New Dvca Grading Structure

The way i see it, not once this season gone has it been raised on here or any cricketing circles i am in, that there is an issue with teams or grading. Why has it been brought up, let alone a massive change? If it aint broke, don't fix it. Have we all of a sudden got Kevin Bartlett on the DVCA executive and has decided to change the whole format just for the sake of having change? We only went to this format a few years ago, and its working! Why change it?

Its very simple, if you're good enough and you win the flag, you go up a grade. If you're struggling in that grade and you finish last, you get relegated. This new format will not support that idea.
 
Despite preferring the 8 team format, I agree with this quite a bit. Just prefer we were fixtured for 11x2 day games.

The way i see it, not once this season gone has it been raised on here or any cricketing circles i am in, that there is an issue with teams or grading. Why has it been brought up, let alone a massive change? If it aint broke, don't fix it. Have we all of a sudden got Kevin Bartlett on the DVCA executive and has decided to change the whole format just for the sake of having change? We only went to this format a few years ago, and its working! Why change it?

Its very simple, if you're good enough and you win the flag, you go up a grade. If you're struggling in that grade and you finish last, you get relegated. This new format will not support that idea.
 
The way i see it, not once this season gone has it been raised on here or any cricketing circles i am in, that there is an issue with teams or grading. Why has it been brought up, let alone a massive change? If it aint broke, don't fix it. Have we all of a sudden got Kevin Bartlett on the DVCA executive and has decided to change the whole format just for the sake of having change? We only went to this format a few years ago, and its working! Why change it?

Its very simple, if you're good enough and you win the flag, you go up a grade. If you're struggling in that grade and you finish last, you get relegated. This new format will not support that idea.

Whilst I tend to agree with this generally. The are issues with having 4 first XIs in B grade playing other clubs 2s. Whilst previously, second XI sides have won the flag against Hurstbridge and then Mill Park, these were boil overs. This is much less likely with four first XIs and I personally think it ruins the grade. Strong seconds sides like Diamond Creek (currently) have very little reward for being good. It's rewarding very average first XIs with a flag.

I think the Comp should have a 10, 10, 8 system with the option to go to a 10,10,10 comp if more clubs come across. Perhaps They should run a 10, 10, 8 "shields" with promotion up and down as they currently do, giving the opportunity for strong 2nd XI clubs to win a premiership and play against other first XIs. The top 28 should be based on ladder position irrespective of whether they're 1st or 2nd XI.
 
Whilst I tend to agree with this generally. The are issues with having 4 first XIs in B grade playing other clubs 2s. Whilst previously, second XI sides have won the flag against Hurstbridge and then Mill Park, these were boil overs. This is much less likely with four first XIs and I personally think it ruins the grade. Strong seconds sides like Diamond Creek (currently) have very little reward for being good. It's rewarding very average first XIs with a flag.

I think the Comp should have a 10, 10, 8 system with the option to go to a 10,10,10 comp if more clubs come across. Perhaps They should run a 10, 10, 8 "shields" with promotion up and down as they currently do, giving the opportunity for strong 2nd XI clubs to win a premiership and play against other first XIs. The top 28 should be based on ladder position irrespective of whether they're 1st or 2nd XI.

You just contradicted yourself. You say you don't like the current format because there are 1st XI sides that are playing against two's sides, and the 1st XI side almost get a free ride to a flag. So you want 3 1st XI grades, but then they can be relegated down to play 2nds again, and B grade side’s can go up to play against 1st XI sides? That is exactly what we have now.

So basically, you're just creating an extra grade and altering numbers.
 
You just contradicted yourself. You say you don't like the current format because there are 1st XI sides that are playing against two's sides, and the 1st XI side almost get a free ride to a flag. So you want 3 1st XI grades, but then they can be relegated down to play 2nds again, and B grade side’s can go up to play against 1st XI sides? That is exactly what we have now.

