Dvca - Competition Restructure

What should we do with the Competition next season and beyond?

  • Leave it as is

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Go through with the proposed change (10, 10, 8)

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Change to a 12, 8, 8 Team Structure

    Votes: 6 50.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
Top Contributors
_Blackhawk_ said:
Only support one day cricket if they start earlier and play 50 over innings. It's completely doable if you limit changing ends to every 5 overs and kick off at 12. 35 overs is just not enough to play any type of decent cricket. Plus I think you'll end up losing players, especially mediocre players who say bowl second change and/or bat in the lower order. You could easily go multiple games and not get a bat or bowl. 15 Saturdays, so play less cricket too? That's not good.

We tried the one day comp, it died a swift death. I don't think we need to repeat that mistake.
Click to expand...

The ECA (which the DVCA is more comparable in strength to than the NMCA) has 7 grades of One Day cricket and they play every week. Hugely popular. If organised well and run well, it could bring back many old faces as well as introduce new ones. Not like the rabble that is Vets.
 
Oh, super, just what F grade players want, bringing back some old faces from the Shield sides to smash them all round the park. One day matches for F grade and below with the current set up of the DVCA and grades would be a total disaster. If you start having rules about who can play where and when, then you are defeating the purpose that is stated for having one day matches in those grades.
 
Actually, you know what, after further thought; the proposal doesn't go far enough. If you are right Tongs, in that the one day comps are "hugely popular" with the ECA, make all grades in the DVCA one dayers. 50 over for the top grades and you can start at 40 for the lower. Don't just half and half it because you want to hedge your bets, that will do damage, make a courageous decision and go for it all.
 
F Grade is 3rds cricket for most clubs. If it becomes only one-dayers, a lot of players are going to miss out on the opportunity to get a decent bat and bowl. F Grade doesn't need to change at all. If anything, fewer one-dayers. This season it was 6 two-dayers and 6 one-dayers, throw in a couple of washouts and suddenly most of the games are one-dayers.

I can understand G Grade becoming one-dayers due to the number of forfeits. But I still think it will turn some people off. Blokes that aren't talented cricketers and can't player higher grades will only get limited opportunities due to shorter matches.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
Oh, super, just what F grade players want, bringing back some old faces from the Shield sides to smash them all round the park. One day matches for F grade and below with the current set up of the DVCA and grades would be a total disaster. If you start having rules about who can play where and when, then you are defeating the purpose that is stated for having one day matches in those grades.
Click to expand...

I never said that "Old faces" were the guns of past. More meaning that there would be a number of people lost to the game because for whatever reason (injuries/work/family/other commitments) all mean they can no longer play two day cricket. So the sport loses out on those players because they don't accommodate them.

The key part to my post was "If run well". That includes, not allowing Shield players to drop back and play in rounds they can only play one week. That means grading teams in the correct grade. Get the logistics of it right and it could be hugely popular. Get it wrong and it dies a slow death or becomes unpopular like the Vets program is, because that's bordering are disastrous these days.
 
WT- That's why I say a 35 over comp is not a good idea. It has to be a minimum of 40 and probably 50 overs per innings. Most teams struggle to bat out 68 so you're not losing too much.

Tongs - Yes I understand that is the key point, but I just don't see how it's workable. We both know that if you had a split comp between 1 and 2 day cricket, that sheild players will find there way into it. That contributed greatly to killing the one day comp. I know our guys simply didn't want to play the 1 dayers because they were tired of being smashed about and most of them switched to playing in our conventional sides.

If it's 1 dayers that people want, then you change the whole competition over to them. We need to face facts that the DVCA is not some feeder for higher cricket, anyone with serious talent is off to a higher comp by 14, so we are in fact just a community sports organisation. I agree that 1 day cricket is eventually where we will end up, so bite the bullet and make the switch now.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
WT- That's why I say a 35 over comp is not a good idea. It has to be a minimum of 40 and probably 50 overs per innings. Most teams struggle to bat out 68 so you're not losing too much.

Tongs - Yes I understand that is the key point, but I just don't see how it's workable. We both know that if you had a split comp between 1 and 2 day cricket, that sheild players will find there way into it. That contributed greatly to killing the one day comp. I know our guys simply didn't want to play the 1 dayers because they were tired of being smashed about and most of them switched to playing in our conventional sides.

If it's 1 dayers that people want, then you change the whole competition over to them. We need to face facts that the DVCA is not some feeder for higher cricket, anyone with serious talent is off to a higher comp by 14, so we are in fact just a community sports organisation. I agree that 1 day cricket is eventually where we will end up, so bite the bullet and make the switch now.
Click to expand...

