Forum

I think Neil and Hutchy cover everything well.

My own view is that if clubs below the Premier League vote for a reduction in teams, it's a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. Playing less games is not going to improve levels of competition or indeed the overall standard.
Premier League clubs have left everyone else behind. There are a number of contrubutory factors to this and it would take a long time to go through it, but that does not mean that everyone else in the NCU should be simply swept up in this.
I'm very much of the old school and believe that by playing more games, you actually get better. Best vs best is an ideology that may never happen and ultimately what would it produce? Irish players are primed from under-age teams or encouraged through the residency door. Club cricket produces very little by way of international cricketers anymore and is unlikely to in the future as Cricket Ireland continues to grow and employ more coaches etc throughout the island.
The main role of the union should be to provide what it's members want and I ultimately believe that all members of the NCU would favour playing more rather than less.

re:- neil cahill's post

i hope the new task force take neil's comments on board. very sensible views on how we need to move forward.

I have to agree with a few of the views proposed on this forum.

The league structure proposed by Neill Cahill seems like a good idea. We have to be careful not to offer too little cricket. We play cricket because we enjoy it.

I agree with the views of Mark Hutchinson as well. The whole focus seems to be on reducing the number of overs we play. Why reduce the number of full games? If a game is called off at the end of April why reduce it down to a 20 over game, when we have the rest of the summer to squeeze in a game (if the 21 day rule didn't exist)? Yes, flexibility in re-arrangements is needed, but this should not mean that teams have to play shortened.

As J Keenan says, we need to be careful that there is not too much of a gulf in class in Section 3. Keep games competitive.

The new rules introduced into Junior cricket have not worked entirely, as highlighted by Gordon. Dundrum have fallen victim of this. If one game is rained off, it automatically goes to a 20 over re-arrangement, depriving cricketers of full games. Even worse... if the game is called off a second time, the match is VOID. Neither team get any points, nobody gets to play any cricket!! Ludicrous.

We have until the end of Spetember to play, why not use it if necessary. If it means re-arranging the game numerous times, if the two clubs are happy, why not? With the current regulations, offering only one re-arrangement (a T20 at that), clubs will be punished, not for how they play, but for when they chose to arrange fixtures.

if there are less mataches will subs for each team at all the clubs be different?

Re: Senior League Structure

Excellent suggestions from Neil Cahill and Mark Hutchinson regarding the proposed changes to the league structure. I hope such suggestions are not overlooked at the roadshows and the current proposals not set in stone.

From a Section 3 point of view, teams currently play only 12 league matches of 50 overs. If the proposals are approved this will be reduced to 10 matches and will no longer play teams home and away. The suggestion has been to create a new competition for Section 3 teams to create more matches – presumably this will be T20? I don’t feel discussion on this can be put off until the fixture meetings as appears to be the case from reading the proposals. There does not appear to be much enthusiasm either from Section 3 players for more and more T20 matches at the expense of full matches.

I like Neil Cahill’s suggestion of keeping Section 1 at 10 teams but would go even further and keep Section 2 at 10 teams leaving 9 in Section 3. This would allow 16 league matches in Section 3 with home and away matches against teams. Inevitably there will be a few T20s if the weather intervenes. I feel that 11 teams would be too many in Section 3 with too wide a range in standards between the top and bottom of the league. Two up and two down could also be kept to avoid more meaningless matches towards the end of the season. The Twenty20 Shield could always be expanded into a knockout competition for the new Section 2 and 3.

I would be interested to hear other views from clubs in Section 2 and 3 regarding the changes but would feel that a larger Section 3 has less chance of being approved as teams will not vote to be relegated.

RE Ivan

We should be trying to promote clubs and not individuals

There will always be those who come and go for whatever reason, clearly you had yours - however that attitude aint for me or many or my teamates.

Cricket in this country is of a very very low standard, you could throw your cap over those who could actually "make it" - therefore the sooner we accept that and re-establish the clubs then maybe we can entice people to stay or come into the game.

I have to say Ivan, I fundamentally disagree with just about everything you said in that last posting.

Cricket like you describe would have me pushing a trolley round Tesco's on a Saturday...!