So basically, you're just creating an extra grade and altering numbers.
I would. Currently we have 27 sides squeezing into 24 "shield" spots. I think it would look better as 27 sides into 28. At least that way you should have less cross polination of 1st and 2nd XI sides. More how things first worked when the grade formats changed. If 1 or 2 first XI sides ended up playing "B grade, at least it would be because that's their level. ie. Panton Hill, as opposed to the other clubs who were too strong (based on results) for B grade. I don't subscribe to PVCC having a first XI side in the DVCA. Thats garbage, and they shouldn't be afforded any special treatment, they're just the local turf club that tries to take other clubs talented juniors.
 
I find myself on the side of the majority here in thinking this proposal is a bad one. Since this rarely happens to me, I feel it necessary to pause and reconsider my position.......
 
I would. Currently we have 27 sides squeezing into 24 "shield" spots. I think it would look better as 27 sides into 28. At least that way you should have less cross polination of 1st and 2nd XI sides. More how things first worked when the grade formats changed. If 1 or 2 first XI sides ended up playing "B grade, at least it would be because that's their level. ie. Panton Hill, as opposed to the other clubs who were too strong (based on results) for B grade. I don't subscribe to PVCC having a first XI side in the DVCA. Thats garbage, and they shouldn't be afforded any special treatment, they're just the local turf club that tries to take other clubs talented juniors.


I guess the DVCA need to look at what needs to change and why. What are the "issues" that are actually causing the need to change the whole format of the competition? Because clearly, those that actually partake in the competition don't see any glaring issues that would cause the need to change the whole format in such drastic measures.

Do they want a 3rd Division? If so, just create 3 even grades, which works out to 3 grades of 9 teams. Or is the issue around not having 1st XI teams playing against 2 XI teams? Surely you would want the best 27 teams (not clubs, teams) in the top 3 grades.

I agree on Plenty Valley. I don't see any reason whatsoever as to why they are in the competition. Get rid of them, they're only weakening the comp by stealing players with promises of gold to these kids, but deliver squat.
 
I guess the DVCA need to look at what needs to change and why. What are the "issues" that are actually causing the need to change the whole format of the competition? Because clearly, those that actually partake in the competition don't see any glaring issues that would cause the need to change the whole format in such drastic measures.

Do they want a 3rd Division? If so, just create 3 even grades, which works out to 3 grades of 9 teams. Or is the issue around not having 1st XI teams playing against 2 XI teams? Surely you would want the best 27 teams (not clubs, teams) in the top 3 grades.

I agree on Plenty Valley. I don't see any reason whatsoever as to why they are in the competition. Get rid of them, they're only weakening the comp by stealing players with promises of gold to these kids, but deliver squat.


Tongs 3 x 9 ...? Assume taking the piss otherwise you would have a bye each round...
Reckon it has to be to even out the comp to try to avoid 1st XI teams playing 2nds.
Not much fun playing B grade against these teams. Ok, they are not super teams and dont dominate the competiion with outrights etc, but are rarely beaten by 2nd XI's just the same.

They comfortably filled the top 3 positions with only Panton Hill sliding to 6th. This will continue every year until they have their own division.
Entering a 3rd division for these teams and perhaps the stronger teams like Creek, Rosanna etc will also help even this mess out through the lower grades as well. The teams who have 2nds , playing against 3rds also dominated, 3rds dominated against 4ths etc...

As I mentioned in previous post, Promo / relegation from B grade premier to 3rd shield can only occur between the '2nds' teams. All 1's teams ( PVB excluded) must stay in the shields.
 
Tongs 3 x 9 ...? Assume taking the piss otherwise you would have a bye each round...
Reckon it has to be to even out the comp to try to avoid 1st XI teams playing 2nds.
Not much fun playing B grade against these teams. Ok, they are not super teams and dont dominate the competiion with outrights etc, but are rarely beaten by 2nd XI's just the same.

They comfortably filled the top 3 positions with only Panton Hill sliding to 6th. This will continue every year until they have their own division.
Entering a 3rd division for these teams and perhaps the stronger teams like Creek, Rosanna etc will also help even this mess out through the lower grades as well. The teams who have 2nds , playing against 3rds also dominated, 3rds dominated against 4ths etc...

