General Chat 12/13

Bang! That was Old Mentones biggest issue at the 2nds GF 2nds travel and a promised points reduction which evaporated 2 points reduction still gives Clubs a further 9 points to splurge on a paid up player with the yearly 1 point per player reduction. Doesn't entice Clubs to foster youth or developement young players New clubs Russian not in the South with a strong DDCA CMCA and the Mercantile growing with all the VTCA Clubs pulling out their lower grade teams
I have beeen doing a bit of catch up on here. Wow, alot of resentment towards the Exec. As for the above point raised "gives Clubs a further 9 points to splurge on a paid up player with the yearly 1 point per player reduction", that's not exactly accurate. There will be situations where the previous year your club has had 1/2/3/4/5 zero point players playing. So the following year you will not get an extra point for these players, as suggested. I feel we need to keep recruiting stronger players from a higher level to our comp. As for the travel related issues, all I can say is it has never been something that has been mentioned at my club. I understand that there are clubs that every second game will be required to travel some distance to get to the game. But please, I am sure we all are aware that its called the Victorian Turf Cricket Association? The travel component has been the same for the last.... I dunno how many years?? Why is it an issue now?? I may not be 100% understanding of the issues, so please feel free to point them out.... On another note, I also cannot understand why there was a lack of Exec at the GF?? Poor form.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
I have beeen doing a bit of catch up on here. Wow, alot of resentment towards the Exec. As for the above point raised "gives Clubs a further 9 points to splurge on a paid up player with the yearly 1 point per player reduction", that's not exactly accurate. There will be situations where the previous year your club has had 1/2/3/4/5 zero point players playing. So the following year you will not get an extra point for these players, as suggested. I feel we need to keep recruiting stronger players from a higher level to our comp. As for the travel related issues, all I can say is it has never been something that has been mentioned at my club. I understand that there are clubs that every second game will be required to travel some distance to get to the game. But please, I am sure we all are aware that its called the Victorian Turf Cricket Association? The travel component has been the same for the last.... I dunno how many years?? Why is it an issue now?? I may not be 100% understanding of the issues, so please feel free to point them out.... On another note, I also cannot understand why there was a lack of Exec at the GF?? Poor form.
The issue with the reduction in points is that a team with more long term players (say 6 players with zero points) is not rewarded as much as a team with fewer (say 2 players with zero points). Now the latter are probably more likely to be the clubs that have got outsiders to the club, yet they are rewarded more than those with more long term players – in the case of my example by having 4 extra points to spend on players. How do you fix this? Maybe don’t reduce the individual player points each year. Oh, and maybe make junior players zero!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
The issue with the reduction in points is that a team with more long term players (say 6 players with zero points) is not rewarded as much as a team with fewer (say 2 players with zero points). Now the latter are probably more likely to be the clubs that have got outsiders to the club, yet they are rewarded more than those with more long term players – in the case of my example by having 4 extra points to spend on players. How do you fix this? Maybe don’t reduce the individual player points each year. Oh, and maybe make junior players zero!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think if you have 6 players with zero points in your eleven then what is stopping you going out to recruit
3 players on 9 points. The points system is not about rewarding clubs, its about trying to even up the competition. You need to look at it has a whole solution to the issue, not an individual club problem.
It is a way of stopping clubs with access to funds ie: Yarraville Club from just going out and buying players,
or even TOBB club :)
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
I think if you have 6 players with zero points in your eleven then what is stopping you going out to recruit
3 players on 9 points. The points system is not about rewarding clubs, its about trying to even up the competition. You need to look at it has a whole solution to the issue, not an individual club problem.
It is a way of stopping clubs with access to funds ie: Yarraville Club from just going out and buying players,
or even TOBB club :)
There is nothing at all stopping a club from going out and buying three 9 point players, but I think you are getting a tad pedantic about the word “rewarded”. Perhaps if I said “benefits” would that be better?
As much as I think about it, I really don’t know why we have a points system
Even up the competition – don’t think that ever had a chance of working as clubs could still spend whatever they wanted
Encourage junior development – unlikely with junior players at 2 points
Encourage some sustainability amongst clubs – horse probably bolted now with how it was set up. Any changes now will mean you will be forever chasing your tail
 

Battler

Member
Some of these points don't make sense to me.

If juniors are 2 points the clubs that are willing to spend will still spend, but instead of playing juniors for 2 points when it comes to selection they will instead choose to play older clubmen worth 0 which prevents the juniors from getting a go?

Yes there is problems with the use of the cap but having juniors at 1 or 2 points is absolutely pointless.
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
There is nothing at all stopping a club from going out and buying three 9 point players, but I think you are getting a tad pedantic about the word “rewarded”. Perhaps if I said “benefits” would that be better?
As much as I think about it, I really don’t know why we have a points system
Even up the competition – don’t think that ever had a chance of working as clubs could still spend whatever they wanted
Encourage junior development – unlikely with junior players at 2 points
Encourage some sustainability amongst clubs – horse probably bolted now with how it was set up. Any changes now will mean you will be forever chasing your tail
Rat, I'm not sure if what you have just posted is a contradiction or an omission. When you wrote "I really don't know why we have a points system", did you forget to add 'In it's present form". I hope we are not going to re-hash whether the points system stays or goes again.

