the ‘top’ couple might but the majority will play or train at 2/3rd grounds anyway etc
-
I’d be interested to know if everyone was honest, do all these kids and players actually get ‘better’ coaching or facilities ? Sure the ‘top’ couple might but the majority will play or train at 2/3rd grounds anyway etc
I think they all train at their main ground facilities no different to anyone else but they have very good coaches and plenty of them and a good set up and structure.
My thoughts are though its all well and good get regular games in the U13 2nd XI but eventually when you get older are you going to be in a position where you get a chance to play senior cricket. At this point will these kids move clubs or just give up playing?
If you were perhaps at a "smaller" club and playing in the U13s and getting the odd game in senior cricket and getting more of a chance to play senior cricket at 15/16 are you then more likely to keep playing into adulthood.
Are these big clubs, as commendable as it is to get loads of kids playing, killing off future senior players for clubs around them.
-
I’d be interested to know if everyone was honest, do all these kids and players actually get ‘better’ coaching or facilities ? Sure the ‘top’ couple might but the majority will play or train at 2/3rd grounds anyway etc
We had one guy who left to go to a "super club" (Home Counties prem, regular winners of it and used to do well in the National Cup). Said player was in our 2s, struggling to be honest and had one fatal flaw in his technique. He's been there 2 or 3 years, is a vastly improved player and has now broken into their 2s and scored 80 on debut. No way would he be doing that if he remained with us.
Whilst coaching plays a big part in a player's development, I think the difference between a big club and a small club is that the bigger club will give them more game time - be it colts or men's. That's where you learn more in my opinion, not in the nets.
-
I would say theirs to few clubs also only two one team clubs left in my area clubs have either folded or merged.
Big clubs have the monopoly with juniors so they get the grants finance plus a nice income from the parents at the bar and so called training fees.
Also due to not many local sat matches the travelling has got silly contributing a downturn in Sunday games
-
I agree that there are too few clubs which leads to greater travelling.
The large clubs suck up all the juniors, only have the capacity to give the better players (private school kids) games and this is demoralising for other kids. These kids are then lost to cricket entirely.
As a member of a 1 team club our only prospect of attracting new youth players is if a current member has a kid who wants to play.
Unfortunately the large clubs near us don’t want to loan out their excess players in case they join the new side permanently.
Ultimately it will end up with a few super clubs who play eachother 4 times a season and the quintessentially British village club and the awesome pubs that go with them are lost forever.
-
As to whether there are too many clubs or not, I reckon the answer to this may well vary depending upon which part of the country you are in.
Where I am, nestled just outside of Maidenhead and therefore in the Thames Valley, it could be argued that there are too many clubs. Within a 5 mile radius of where I live there are, off the top of my head, at least 10 clubs I can think of who all play Saturday league cricket. League rules dictate they must have at least 2 sides in the league so that's minimum 220 players there. Most of those clubs have 3 sides, some have 4 or 5. I have excluded clubs in another league but if they're included then a couple more clubs can also be added. There are some Sunday only clubs too but I've noticed Sunday cricket has been in the decline over the last few years.
Some of those clubs have struggled in recent years with their lower XIs which suggests fewer people are playing nowadays. Could this be a sign that there are too many clubs? I think you can argue this either way still:
Yes too many - decline in players, number of sides put out decreasing. There have been rumours about some of the smaller clubs potentially merging.
No, not too many - the club's still get out 2 sides every Saturday, some more. Some clubs attract more youngsters than others - this could be because the club are playing higher standard so attract players that way, could be better coaching or just could be that they have got their name out in the local area and are reaping the success of having done so.
-
I think the real problem is that there are too few players.
Sky TV (has great coverage but) has a lot to answer for.
-
Its such a daft, backwards way of looking at the problem. Of course there aren't too many clubs, there are too few players, and no matter how many clubs are disbanded, there will ALWAYS be too few players until international cricket returns to FTA tv.
Merging is just giving up. It solves nothing. Half the players give up anyway.