As I mentioned in previous post, Promo / relegation from B grade premier to 3rd shield can only occur between the '2nds' teams. All 1's teams ( PVB excluded) must stay in the shields.


Of course I am joking, having a bye in local sport is not ideal at all. Although, You did mention that we have two saturday's off through out the year, so whats the difference? Why not have a bye? its probably a smarter option that the utter tripe the DVCA are forcing down our throats at the moment.

I played in B grade all year against the first XI teams, and was in the side that got relegated. I would happily do it all over again. It means the guys in my side got to play against the best week in week out and challenge themselves. rather than play C grade and easily beat some sides. they will all be better cricketers in the long run because of the competition that they had. It means you can say to the boys that when they go up to the 1s that its the exact same as playing 2s, you're facing the same kind of sides.

You can't have that theory where you pick and choose who goes up and down. Bottom line should b, if a B grade team win the flag they deserve to go up and replace whoever finished last, as they didn't deserve it.
 
I think the real point of this is making room for more clubs to be included in the DVCA. The current structure, although working fine, leaves no room for the inclusion of more teams. If the comp did pick up 2 new sides, there is nowhere for their 1st and 2nd XI to go. You'd have to be slotting them into divisions at the expense of other sides or increasing the number of sides over 12, causing the reshuffle of a couple of years ago all over again.

With a 10-10-8 structure for 1's and 2's, you've got 8 open spots for new sides to slot in without too much buggerising around at all. In any case, it will make no difference at all to my and I dare say most of our park cricketing careers, so lets go for it.
 
I guess the DVCA need to look at what needs to change and why. What are the "issues" that are actually causing the need to change the whole format of the competition? Because clearly, those that actually partake in the competition don't see any glaring issues that would cause the need to change the whole format in such drastic measures.

Do they want a 3rd Division? If so, just create 3 even grades, which works out to 3 grades of 9 teams. Or is the issue around not having 1st XI teams playing against 2 XI teams? Surely you would want the best 27 teams (not clubs, teams) in the top 3 grades.

I agree on Plenty Valley. I don't see any reason whatsoever as to why they are in the competition. Get rid of them, they're only weakening the comp by stealing players with promises of gold to these kids, but deliver squat.
Re Plenty Valley. Here, Here!
 
I think the real point of this is making room for more clubs to be included in the DVCA. The current structure, although working fine, leaves no room for the inclusion of more teams. If the comp did pick up 2 new sides, there is nowhere for their 1st and 2nd XI to go. You'd have to be slotting them into divisions at the expense of other sides or increasing the number of sides over 12, causing the reshuffle of a couple of years ago all over again.

With a 10-10-8 structure for 1's and 2's, you've got 8 open spots for new sides to slot in without too much buggerising around at all. In any case, it will make no difference at all to my and I dare say most of our park cricketing careers, so lets go for it.

Long time reader first time poster, so forgive me if I stuff this up.
Any new club into the comp can go into B grade and play against the 4 1st XIs and the best 2nd XIs currently there. Then if they are good enough and win a flag they can be promoted. Its really that simple.

How in this proposal they can justify Plenty Valley jumping all the B, C & D grade sides above them is beyond me as since the "merger" they have gone from a competitive Money Shield side into a struggling D grade side. It makes no sense at all.
 
The way i see it, not once this season gone has it been raised on here or any cricketing circles i am in, that there is an issue with teams or grading. Why has it been brought up, let alone a massive change? If it aint broke, don't fix it. Have we all of a sudden got Kevin Bartlett on the DVCA executive and has decided to change the whole format just for the sake of having change? We only went to this format a few years ago, and its working! Why change it?

Its very simple, if you're good enough and you win the flag, you go up a grade. If you're struggling in that grade and you finish last, you get relegated. This new format will not support that idea.

Tongs, you make a lot of comments on here, and I have chosen to reply to this one, as I am not sure how you can say that the current structure is not broke.

