Not good at all - have heard a couple of rumours, but nothing concrete yet. Have you heard anything more than speculation LM? Would prefer not to be in the situation of having our lower grades playing against each other again
General Chat 12/13
- Thread starter southern sledge
- Start date
lifemember
Member
I've heard that one prominent south club is over the lack of organisation and responsibility that the VT give to the lower grades and as such is seriously considering to move to another comp. I can see this happening a lot and I feel that in about 5 years, the south arm of the VT will only be a 1st and 2nd XI comp.
The new rules are on the website, and I can’t see much that has changed from last year. It was a pretty big discussion point at the President’s meeting I went to, with consensus being that the point of the points was to reward the development of your own young players, at the expense of just poaching players externally. Keeping your juniors at 2 is rather disappointing to be honest – 1, because it goes against the spirit of the rule, 2, because the impression was given that recommendations would be made to the points sub-committee. Now either those recommendations were made and ignored, or they were never made – either of which would make our attendances at meetings to discuss these matters a waste of time
Dingo_Jones
Member
I must say I'm a fan of the player points system. However I have thought the total of points was too high. It's interesting the points have been reduced to 42. They need to be reduced further, which will enable competing clubs to compete on a fairer level playing field.
By allocating 2 points for each young bloke that has progressed through a junior program whose ability enables that young bloke to play seniors, leaves less points to allocate to imported players. Obviously the money clubs that don"t play juniors will have more points to allocate to imported players.
Your point about penalising juniors with 2 points is legitimate and could be expanded by adding two points to the total points for each junior played. For example. Total points 42. Two juniors played, points exempt as you indicated. Total points increased to 46.
I look forward to seeing the total points reduced even further.
Having said that I feel the quality of competition is important and overseas professionals and local gun cricketers should not be excluded from playing in our competition.
I may be completely misunderstanding the objective of the whole points system, but my thinking is it is there to protect the game itself from clubs who feel their sole purpose is to buy players to win 1st XI flags – in whatever competition they play. Clubs should also place some emphasis on developing a junior section. Now the VTCA being a senior only comp shouldn’t be so short sighted (and I don’t think they are) to think that it doesn’t need its clubs to develop juniors – but allocating junior players points is contrary to why the system was introduced in the first place. And I think a junior player at your club is a junior player for life – if a home grown junior player (such as Boland at Parkdale CC) goes off to shield cricket, and then returns to that club, fantastic. And the reward for the investment that club has put in him as a kid should be he is now a zero player, rather than 4.5 or 5
NorthClubsDontPayPlayers
Active Member
Disagree on that last point completely – if a state player returned and was 0 you’d get some horrible inequities driven by players who have improved as the result of being in an elite environment, not from being a junior (with all due respect to Parkdale, I’m sure they’d say his development has been aided by Frankston / Victoria). I think the 50% reduction is fairly adequate for a player returning…he’s still a gun player if he’s played at that level and needs to accrue points in that manner.
100% agree with you on players who debut in the Firsts after playing Juniors. They should be 0 points and I’m not sure what we’re aiming to achieve by having them as 2? VTCA is out of touch a little with this one and it needs to be fixed for next season
100% agree with you on players who debut in the Firsts after playing Juniors. They should be 0 points and I’m not sure what we’re aiming to achieve by having them as 2? VTCA is out of touch a little with this one and it needs to be fixed for next season
I understand, and I’m certainly not suggesting that a Shield player’s initial club had a bigger hand in developing him than the Premier Club. But they started him off, they may have taken the initial steps that got him on that path
But even if he left their club a complete Gumby who went to Frankston to play 6ths, and then developed – I just reckon the club should be rewarded for 1) that effort in recruiting and perhaps getting them to love the game, and 2) the loyalty that player shows by going back there
Crickileaks
Member
if he was 0, that then leaves 5 points for the club to go and buy another player.
every player needs to have an initial point allocated for the system to work. you can have many variations of the points system. the vtca system is working, a lot beter now then when first implemented.