Evening up the competition can work by reducing the points cap for competitions south of Seniors. Clubs should be able to spend what ever they want on a player. How much a club pays for an import is unimportant. Player "One hung low" might be offered $3000 to bat at four, where as another club might offer "One hung low" $7000 to bat at four, plus incentives such as the pres's wife will give it a rub from time to time. Reducing the number of gun imports a club can fit in the points cap regardless of what it costs in dollar terms is the key to evening up the competition. Again I repeat, I'm not in favour of reducing the points cap for the " Seniors comp" We shouldn't interfere with the integrity of our premier competition.
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
Some of these points don't make sense to me.

If juniors are 2 points the clubs that are willing to spend will still spend, but instead of playing juniors for 2 points when it comes to selection they will instead choose to play older clubmen worth 0 which prevents the juniors from getting a go?

Yes there is problems with the use of the cap but having juniors at 1 or 2 points is absolutely pointless.
Well battler, all I can say is "It must be a battle"
 
There seems to be a lot of anger around 2 points for juniors as an initial allocation.
I'm not sure if this is a real or only a perceived problem.
Firstly, points are only relevant for 1st XI selection. This 'issue' isn't stopping a kid from playing cricket (albeit 2nd's at worst).
Secondly, from a quick check of the last round for Senior Division and North Division (there was a few instances of players not listed on the VTCA so it's hard to get the numbers exact), more than half of Senior and all but 1 or 2 of North sides had 40 or less points, so a 2 point player would have been able to replace any 0 point player if their relative form merited it. I would assume that lower grades would be similar.
(It is also worth noting that if a 2 point player played a single 1st XI game last season, he will be down to 1 point next season).
Thirdly, each club is responsible for their own recruitment policy. If they don't expect or want their own juniors to come through to 1st XI, they recruit accordingly. You would also expect that most clubs at the start of the season will know which juniors are a chance to play 1's in any year. Exceptions would be exactly that, exception. At the end of the day a responsible club should be looking at both the short term and longer term interests of their club.
Can't say I see this as a being a big problem.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
Rat, I'm not sure if what you have just posted is a contradiction or an omission. When you wrote "I really don't know why we have a points system", did you forget to add 'In it's present form". I hope we are not going to re-hash whether the points system stays or goes again.

Evening up the competition can work by reducing the points cap for competitions south of Seniors. Clubs should be able to spend what ever they want on a player. How much a club pays for an import is unimportant. Player "One hung low" might be offered $3000 to bat at four, where as another club might offer "One hung low" $7000 to bat at four, plus incentives such as the pres's wife will give it a rub from time to time. Reducing the number of gun imports a club can fit in the points cap regardless of what it costs in dollar terms is the key to evening up the competition. Again I repeat, I'm not in favour of reducing the points cap for the " Seniors comp" We shouldn't interfere with the integrity of our premier competition.
You’re probably right – I was just thinking that the main reasons that get thrown around for having it (the ones I listed) either don’t really work, or are just illogical

What I probably was leaning to was – is it a good thing? And the answer is yes, if it is done right. Anything less than that may not be worth it
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
There seems to be a lot of anger around 2 points for juniors as an initial allocation.
I'm not sure if this is a real or only a perceived problem.
Firstly, points are only relevant for 1st XI selection. This 'issue' isn't stopping a kid from playing cricket (albeit 2nd's at worst).
Secondly, from a quick check of the last round for Senior Division and North Division (there was a few instances of players not listed on the VTCA so it's hard to get the numbers exact), more than half of Senior and all but 1 or 2 of North sides had 40 or less points, so a 2 point player would have been able to replace any 0 point player if their relative form merited it. I would assume that lower grades would be similar.
(It is also worth noting that if a 2 point player played a single 1st XI game last season, he will be down to 1 point next season).
Thirdly, each club is responsible for their own recruitment policy. If they don't expect or want their own juniors to come through to 1st XI, they recruit accordingly. You would also expect that most clubs at the start of the season will know which juniors are a chance to play 1's in any year. Exceptions would be exactly that, exception. At the end of the day a responsible club should be looking at both the short term and longer term interests of their club.
Can't say I see this as a being a big problem.
Try this on for a problem - the encouragement of home-grown players (and therefore the investment in the development of these players) is the prime objective of the whole points system. With two points for juniors this is not achieved
 

TheScorer

Member
This is a bit like deja vu to me. I lived and played cricket in the Birmingham area of the UK in the late 1980s. The cricket competition was fragmented, with the Birmingham League at the top, with a bunch of other comps; the one I played in was generally considered to be the best of the rest (at least by its clubs). It consisted of twelve clubs, no promotion or relegation, and the only time a new club was admitted was when another club left for any reason - this happened in my first season as Wolverhampton went to the "big league".