There are three sensible sizes for clubs:
Big City clubs, with 100s of members, a big ground with 2 pitches, 4 league teams, including a premier league side, 2 midweek teams and large junior setup. Annual turnover of ~£20-30k
Medium suburb/village clubs, with 50-60 members, their own ground, 2 league teams, 1 midweek team and a small junior setup. Annual turnover of ~£5-10k
Small clubs, with 15-20 members, just 1 team, no ground, basically just a bunch of mates. Annual turnover of ~£1k
-
I think the difference between a big club and a small club is that the bigger club will give them more game time - be it colts or men's. That's where you learn more in my opinion, not in the nets.
Are you sure you've got that the right way round? One of the main reasons kids (or adults) leave the big superclubs and head to smaller clubs is because they can't get a game.
Private school kids quite often get sucked into the big clubs because they've got connections with the schools (same coach etc). Other than the chosen few county stars, many of them don't really get much of a game. They stick it a few years before either giving up or moving to a smaller club where they actually get a bat and a bowl and they're not just seen as a source of £££.
Same applies at adult level. Big clubs are often a bit of a shambles at the lower levels. A 4th or 5th XI is only ever going to be an afterthought, a way of bringing through the kids. The XI will be different every week, and games are often forfeit. At a smaller club, the same player could join a 2nd XI who are a genuinely cohesive and committed group.
-
I think the difference between a big club and a small club is that the bigger club will give them more game time - be it colts or men's.
I'd say you're getting confused. Bigger clubs are less likely to give you game time and more likely to treat you like a cash cow to pay for the overseas/paid players. How many players (not just young) get messed around by bigger clubs in favour of the next best thing since sliced bread colt/youngster/superstar
-
We have 4 teams, three in the bottom two league levels (it's split into three sections) and our firsts in Div 1. That is two levels below the Premium league level
We don't pay players.
I think our 4th team played the whole season, maybe forfeiting one or two games only.
There are other large clubs whose teams regularly forfeit 7-8 games a season.
I would go anywhere as we have one of the best pitches in the whole county. We still pull in the regular cricketer and trying to strengthen at the top.
I guess it's all about what your preference is?
There are a lot of small clubs, but their facilities aren't great and it would feel like a chore to go, unless there is some draw.
Those that are folding, generally don't have anything to pull the players in, whether it is location, facilities, social or training.
-
Agree with the above with our club it's the out of the way village location we are struggling to survive ground facilities and finance are excellent. but doesn't have the set up of down the road Birmingham League Kidderminster CC
-
PS What SHOULD happen to what we all do are two things. Over the last 4 years i've pushed our club to go from 2 teams to 3 and now we are building a second wicket on the land. Once that's done, a 4th's will be established and then the youth teams will be expanded.. Why.. because it's the only way to survive now sadly.. Both financially and purely for player base.. That's without really caring about the 'level' either.. leave that to the clubs who want to buy their way to the top.
-
The reason clubs are folding is because its becoming increasingly difficult to replace players when they move away, retire or otherwise reduce their availability. In the past clubs might have been able to rely on a steady trickle of new, younger players coming in, but since cricket disappeared from FTA tv that trickle has dried up entirely.
There are lots of zero-sum-game activities some clubs get up to to steal players off other clubs, which might give them a temporary boost, but this comes at the cost of another club going under, so in the grand scheme of things this isn't really a helpful attitude. I see clubs boasting about how they're growing and getting promoted, but look behind the façade and they've basically just asset stripped several other clubs from their area. There is nothing admirable in this approach.
Ultimately, the only way for a club to stay alive in a sustainable manner is to put the huge amount of work into setting up and running a junior section. But again, without international cricket on FTA tv, kids fail to fully engage, drift off into other activities, and this ends up being incredibly hard work for very little positive outcome.
-
Ultimately, the only way for a club to stay alive in a sustainable manner is to put the huge amount of work into setting up and running a junior section. But again, without international cricket on FTA tv, kids fail to fully engage, drift off into other activities, and this ends up being incredibly hard work for very little positive outcome.
We have a "thriving colts setup" on the face of it, with All Stars, sides for under 9s through to under 15's and a coalition with 2 other clubs for an under 17 side. But the retention rate is virtually non-existent.