Currently, we have 1st XI sides bullying 2nd XI sides, and although you could be right in your later analysis that players from the 2nd XI sides would benefit from playing against the 1st XI sides, they have zero chance of playing in finals, and therefor experiencing any sustained period of success.
I agree with another poster that mentioned having 1st XI sides being able to win a flag in a grade playing against a majority of other 2nd XI sides.
1st XI sides must play against 1st XI sides - that is final.

This clearly doesn't work, and needs to be fixed.

I would prefer an 8 / 10 / 10 structure, as I feel playing each side twice during the year would be a wonderfully competitive comp, and even if a Sunday was needed, would make for some very exciting cricket being spoken about, which creates people wanting to play the game, and this filters through clubs in to the junior ranks.
But that structure would not leave access for new clubs to come in seamlessly to the existing structure, something that needs to be available.

It is also mentioned that this is a proposal, and all club presidents will have the chance to give feedback to the DVCA at the AGM in August, so please discuss your views with your president and he can raise them, or possibly write to the DVCA with a better idea.

All other 2nd's to 5th's of all clubs can just go in to the hat and be drawn in even competitions.
 
Long time reader first time poster, so forgive me if I stuff this up.
Any new club into the comp can go into B grade and play against the 4 1st XIs and the best 2nd XIs currently there. Then if they are good enough and win a flag they can be promoted. Its really that simple.

How in this proposal they can justify Plenty Valley jumping all the B, C & D grade sides above them is beyond me as since the "merger" they have gone from a competitive Money Shield side into a struggling D grade side. It makes no sense at all.

Sure, than can go into B grade, but at the expense of who? Then you have a ripple down effect depending upon how many sides the new club has. As I said, this current system works fine, but leaves little room to add clubs and if you do, you get 14 team grades and then the inevitable restructure that comes with it that saw more and more 1's sides coming up against 2's. The new system allows for clubs to eaisly slot into grades with minimal fuss and hopefully in years to come, you could go from 10-10-8 back up to 12-12-12. Then if the comp continues to grow, you just restructure it exactly like this proposal again and continue on. It would also be a good selling point for the competition, since you might be able to lure other teams across and able to promise them that their top sides would face similar opposition.

As for Plenty Valley, so they might jump up a few grades, so what? If you're in a B, and C grade team and would feel all upset about that promotion, perhaps you should focus on your own game a little more and get a promotion to you sides 1st XI so you too can play at that level. That or bribe your coach, whatever works best.
 
Sure, than can go into B grade, but at the expense of who? Then you have a ripple down effect depending upon how many sides the new club has. As I said, this current system works fine, but leaves little room to add clubs and if you do, you get 14 team grades and then the inevitable restructure that comes with it that saw more and more 1's sides coming up against 2's. The new system allows for clubs to eaisly slot into grades with minimal fuss and hopefully in years to come, you could go from 10-10-8 back up to 12-12-12. Then if the comp continues to grow, you just restructure it exactly like this proposal again and continue on. It would also be a good selling point for the competition, since you might be able to lure other teams across and able to promise them that their top sides would face similar opposition.

As for Plenty Valley, so they might jump up a few grades, so what? If you're in a B, and C grade team and would feel all upset about that promotion, perhaps you should focus on your own game a little more and get a promotion to you sides 1st XI so you too can play at that level. That or bribe your coach, whatever works best.

The point other Plenty Valley is they don't deserve it. They were one win off being relegated to E grade. Their seconds might be competitive in that comp but their 5ths won't. Any spot would be better off being offered to a good seconds side. That would be to the benefit of the comp. fine for you to say players should earn a spot in their clubs ones but these guys are in their clubs fifths... Don't offer much to the comp as Tongs mentions. Leave them in the lower grades.
 
