Topic: Competative or inclusive??? (Read 3842 times)

KarlPennington · « **on:** June 19, 2015, 03:19:35 PM »

What is most important for your team? To be competative or to try and give everyone a fair go??

Our first team is all about winning, this often involves 4 or 5 players bowling all the overs and batting at the top of the order often leaving the rest of us spending 50 overs in the field and making up the tail. I sometimes joke I pay �10 to watch other people play cricket...

The Sunday team however is more about inclusion making sure everyone gets a bowl and if you don't want to bowl then you can bat up the order, unfortunately this usually means we have to forsake any chance of winning...

The other problem this creates is that some people will only make themselves available for the Sunday team, meaning the 1st XI are strugling for numbers.

What's the situation at your club? Does anybody have any recommendations to achieve a good balance of being competative and giving everyone a go?

Discuus

Akewstick · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2015, 03:26:18 PM »

Level is everything in this question, there's no point being ruthlessly competetive in the 4th team because you come up against teams that are going to steam roller you no matter what, people's skill levels aren't such that the proper motivation is going to turn them into great players for a day, and the most you're ever going to achieve is what? Promotion from Div 5 to Div 4? Who cares? Get a game.

Seniorplayer · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2015, 04:23:17 PM »

Whilst being competive my club gives anyone a bowl who wants one and if they dont bowl they get a bat particularly if they have to leave early as we need to keep everyone interested. The club has only 11 members.
In a season we always win more matches than we lose and always finish in the top 3 in the division.

KarlPennington · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2015, 05:31:11 PM »

You seem to have struck the right balance there senior player... Akewstick at what level then does competition become more important. Our first team for example are in the premier division but we are all amateur and have to pay for the luxury of playing still... but I suppose if results slipped and we started slipping divisions we might stop attracting new players (particulary juniors) and the club as a whole would suffer. (although we are struggling to get a team out each week as it is, so the current approach isn't really working either)

Seniorplayer · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2015, 06:01:22 PM »

Quote from: KarlPennington on June 19, 2015, 05:31:11 PM

You seem to have struck the right balance there senior player... Akewstick at what level then does competition become more important. Our first team for example are in the premier division but we are all amateur and have to pay for the luxury of playing still... but I suppose if results slipped and we started slipping divisions we might stop attracting new players (particularly juniors) and the club as a whole would suffer. (although we are struggling to get a team out each week as it is, so the current approach isn't really working either)

Personally with regard to attracting new players I don't think it would be detrimental if you slip divisions as players inc juniors usually get more of an opportunity particularly with the bat also from experienced i know it's much more enjoyable playing in the lower divisions.

praguetaz · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2015, 06:07:16 PM »

This is a hard one for me as our club has always been competitive but with new players and president we're now ultra competitive meaning it's all about the win. We have a short 40 over season here with 6 games to win the league this year, to the extent that having lost 2 of our matches but ending up in the top 3, we play the other 2 top teams and need to win by big margins to stand any chance.

However, we've lost the inclusivity and even though the decisions have been difficult for the selectors, I know we've lost something that our club was well known for i.e. competitiveness and inclusivity, especially with new players to the game. We don't have enough players for a second team and never will do.

I've been one in particular to miss out this season having been a long time member and only been selected to play for one of the league games and deselected for 4 others, when available. This week's team has a T 20 emphasis for a 40 over game, so I miss out again, and even though this was explained in the selection e-mail to all by the president and a follow up e-mail to me from the captain, I'm left feeling 'what's the point?' again.

A couple of pre-season friendlies and social games, I'm left on the verge of leaving cricket altogether and feeling terrible about it too...

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2015, 06:10:38 PM »

Quote from: Seniorplayer on June 19, 2015, 06:01:22 PM

Personally with regard to attracting new players I don't think it would be detrimental if you slip divisions as players inc juniors usually get more of an opportunity particularly with the bat also from experienced i know it's much more enjoyable playing in the lower divisions.

I believe you are wrong. One of the main attractions for parents is how 'good' a club is.. Usually purely based on its first team too which is crap anyway as most are imports and paid players! Anyway, ass that to county/distinct bias in youth selection and pushy mum/dad thinking their child will make it if they go to said top clubs.

Doesn't mean it works all the time but there is a reason the big clubs have 100's of jnrs.. It's not because they provide better coaching this for sure .

Sadly our club has got more competitive in the last year or two due to success and a few new players (inc myself ) meaning we are winning things and doing well. It has had an effect on the general club as most players just want to play the game for fun. I'd rather a club played hard and fair but everyone got a proper game. If it means losing a few games.. So what, doesn't really make a difference. Is anyone really sad enough to believe that a player is better than another based on the div they play in?? We all know most teams are avg players just making up numbers anyway

Seniorplayer · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2015, 06:41:32 PM »

Quote from: ProCricketer1982 on June 19, 2015, 06:10:38 PM

I believe you are wrong. One of the main attractions for parents is how 'good' a club is.. Usually purely based on its first team too which is crap anyway as most are imports and paid players! Anyway, ass that to county/distinct bias in youth selection and pushy mum/dad thinking their child will make it if they go to said top clubs.