From an age group who had 2 under 15 sides and competition for places in the teams, so 26 kids who played regular colts cricket, how many players do you think carried on once their Friday night T20's finished, and are still involved in the club?
The answer, 2. And that's seen as a good year...
-
We have a "thriving colts setup" on the face of it, with All Stars, sides for under 9s through to under 15's and a coalition with 2 other clubs for an under 17 side. But the retention rate is virtually non-existent.
From an age group who had 2 under 15 sides and competition for places in the teams, so 26 kids who played regular colts cricket, how many players do you think carried on once their Friday night T20's finished, and are still involved in the club?
The answer, 2. And that's seen as a good year...
Literally the same story with the club I grew up at, easily 20/30 regular players for our age group (just one year!) yet through a combination of people moving away/stopping playing the sport there is now only 3 players from that group still at the same club.
On the flipside, one is the 1st team skipper and the other 2 both also play in the 1st team so you could argue that the junior section has done what the club needed it to do in that respect?
Luckily for us at Trowbridge we only have 2 players over the age of 30 in both the 1st and 2nd team put together (most around the 21 to 25 mark), quite a rare position to be in so stability isn't an issue for us unlike most - lots of juniors still coming through too. If anything I can anticipate it becoming an issue when spaces in the 1s and 2s dry up, but the natural cycle of players coming and going should hopefully limit that.
-
The reason clubs are folding is because its becoming increasingly difficult to replace players when they move away, retire or otherwise reduce their availability. In the past clubs might have been able to rely on a steady trickle of new, younger players coming in, but since cricket disappeared from FTA tv that trickle has dried up entirely.
There are lots of zero-sum-game activities some clubs get up to to steal players off other clubs, which might give them a temporary boost, but this comes at the cost of another club going under, so in the grand scheme of things this isn't really a helpful attitude. I see clubs boasting about how they're growing and getting promoted, but look behind the façade and they've basically just asset stripped several other clubs from their area. There is nothing admirable in this approach.
Ultimately, the only way for a club to stay alive in a sustainable manner is to put the huge amount of work into setting up and running a junior section. But again, without international cricket on FTA tv, kids fail to fully engage, drift off into other activities, and this ends up being incredibly hard work for very little positive outcome.
Poaching has probably always gone on but does seem to be on the rise and mainly again from the bigger clubs. Generally they claim it's to better a player etc but realistically it's to boost their sides and hten they can claim to be a good club. Anyway, poaching will only get worse as paid players becomes more normalised.
As for the colts, has it realistically ever been any different? x number play as kids when parents basically force them to go and hten when they reach 16+ they realise they don't have to play it and so drift away.. Is that not just a natural thing? rather than the result of formats, start times etc etc..
-
We have a "thriving colts setup" on the face of it, with All Stars, sides for under 9s through to under 15's and a coalition with 2 other clubs for an under 17 side. But the retention rate is virtually non-existent.
From an age group who had 2 under 15 sides and competition for places in the teams, so 26 kids who played regular colts cricket, how many players do you think carried on once their Friday night T20's finished, and are still involved in the club?
The answer, 2. And that's seen as a good year...
Yup. Same story at every club I speak to. Hundreds and hundreds of unpaid manhours (and hundreds of £££ on equipment etc) are spent on coaching kids, and if you're lucky, you might get a conversion rate of 1 kid in 20 goes on to play semi-regular adult cricket - and this is at friendly, welcoming, well-run clubs. Most kids disappear at some point between 12 and 16.
Bottom line is, now that cricket is no longer on the tv, it's lost its reputation as a mainstream sport that "normal people" play. Cricket is seen as a weird sport for posh people. A lot of our teenage players enjoy playing cricket, but have absolutely no interest in professional cricket whatsoever. There is a real stigma about cricket now. A lot of our players have admitted they'd be mortified if their school friends found out they played cricket and would think they were weird.
-
As for the colts, has it realistically ever been any different? x number play as kids when parents basically force them to go and hten when they reach 16+ they realise they don't have to play it and so drift away.. Is that not just a natural thing? rather than the result of formats, start times etc etc..