The point other Plenty Valley is they don't deserve it. They were one win off being relegated to E grade. Their seconds might be competitive in that comp but their 5ths won't. Any spot would be better off being offered to a good seconds side. That would be to the benefit of the comp. fine for you to say players should earn a spot in their clubs ones but these guys are in their clubs fifths... Don't offer much to the comp as Tongs mentions. Leave them in the lower grades.
Well put shortnwide I couldnt agree more.
Also why are we worrying about having somewhere for new clubs to come in too, why not just concentrate on looking after the clubs that are committed to the DVCA?
For mine the existing structure works well and has just produced the most even season through all the grades I can recall in my 15 years in the comp, why change it when you have got it right.
 
Wanderingunity – If you look at the ladders across the comp and look at win/loss ratios, and percentages, then you’re actually incorrect. The 2nd’s sides in B grade were in no way shape or form bullied. There was 1 outright win for the season and that was one of the better B grade sides that just missed the finals. In fact, if you look at the ladders then Barclay shield was probably one of the most uneven grades in the top few grades. From an outsiders point of view (ie you didn’t play in that grade) I get your concerns. But I can tell you now, playing against those teams I never once rocked up at a ground thinking that we couldn’t beat those sides. Watch this year, there will be more B grade sides knocking off the 1st XI sides. The reason the 1st XI sides had the edge was not because they were a side full of guns , if they were, they wouldn’t be playing B grade. It was their mental toughness and cricketing smarts that you get from playing A grade experience. This year the B grade sides will all have more belief in that they are in fact good enough to beat these sides.

As for the other comments about how 1st XI sides must play against 1st XI sides, that simply doesn’t work. Some sides 2nds are easily better than other clubs 1sts. You want to play against the best opposition you can. Plenty Valley. I agree that I don’t want Plenty Valley in the DVCA. I don’t see a single benefit in them being apart of the DVCA format. In saying that, they should not be given special treatment. Nor should they not have to adhere to whatever the proposal is. If the rule is made that the 1st XI must play in the top 3 grades, then Plenty valley go in and they get hammered week in week out till they leave the comp.

The Sunday games were voted out by us. It was the clubs who asked to get rid of these games as it was too hard on bodies/families etc. I personally agree. I hated these games. Don’t go back there.

The Leggie is spot on. The Comp is in good working order, we have more clubs and teams than just about any other competition in Victoria, we constantly have clubs wanting to join us, and none that won’t to leave. It’s a very healthy competition financially and we don’t have teams dominating year after year. There is nothing broken, lets not change the whole format just for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:
Tongs, I agree that all 2's sides would enjoy and like the challenge that is put in front of them by playing 1's sides in B grade, and I know that our boys are very excited by the challenge this season.
Do we take in to account that the 1's sides in B grade would also find it very hard to attract players / coaches to a club that is stuck in a sub standard grade, although the chance of success may be higher.

Is it becoming a more even grade because the 2's sides are getting better, or because the 1's sides are getting weaker?? - something which is doing nothing for the equalisation of the comp, and will simply force sides into nonexistence.
 
Don't throw that dreaded word around. Equalisation. Its not the AFL, and besides. They're a billion dollar organisation, and they cannot get equalisation right. What will you be wanting next, a salary cap to ensure that its fair right across the board (I'd suggest that you boys would eb over any salary cap installed :D)

Teams should not ever be put into a grade based on them being that clubs 1s. All teams in the top 2 or 3 Shields should be the best 30 teams (Or whatever it ends up) in the comp. Non negotiable. If a club is not good enough in Money Shield and gets relegated to B grade (The new Shield) so be it. Allowing weak teams to play higher because they're not allowed to be relegated is what will cheapen/weaken the comp.

And I remember us having the same recruiting debate about getting players to your club if you're in Money Shield. You only need to look in your own backyard to know that if your club is in good order off field and you can promote your club well, you can recruit well. As you boys did.
 
Just putting it out there... which clubs could we see join the DVCA in the near future...?

Remembering for clubs to be eligible to join DVCA must reside within the 3 council zones, unless we change our comp rules...

Only some of the HDCA clubs that didnt join could have the option of coming in under these current rules. Heid West, Ivanhoe.. West Ivanhoe?
NMCA - Rivergum, Lalor...? anyone else fit the bill..?
 
Back
Top