Print

[arsenal123]

I play in Essex, only first teams can play other first teams in our divisions.  I know in other league set ups the elevens can mix so one clubs first team can play another's second team.

Undoubtedly some 2's Prem sides would be competitive against other first team sides.  But I understand it can lead the weakening of smaller clubs and big clubs becoming even stronger.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Manormanic]

Its a 50/50 call.  The TVL went mixed in 2001 and for the most part smaller clubs have survived at more or less the same level; players still gravitate to bigger clubs regardless.

[uknsaunders]

On the whole it's a good thing.

Within specific level leagues - ie. 1st XI, 2nd XI etc , you can get huge mismatches. Some 1st XI's are so weak they sit at the bottom each year, but playing some of the stronger 2s they might finish mid-table (albeit in a lower division). If your 1st XI is no better than another 2nd XI then so be it. At least you are on a level playing field.

What does annoy some clubs is 2nd XI v 3rd XI games. There can be a huge gulf in facilities and the quality of wickets. However, same applies as above if you aren't any better than another clubs 3rd XI then no point moaning it!.

[arsenal123]

I should mention, there has been movement in Essex towards mixing the clubs at a lower level.  The 3s and below now have movement between their divisions.

[uknsaunders]

I personally can see the benefit of mixing 1/2s leagues and then 3's and below, but not all leagues. Would mean the 1s/2s would be certain of playing at decent grounds and that in itself would help weaker clubs attract good 3rd XI players, thus making the 1s/2s league more competitive. Not to mention stopping the march of the big clubs in hogging all the decent players. I'm not for a second saying 3rd team players should have poorer facilities. I'm a believer in one club, we all pay the same and should have equal facilities. However, it's the nature of 3rd XI and below cricket that facilities are poorer. In my view this level should be about friendly cricket and developing youngsters, reduce the overs and enjoy it.

[ProCricketer1982]

I personally can see the benefit of mixing 1/2s leagues and then 3's and below, but not all leagues. Would mean the 1s/2s would be certain of playing at decent grounds and that in itself would help weaker clubs attract good 3rd XI players, thus making the 1s/2s league more competitive. Not to mention stopping the march of the big clubs in hogging all the decent players. I'm not for a second saying 3rd team players should have poorer facilities. I'm a believer in one club, we all pay the same and should have equal facilities. However, it's the nature of 3rd XI and below cricket that facilities are poorer. In my view this level should be about friendly cricket and developing youngsters, reduce the overs and enjoy it.

disagree with reducing over etc. Plus, disagree that it shouldn't just be one structure and each team finds it's own level. However, as someone said earlier, all that will happen is the bigger clubs will gobble up players and the smaller clubs will slowly die away. It's happening anyway so no point trying to change it unless you bring in rules to really help smaller clubs survive and compete. Defo against stopping 3/4ths playing at nice grounds just to help 1/2's guys. Why doen't someone with lesser ability, less time to committ or simply doesn't want the hassle of 1/2's cricket deserve just the same as 1's and 2's players??