There were proposals to introduce what they called "pyramid cricket", with all the clubs in a single comp with multiple grades, with promotion and relegation. All (or nearly all) of the clubs in my comp were against it - they had lovely grounds, a reasonable standard, and were fearful of relegation and having to play on crappy grounds.

Nowadays the single competition is in place. A few of my old opponents are in the top grade, which probably strengthens the idea that they were in the 2nd best comp, and some have dropped down. A few years back my old club was in the third or fourth grade, now after winning two flags in a row, they are back in the 2nd best comp - but another flag would see them in the top comp.

There was a lot of opposition to the idea, but speaking with an ex-teammate recently, this region-wide competition has turned out to be terrific. Clubs are nearly always in an even competition, as they go up and down through the grades.

Personally, I think that the proposal of CV may have merit, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, although I think though there should be a Melbourne-wide top division (or perhaps two).

Sorry for being a bit long-winded...
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
That's a terrific insight, and I tend to agree with your last paragraph. The power the subbies have has always intrigued me, given they are a glorified suburban comp. We have 3 metro-wide comps and I can certainly understand CV's position. Whether it gets through will rely on how much they want to flex their muscles because I can't see too many associations voting themselves out of existence
 

fairgo

Member
Cricket Victoria (then VCA) attempted to do a similar reconstruction of suburban competitions back in 1998 when they wanted a competition in each of the eight zones. They worked hard at selling the idea to the associations, all senior & junior teams in one competition, promotion & relegation, less travelling. The plan was rejected by the associations who weren't going to vote themselves out of existence. The VSDCA wasn't part of the restructure & were to continue as they were.
 

Filthylucre

New Member
Subbies very well administered. They actually listen to clubs.
A regional approach would be good. Too many cricket reps hanging onto their prejudices as it is. Sorry, too close too home I suspect.
Let's get over it. A senior div grand final played at Altona can barely attract a dozen spectators at a peak. You're kidding. Spend huge money to put a team on the park and no one, including vtca exec turns up. Yeh, senior div working real well!!
Well done om's on your success and your principles. It is not always about the money.
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
Interesting. I was a bit perplexed with DDCA President Michael Hawking alleged comment in the Leader where he said "I know sub district and the VTCA are very fragmented and I know sub-district doesn't do much for the development of cricket victoria." What a crass coke head. The fact the VTCA is an inclusive association whose management edict is not limited by boundries and is happy to absorb other associations and clubs is a major reason it is so successful. The fact the Yarra river seperates north from south can hardly describe the VTCA as being fragmented.
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
Cricket Victoria (then VCA) attempted to do a similar reconstruction of suburban competitions back in 1998 when they wanted a competition in each of the eight zones. They worked hard at selling the idea to the associations, all senior & junior teams in one competition, promotion & relegation, less travelling. The plan was rejected by the associations who weren't going to vote themselves out of existence. The VSDCA wasn't part of the restructure & were to continue as they were.
Vote themselves out of existence? Wow, would you, when it was discovered the Victorian Cricket Association in colusion with councils across Melbourne had a surreptitious plan to eliminate many lower grade turf clubs by turning there wickets into hard wicket grounds or giving them over to soccer clubs? Further there was a general feeling that the VCA was concerned that too many premier players were leaving the competition for better pay from the surban competitions.

Oh what a tangled webb we weave when we practice to deceive. All is not as it seems. The proposal needs to be studied in detail. I don't trust the bastards.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
Interesting. I was a bit perplexed with DDCA President Michael Hawking alleged comment in the Leader where he said "I know sub district and the VTCA are very fragmented and I know sub-district doesn't do much for the development of cricket victoria." What a crass coke head. The fact the VTCA is an inclusive association whose management edict is not limited by boundries and is happy to absorb other associations and clubs is a major reason it is so successful. The fact the Yarra river seperates north from south can hardly describe the VTCA as being fragmented.
I've known Mick Hawking for about 20 years - he is a proud DDCA man, smart administrator, (and on an unrelated note one of the best bowlers I've seen at a suburban level). I'm not saying he didn't say it but I reckon the context of it would have been a positive comment about his association in comparison to others. Might be wrong. And crass coke head is probably a tad harsh Dingo!!!
 

Filthylucre

New Member
Love your passion dingo but it doesn't make sense. Cricket vic are desperate to keep turf grounds. Speak to them. If a synthetic nearby can add more games to the ground then great.
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
I've known Mick Hawking for about 20 years - he is a proud DDCA man, smart administrator, (and on an unrelated note one of the best bowlers I've seen at a suburban level). I'm not saying he didn't say it but I reckon the context of it would have been a positive comment about his association in comparison to others. Might be wrong. And crass coke head is probably a tad harsh Dingo!!!
In view of your mostly intelligent contributions to this forum and your stated regard for Mick Hawking, I withdraw my reference to him as a coke head. Perhaps the paper should have asked him for an explanation of what he meant by using the term, FRAGMENTED!!!
 
Top