Print

[ProCricketer1982]

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

[Seniorplayer]

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.

[SLC]

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.

[Seniorplayer]

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.

[jwebber86]

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

[Cin88]

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.

[thecord]

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.

[Boondougal]

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.

[WalkingWicket37]

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.

[ProCricketer1982]

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

[Boondougal]

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

[Cin88]

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.

[Northern monkey]

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

[Seniorplayer]

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.

[WalkingWicket37]

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.