See Above. I have already explained that that it can and does work, if done correctly.

As a reference: ECA has 8 x 2 day cricket grades and 7 LOC (Limited Over Cricket) grades. It works perfectly fine there, with the rules that they have in place to stop bullies coming down monstering kids.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
If it's 1 dayers that people want, then you change the whole competition over to them. We need to face facts that the DVCA is not some feeder for higher cricket, anyone with serious talent is off to a higher comp by 14, so we are in fact just a community sports organisation. I agree that 1 day cricket is eventually where we will end up, so bite the bullet and make the switch now.
Click to expand...

I disagree that we will eventually end up with all one day cricket. In my experience, the majority dislike playing them. They're great if you're an opening batsman or an unfit fast bowler. What about spinners and middle order players?

Say goodbye to making hundreds and getting 5-fors. How many blokes are good enough to pick up a 5-for in 8 overs, or hit a hundred in 40 overs?

Maybe just cutting the number of grades would be a better option than moving to one-dayers. Get rid of the bottom 2 G Grades.
 
Warwick Todd said:
I disagree that we will eventually end up with all one day cricket. In my experience, the majority dislike playing them. They're great if you're an opening batsman or an unfit fast bowler. What about spinners and middle order players?

Say goodbye to making hundreds and getting 5-fors. How many blokes are good enough to pick up a 5-for in 8 overs, or hit a hundred in 40 overs?

Maybe just cutting the number of grades would be a better option than moving to one-dayers. Get rid of the bottom 2 G Grades.
Click to expand...

I think many people like them. If you play 50 overs (yes I know I mentioned 40 overs, that's the absolute minimum I think they should be), I think all you'd do is eliminate the 25 dead overs at the start of many matches. Maybe some opening batsman will have to get a move on rather than sit on the bad ball until after drinks. Forcing teams to use 5 bowlers will give batman at least 1 second change bowler to have a crack at. Bring in fielding restrictions to encourage shots. What about the spinners? Wasn't the consensus that 20-20 would kill spin bowling, yet we saw a resurgence in it? I think it would encourage more spin bowling, taking the pace off the ball will get wickets in limited overs cricket.

If your only real concern for it is people won't be able to pick up 5-fa's or make hundreds, well as far as I see it those are pretty weak objections. People will still get them.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
I think many people like them. If you play 50 overs (yes I know I mentioned 40 overs, that's the absolute minimum I think they should be), I think all you'd do is eliminate the 25 dead overs at the start of many matches. Maybe some opening batsman will have to get a move on rather than sit on the bad ball until after drinks. Forcing teams to use 5 bowlers will give batman at least 1 second change bowler to have a crack at. Bring in fielding restrictions to encourage shots. What about the spinners? Wasn't the consensus that 20-20 would kill spin bowling, yet we saw a resurgence in it? I think it would encourage more spin bowling, taking the pace off the ball will get wickets in limited overs cricket.

If your only real concern for it is people won't be able to pick up 5-fa's or make hundreds, well as far as I see it those are pretty weak objections. People will still get them.
Click to expand...

I doubt you will get many takers for 100 overs of cricket in a day.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
I think many people like them. If you play 50 overs (yes I know I mentioned 40 overs, that's the absolute minimum I think they should be), I think all you'd do is eliminate the 25 dead overs at the start of many matches. Maybe some opening batsman will have to get a move on rather than sit on the bad ball until after drinks. Forcing teams to use 5 bowlers will give batman at least 1 second change bowler to have a crack at. Bring in fielding restrictions to encourage shots. What about the spinners? Wasn't the consensus that 20-20 would kill spin bowling, yet we saw a resurgence in it? I think it would encourage more spin bowling, taking the pace off the ball will get wickets in limited overs cricket.

If your only real concern for it is people won't be able to pick up 5-fa's or make hundreds, well as far as I see it those are pretty weak objections. People will still get them.
Click to expand...
I don't know of many sides who don't already use 5 bowlers, especially in the lower grades. And fielding restrictions is tough enough to officiate when a lot of the umpires outside shield grades are absolutely hopeless. In the lower grades implementing fielding restrictions would be even tougher I imagine. And as for spin bowling, there is plenty of spinners used in two day cricket from my experience. In fact, I'd go the other way and say shorter format encourages more 'nothing bowlers', right hand finger spinners who just dart it in with little to no turn.
 
gruban said:
I don't know of many sides who don't already use 5 bowlers, especially in the lower grades. And fielding restrictions is tough enough to officiate when a lot of the umpires outside shield grades are absolutely hopeless. In the lower grades implementing fielding restrictions would be even tougher I imagine. And as for spin bowling, there is plenty of spinners used in two day cricket from my experience. In fact, I'd go the other way and say shorter format encourages more 'nothing bowlers', right hand finger spinners who just dart it in with little to no turn.
Click to expand...