Absolutely – it rewards the clubs who develop a home grown player, by freeing up that space in the points cap. That is the incentive to invest in a quality junior system within each club. I have never had a problem with any club buying players – but I have an issue with clubs buying players at the expense of investing in young players playing the game – so by reducing the number of points a junior player is worth you can hopefully encourage some of the clubs with money to think about the long term development of the game, as well as (if they so desire), splashing cash on whoever they want
Is the system working – probably. Is it as good as it could be – no way in the world
Hypothetical for you – club A spends $15k a year for 5 years on a player they recruited from another VTCA club. I have 120 kids at my club I would rather spend that money on, but I have no problem at all with it – if that is how you want to spend your money, good luck to you. I do have a problem when that player (who is now a 1 point player) plays against a young kid making his 1st XI debut after playing at club B in Milo, then 6 years of juniors, a couple of years in the lower grades – and he is a 2 point player
Dingo_Jones
Member
How would you define a junior that made his way into seniors and never left the club to play elsewhere. Would that player be allocated 2 points or would he in your opinion be classified as a zero player?
Dingo_Jones
Member
I agree the vtca sysyem is working. By reducing the total number of points that a team needs to work within, leaves less room for the inclusion of players that carry 10 or 9 points. In turn it leaves more room for home grown players.
I also believe if an import comes in at 8, 9 or 10 points, they should stay on the points they arrived at for as long as they remain at the club. Reducing the points allocated to a player each season seems self defeating.
A junior player straight into seniors is zero points – I reckon that’s a no-brainer, and anything for a straight junior into senior that isn’t zero, makes the system ineffective (IMO)
A junior player who goes off to premier cricket is zero points – Bit more controversial, but I reckon the club should be rewarded for having the structures in place that lead to our juniors playing at higher levels
A junior player who goes off to a non-premier club, and then returns – would be reasonably happy with a 50% discount then, but would be just as happy if they came in at the normal rate
What you say is correct – dropping points and dropping the cap is self-defeating
My primary issue with reducing the points is teams who have more players who are “long term” players are not rewarded by as much as those who might have 9 or 10 short term players. A team with 6 zero pointed players (who admittedly will probably not play anywhere near the points cap) is effectively only reduced by 5 points a year – if all 11 play the following year. A team with 2 zero pointed players is rewarded by a drop of 9 points – now when the cap is only reduced by 2 or 3 points that frees up a hell of a lot of space
Dingo_Jones
Member
My point exactly. Congratulations, you make a good synopsis. I'm very much in favour of leaving enough room in the points cap to allow a team to field 2 Gun players whether from overseas or local talent.
I'd be very interested on what others in the vtca think the points cap should be reduced to or perhaps increased. I'm not sure we could go much lower than 42 although I'm thinking perhaps 40 or 39.
How many sides have ever got together on selection night for a game and said “we can’t pick player X because that will push us over the cap”. Or how many clubs say at the start of the season – “if we put some time into developing this young kid, he will play as a 1 or a 2 point player rather than spending $xxxx on a bloke who will be 8 or 9”. I can’t think there would be too many. We have got into the 30s and that was with two imports, and two guys who were ok players, but just happened to walk off the street, but had moved from interstate so were rated as 6 points. We have played teams with 15 or 16 points, so all of those factors probably tells me that the cap is too high – if the current points structure remains. And that’s a massive ‘if’
Port Melbourne were 40 points in both the semi and grand final. They left out Moore (8 points) and Dale (9 points) from their round 10 and 11 teams.
If you look at it as an outsider looking only at the stats, Lee (made a pair in round 11 and doesn't bowl) vs. Moore (averaging 46 in the 2s, bowls a few overs). They would have been sitting at selection for the finals with both having played round 11 and Khawaja coming back without the option of playing Moore because he would have sent them over the limit.
Having said that, I agree with you that the points cap should be dropped lower (somewhere between 35 and 40) and that juniors coming in with 2 is absolutely ridiculous.
Fun times – they might have had games last year when their 2nd XI had more points than the opposition’s 1st XI!!!!
lifemember
Member
Rumour is that Old Mentonians, Dingley and Parkdale all headed to the DDCA. Would be a real shame if it were true. Would also mean the VT might actually have to acknowledge a problem in the South and do something about it.
southern sledge
Active Member
Pathetic effort by Parkdale and Dingley, good riddance to both