I think its always been the case that kids drop out of activities, but the rate of drop-outs has become unprecedented. Whereas it used to be that maybe 75% of kids would drop out, now its 95%. That's quite a big difference, that adds up over a few years.
When I was a kid, me and most of my mates not only played cricket, but also watched it on the tv and supported England. Being interested in cricket never had a stigma attached to it (at least not where I grew up in the midlands).
-
I think its always been the case that kids drop out of activities, but the rate of drop-outs has become unprecedented. Whereas it used to be that maybe 75% of kids would drop out, now its 95%. That's quite a big difference, that adds up over a few years.
When I was a kid, me and most of my mates not only played cricket, but also watched it on the tv and supported England. Being interested in cricket never had a stigma attached to it (at least not where I grew up in the midlands).
In a world where you can literally do whatever I'm not sure I agree about stigma but hey, I suspect there will be truth in it as there are many reasons.
As always, we can literally list out the reasons why people might not/stop playing and I suspect not one on it's own in the reason but an aggregation of reasons
Are there too many clubs?? Not really.. Simple fact is there are less and less players so when clubs claim to be growing you can bet that they are essentially destroying another club. Not that they will care but it is the reality. If you want to save clubs then there needs to be a limit on adult teams per club.. If you feel less bigger clubs is the answer, then the league simply need to create some more strict rules on umpires, scorers, facilities and having to have 2/3 senior sides and youth sides to get into the top leagues.
Simply depends what each player wants. If you are at a big club you'll think they are great, if you aren't.. you won't. Personally, I feel there is no answer and all we can do is try to provide as much different format cricket as possible. Evenings 2020, sat league draw + 2020 league and sunday 2020 league and sunday friendlies. That literally provides the formats for all and the necessary formats to develop the skills required. Players can literally choose what suits their mentality/preference then.
2020 on astro most likely as it's cheaper and simpler to put on (otherwise the cost to put on a 2020 is prohibitive)
-
In a world where you can literally do whatever I'm not sure I agree about stigma but hey, I suspect there will be truth in it as there are many reasons.
As always, we can literally list out the reasons why people might not/stop playing and I suspect not one on it's own in the reason but an aggregation of reasons
Are there too many clubs?? Not really.. Simple fact is there are less and less players so when clubs claim to be growing you can bet that they are essentially destroying another club. Not that they will care but it is the reality. If you want to save clubs then there needs to be a limit on adult teams per club.. If you feel less bigger clubs is the answer, then the league simply need to create some more strict rules on umpires, scorers, facilities and having to have 2/3 senior sides and youth sides to get into the top leagues.
Simply depends what each player wants. If you are at a big club you'll think they are great, if you aren't.. you won't. Personally, I feel there is no answer and all we can do is try to provide as much different format cricket as possible. Evenings 2020, sat league draw + 2020 league and sunday 2020 league and sunday friendlies. That literally provides the formats for all and the necessary formats to develop the skills required. Players can literally choose what suits their mentality/preference then.
2020 on astro most likely as it's cheaper and simpler to put on (otherwise the cost to put on a 2020 is prohibitive)
That's not entirely true - my club has grown over the past few years, but we've done it by bringing in people who weren't playing cricket at all - often persuading parents of kids in the junior section to strap the pads on for the first time in 30 years.
Cost to put on a T20 is £50 to hire a pitch for the evening + £5 for a ball. Ask for a fiver from every player and you've made a £55 profit.
If you've got your own ground, cost is nothing. Just re-use Saturday's pitch.
Cricket clubs naturally diverge into a multiplicity of sizes depending on their ambition and the size of their catchment area. A big city club with a swanky pavilion with a bar and ambitions of playing ECB Premier League Cricket is not going to have the same needs as a pub or office team looking to play a handful of friendly games each summer. There is room in the game for both, and everything in between.
I've played cricket at every type of club all across the UK, I definitely think smaller is better. 4 or 5 team clubs where players constantly get shunted around between teams, and none of the 1st team socialise with any of the 4th team etc, are a bit crap.