Back in his younger days, Toddy used to occasionally bowl off-spin when he wasn't sending down his nippy medium pacers. Although Toddy is primarily a world-class batsman. (I was once compared to Don Bradman. I found that a bit embarrassing, as I've never had a problem with the short ball)

Spin bowling is more than not trying to get hit for six every ball, which is what happens in 20/20 matches.

What about bowling a 20 over spell? Tying a batsman down? Luring him into a false shot? Using a bit of flight and guile? You can't do that with bowling and fielding restrictions.
 
sigh it's not that difficult. Earlier start times, less end changes per game, teams would easily bowl 25 overs and hour, hell we usually bowl over 40 before tea now, 50 in a little over 2 hours would be doable. It's just fielding restrictions, not calculating escape velocity for a space ship. 2 out in the first 10, 1 more allowed out each subsequent block of 10. It will take clubs an extra 10 minutes to put in an inner circle on the ground.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
sigh it's not that difficult. Earlier start times, less end changes per game, teams would easily bowl 25 overs and hour, hell we usually bowl over 40 before tea now, 50 in a little over 2 hours would be doable. It's just fielding restrictions, not calculating escape velocity for a space ship. 2 out in the first 10, 1 more allowed out each subsequent block of 10. It will take clubs an extra 10 minutes to put in an inner circle on the ground.
Click to expand...

Easy for blokes who don't have a job
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
sigh it's not that difficult. Earlier start times, less end changes per game, teams would easily bowl 25 overs and hour, hell we usually bowl over 40 before tea now, 50 in a little over 2 hours would be doable. It's just fielding restrictions, not calculating escape velocity for a space ship. 2 out in the first 10, 1 more allowed out each subsequent block of 10. It will take clubs an extra 10 minutes to put in an inner circle on the ground.
Click to expand...

I will agree with you on this. Why we don't have them in the one dayers is beyond me, especially in Shield grades with 2 umpires.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
sigh it's not that difficult. Earlier start times, less end changes per game, teams would easily bowl 25 overs and hour, hell we usually bowl over 40 before tea now, 50 in a little over 2 hours would be doable. It's just fielding restrictions, not calculating escape velocity for a space ship. 2 out in the first 10, 1 more allowed out each subsequent block of 10. It will take clubs an extra 10 minutes to put in an inner circle on the ground.
Click to expand...

Whats the point of flying through overs as fast as you can? How about taking your time and playing good cricket.

One thing that Toddy really hates is less end changes. It means you have to face a bowler with the wind for 5-10 overs. You can't hit down the ground with the wind at your back. But then a lucky slogger comes out when they are bowling into the wind has 10 overs to smash them. It's just not cricket.

Toddy loves cricket. The tactics, the strategy, the challenge. One-day cricket and 20/20 is just garbage. Whats the point of playing? So I can face a few overs at the end and then bowl a couple of overs at some ************** trying to hit me over mid-wicket every ball.

It seems to me that Blackhawk just want to fly through games to pick up 6 points, then win a meaningless flag in the lower grades.
 
Warwick Todd said:
Whats the point of flying through overs as fast as you can? How about taking your time and playing good cricket.

One thing that Toddy really hates is less end changes. It means you have to face a bowler with the wind for 5-10 overs. You can't hit down the ground with the wind at your back. But then a lucky slogger comes out when they are bowling into the wind has 10 overs to smash them. It's just not cricket.

Toddy loves cricket. The tactics, the strategy, the challenge. One-day cricket and 20/20 is just garbage. Whats the point of playing? So I can face a few overs at the end and then bowl a couple of overs at some ** trying to hit me over mid-wicket every ball.

It seems to me that Blackhawk just want to fly through games to pick up 6 points, then win a meaningless flag in the lower grades.
Click to expand...

I'd argue if we're bowling that many maidens then we are playing good cricket. So you can't hit down the ground, I dunno, develop some back foot shots? That's a pretty minor inconvenience really. The point I was making is that if we have to go to one day cricket, increasing the amount of overs from 35 to 50 gives you a better game. I'm not the greatest 20/20 fan either, but 35 overs really does feel like slash and bash cricket and you'll get exactly what you are arguing; some blokes will most certainly miss out in the shorter format.

I'm just discussing things within what's been asked; feedback on one day cricket for lower grades. I can see it coming, if not next season then soon and as I keep saying, 35 over cricket sucks. I would prefer playing all two day games, but, if they must change things, then they must increase the amount of overs in the games and not go half and half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top