James, who ever you are I really don't understand your thinking or worse what is it your thinking ?
I would not promote a cradle to a grave attitude. I promote a "play at the highest level you can " attitude. If your original club's ambition doesn't match your own why should you stay ?
Muckamore is my club and always will be. However in the early 80's I got a chance to play in the top league with Saintfield and I went because I wanted to see if I could get wickets or score runs at that level. Simple. Otherwise why leave your friends and go 45 miles for a home match AND practice twice a week. Twenty odd years on and I still have friends from those days. A few years later I went to Ballymena again to play in the top flight and I still have many friends from those days. I had the pleasure of looking after the Colts team during that spell that included Neil Fullerton, Robert Kennedy , Michael Glass and John Glass who captained the side.Those guys were outstanding cricketers at that age.
I would never try and hold someone back in cricket or in a job if they have higher ambitions. We only live once and unfortunately that time in cricket playing years is relatively short. So it would be hypocritical for me to advocate a cradle to the grave scenario.
Now James if you are an official at a club concerned about losing players then I suggest maybe you need to get together with other officials and decide what you need to do to make sure your club matches the ambitions of these players and if you can't then wish them well and welcome them back at any time. We have a saying which is very true "there are no gates at Moylena". Remember it's no use crying over spilt milk.
We are scraping hard to survive in the Premier League this season and if we fail we will fight even harder to get straight back.

people are going to stop playing at all levels young and old if the task force(what players)get it wrong playing less cricket is not the way forward some leagues next year are going to be of a poor standard and when it dosent work what happens then?

Dundrum club is thriving because i went againest my princibles that pros be allowed play below PREMIER and still would agree that they SHOULD NOT but i will still raise the cash over the next ten years to coach our juniors over 50 under 11/13/15 and 4 primary schools even if they do ban them as i dont want a pro that dominates as its not what Dundrum require . Dundrum need to survive or compete as a TEAM not rely on a match winner.Academy are another example there coach dont bat before six and they have great structure in place as they go schools and have triving junior section, in my opinion its about getting the balance right over pro an team but il settle for getting it right at Dundrum before i try change the world . totally agree with neil cahil post only thing id add is 40 over CRICKET BELOW PREMIER .GOrdy is correct in saying the present rules for second team games are flawed bigtime as the pay same fees an want more games not less and that needs redressed . but the work pary have done their bit now its up to the clubs too vote the way they want . ive played 40 years but if i was starting now id guess id last 15 years maximum as we must move with the times relationships and work committments put more pressure on players than any FAST BOWLER or THE NCU.

RE Ivan

Please, the cradle to the grave scenario is exactly What you should be promoting FGS...!

The mobile society (what are you talking about)if it actually exists, it is a nonsense that those that no better should be castigating..

step back pal and smell the coffee...

A great post from Neil Cahill; I too am not convinced that the recommendations will benefit all clubs, particularly those in the new Premier league 2.
I can, however, only imagine the countless hours that have gone into the senior cricket working group and I think that it has things spot on for the top 8 clubs.
In my opinion, there must be further consideration given to the other leagues. Looking at the new Premier league 2, Neil is quite right when saying that the teams will play too little cricket. They are usually out of their cup competition fairly early in the season, perhaps after only one game and therefore, in my opinion, should have eighteen 50 over league matches; not 20 overs in a match 2 scenario. For these clubs, the league matches should be the Holy Grail and a win should be hard to come by.
I can only speak for myself, but for example, ending up with eight 50 over matches and six 20 over matches (given a few cancellations) would be wholly unappealing. I don’t think I’d continue making the sacrifices to play cricket in a structure like this.
Perhaps some people will feel differently, but I, like Neil, feel that discussion is necessary regarding the potential changes ahead.

and well said Ivan McCombe - tho i feel a few just want to be continual moaners and live in the dark ages - in my day........whoops it's now 2011

James. Read Gordon's posting again. He makes no reference to how the club is going, he is making points about the new match regulations. Dundrum 1sts are going well and they are doing a lot of work in local primary schools and fielding under age teams. By the way James who ?
Good posting by Neil Cahill and exactly the sort of debate that the roadshows next week are designed to hear. All those with thoughts on the best way forward should make sure they and their club are represented at a roadshow.
I think the cradle to the grave loyalty that used to exist in many walks of life has also disappeared from cricket. In today's mobile society I think we need to accept that we may lose players AND we may gain players from time to time. I don't think with the opportunity at International level a club can not expect talented players from wanting to prove themselves at the highest level of club cricket.

Re Gordon Dundrum

That's blown that theory out of the water Ivan....!

i am secretary of dundrum 2nds and this year has probably been one of the worst as unfortunately dunmurray had to pull their 2nd team out of the league due to shortage of players and with the new rule enforcing after match 2 situation with match unable to be played due to weather that the game is void it has meant we have lost 4 matches to date this season already.with the 1st match being scrubbed after the 1st weekend in june.also ivan not all teams now provide tea's in 35 over matches which is hard on the school kids who have a match in the morning and then don't get anything to eat until maybe 8pm which has also happened to us this year.i hear a lot of talk about having earlier starting times
but people still work on sat morning's etc or night shift's and with the matches now 35 overs in our league the average match is over by 6pm at the latest including tea's,
and no school's cricket after 3rd year?? one member from our club told me that if that is the case he won't play any league cricket until school's season is over.surely we need to keep these young players on board as they are the future.when you look through the section's you see a lot of matches scrubbed and point's awarded to other teams which would make you wonder why??