-
I think the real problem is that there are too few players.
Sky TV (has great coverage but) has a lot to answer for.
Do you mean the ECB? They made the decision sell the rights to Sky, Sky didn’t hold a gun to their head!
-
One factor I never see mentioned in lack of availability problems is the prospect for some club 2nd XI players of an away game vs generic big club 4th/5th XI. We've all been there at one time or another - you turn up and it's a crap school ground or a field 10 minutes walk from the actual club pavilion, you have to drag your kit bag over and pad up on the boundary before marching out to face a side who've only got 10 players, only two of whom are aged between 14 and 65, and realise you've agreed to spend the next 6 hours here... and this is if they haven't forfeited that week. Meanwhile small club down the road with a decent ground they've played on for 80 years but no clubmark certificate are folding their seconds because they're struggling to get a team out. I think you can guess my views on big vs small clubs ha, but there's obviously a balance to be found. Round where I play it definitely isn't being found! (absolutely not a dig at anyone in particular before any forum members who play for larger clubs near me get offended ;))
-
One factor I never see mentioned in lack of availability problems is the prospect for some club 2nd XI players of an away game vs generic big club 4th/5th XI. We've all been there at one time or another - you turn up and it's a crap school ground or a field 10 minutes walk from the actual club pavilion, you have to drag your kit bag over and pad up on the boundary before marching out to face a side who've only got 10 players, only two of whom are aged between 14 and 65, and realise you've agreed to spend the next 6 hours here... and this is if they haven't forfeited that week. Meanwhile small club down the road with a decent ground they've played on for 80 years but no clubmark certificate are folding their seconds because they're struggling to get a team out. I think you can guess my views on big vs small clubs ha, but there's obviously a balance to be found. Round where I play it definitely isn't being found! (absolutely not a dig at anyone in particular before any forum members who play for larger clubs near me get offended ;))
We're not going to do it, but for the first time ever, the idea of withdrawing from the league and just playing a series of bilateral friendly games against local rivals who we actually trust to put our a team and play the game in the right spiriy, was floated.
Speaks volumes that this is even being discussed as an outside option.
-
One factor I never see mentioned in lack of availability problems is the prospect for some club 2nd XI players of an away game vs generic big club 4th/5th XI. We've all been there at one time or another - you turn up and it's a crap school ground or a field 10 minutes walk from the actual club pavilion, you have to drag your kit bag over and pad up on the boundary before marching out to face a side who've only got 10 players, only two of whom are aged between 14 and 65, and realise you've agreed to spend the next 6 hours here... and this is if they haven't forfeited that week. Meanwhile small club down the road with a decent ground they've played on for 80 years but no clubmark certificate are folding their seconds because they're struggling to get a team out. I think you can guess my views on big vs small clubs ha, but there's obviously a balance to be found. Round where I play it definitely isn't being found! (absolutely not a dig at anyone in particular before any forum members who play for larger clubs near me get offended ;))
This post sums up my club.
-
We're not going to do it, but for the first time ever, the idea of withdrawing from the league and just playing a series of bilateral friendly games against local rivals who we actually trust to put our a team and play the game in the right spiriy, was floated.
Speaks volumes that this is even being discussed as an outside option.
I think it's a great idea but would you be able to fill a Fixture card with friendly matches
-
I think it's a great idea but would you be able to fill a Fixture card with friendly matches
Not unless all the other clubs around us did the same thing, no: hence why we're not even going to try.
Playing outside a league does have its advantages - for my T20 team, if an opponent messes us around, doesn't turn up, don't play in the right spirit, we simply don't organise a fixture against them next year.
Whereas for our league team, there are teams in our league who have forfeited 5 of the past 6 fixtures we'd had against them, but we will still be given 2 more fixtures against them next year, which, no doubt, 11 of our guys will give up their weekends for only to find they forfeit again at the last minute.
-
Do you mean the ECB? They made the decision sell the rights to Sky, Sky didn’t hold a gun to their head!
Yes, you're totally right. FTECB!