Doesn't mean it works all the time but there is a reason the big clubs have 100's of jnrs.. It's not because they provide better coaching this for sure .

Sadly our club has got more competitive in the last year or two due to success and a few new players (inc myself ) meaning we are winning things and doing well. It has had an effect on the general club as most players just want to play the game for fun. I'd rather a club played hard and fair but everyone got a proper game. If it means losing a few games.. So what, doesn't really make a difference. Is anyone really sad enough to believe that a player is better than another based on the div they play in?? We all know most teams are avg players just making up numbers anyway
[/quote
Don t think I was suggesting that any player is better than any other based on the division that they play in no not at all just that having played at a higher level for many years I find it more enjoyable playing in at lower level as the matches are generally more friendly. Also juniors get more opportunity with bat and ball also no player at my club is treated as they are only there to make the numbers up regardless of how good they are because if the club did that the team would fold due to having no players.

mini998 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2015, 07:33:47 PM »

I believe if you pay to play the game then you should be able enjoy the game , so everyone should get a fair chance of bat or ball, I always try to give no lower order and tailenders bulk of the bowling. If you don't keep players happy then they simply won't turn up , winning is important but first you need to have players to be able to raise a team week in week out.

Tailendfielder · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2015, 08:35:47 PM »

Depends on your level. Anything below top div and Birmingham league level should be ran for the benefit for its members.

Ask someone to pay 6 quid + to field and then get dropped is a waste of their time and ultimately they will loose interest and leave.

We created a club three years ago. Our top 5 crickets dint all play in the firsts and understand they cant play with there mates if they dint have 11 people willing to play. We pick up thanks for coming and drivers from bigger clubs and they enjoy playing with us. We intend to keep it this way.

Not to the point of ridiculousness though. You cant put someone in top 5 who cant hold a bat. Ha vent got to win, must b competitive.

iand123 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 20, 2015, 10:09:59 AM »

League cricket for me is about winning. I'm not saying it has to be all out and super competitive but you should (again in my opinion) plan to compete and win. Friendly cricket is for giving everyone a game.

Our league skipper suffers from nice bloke syndrome and ties to give people a game and let's the second team skipper twist his arm into balancing the side at the detriment of the first team. It's cost us two games this season already, luckily he's injured today and his brother (who plays to win and is a lot more competitive in general) is skipper

joeljonno · « **Reply #11 on:** June 20, 2015, 10:37:22 AM »

If you play in a team which is all about winning and it's the same people batting and bowling while you do little. You have to ask yourself "why" and "do I want to do this every week"

Only then can you decide whether you want to continue or move or change something.

You need to find your level and have intention to improve.

No point playing every week and not doing anything if you don't enjoy that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TangoWhiskey · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2015, 10:03:10 AM »

Quote from: Tailendfielder on June 19, 2015, 08:35:47 PM

We created a club three years ago. Our top 5 crickets dint all play in the firsts and understand they cant play with there mates if they dint have 11 people willing to play. We pick up thanks for coming and drivers from bigger clubs and they enjoy playing with us. We intend to keep it this way.

You've hit the nail on the head there. See how competitive you are as a team if you can only muster a team of 6 because everyone else is sick of turning up to watch them play cricket.

avkrish · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2015, 10:47:42 AM »

Quote from: iand123 on June 20, 2015, 10:09:59 AM

luckily he's injured today and his brother (who plays to win and is a lot more competitive in general) is skipper

Wouldn't it be better to tell the guy what the other team members want than to be happy when he gets injured and can't play?

iand123 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2015, 10:57:08 AM »

Quote from: avkrish on June 22, 2015, 10:47:42 AM

Wouldn't it be better to tell the guy what the other team members want than to be happy when he gets injured and can't play?

Ok luckily wasnt probably the best way to put it. We were playing a team (who ended up being rubbish) who'd comfortably beaten the two teams we'd lost this season so what i meant was that on paper we were likely to struggle with a conservative approach.

Author Topic: Competative or inclusive??? (Read 3842 times)

KarlPennington

Competative or inclusive???

Akewstick

Re: Competative or inclusive???

Seniorplayer

Re: Competative or inclusive???

KarlPennington

Re: Competative or inclusive???

Seniorplayer

Re: Competative or inclusive???

praguetaz

Re: Competative or inclusive???

ProCricketer1982

Re: Competative or inclusive???

Seniorplayer

Re: Competative or inclusive???

mini998

Re: Competative or inclusive???

Tailendfielder

Re: Competative or inclusive???

iand123

Re: Competative or inclusive???

joeljonno

Re: Competative or inclusive???

TangoWhiskey

Re: Competative or inclusive???

avkrish

Re: Competative or inclusive???

iand123

Re: Competative or inclusive???