Please click here to leave a message.
The Ulster Cricketer reserves the right not to publish submissions written under pseudonyms or which make gratuitous personal attacks.
Ryan no name...
CNSI is CSNI, the letters are just not in the correct order. Is that your question answered.... thanks though buddy!
Put it this way Stevie,it was an experiment that horribly 'back-fired' !
Although despite my own non-contribution,our own more junior players did put up some note-worthy resistance!
No fear at all...these young fellas !
Re Taito
I'm not really sure I follow your argument against my suggestion. If another section 1 club decided to play their pro then the premier league team could also have the option to play their pro. The decision would lie with the Section 1 club to decide on whether the pro should play. Ok, most of them would probably opt to play without the pros but in some cases like ours we dont mind even if it does reduce our chances of winning. This means its up to the underdog to decide which would make it fair and consistent across section 1 i.e other teams couldnt complain if they didnt go through because they would have the same rights as the section 1 team who played a pro and did go through.
Re Standards
The NCU have in the past been subjective in some of the decisions regarding pros and used common sense / the monitoring technique. It may not be the best way forward as you quite rightly say but there needs to be something in place to take into consideration differing playing standards. Perhaps the NCU should do their homework and possibly look into these differing standards as there is lots of coaching and cricketing potential from countries such as Sri Lanka. Lastly we didnt go for a professional from Australia etc because they are too expensive and we didn't have the budget. We are a small village club and find it hard enough to keep the club running so any professional we bring over to coach kids etc is a great achievement for us. Moreover, from experiences against other teams we find the Aussies etc are very different than say the Sri Lankans. The Sri Lankans that we have had have been very hard working and are pleasent and mannerly folk who want what is best for the club and are willing to go the extra step to achieve that.
"when I opened the batting and saw the young fella running in to bowl at me; I thought 'fill ur boots time' now!" - Vic, old chap, did your team reverse the batting order lol.
Fogot to mention, as it's 'Pro' debating time on here.... Again !
Our Pro/coach is non-fee paying and worth every penny of it !!!!!!
What a cracking cricket machine that Waringstown club must be !
First time playing against any of their sides albeit 'only' their 5ths this time ,but even so very impressive and when I opened the batting and saw the young fella running in to bowl at me; I thought 'fill ur boots time' now!
Blocked first four just about, cleaned bowled by an inswinging fifth...too good for me !
Just one thing lads... it's only half time,one nil to you's,but our 'Pro' wasn't playing, he will be on the return fixture over at the Lawn in a couple of weeks time !
@ Tubbsy - Who are CNSI, are they new this year?
Rodney, your point about the difference in standards from one country to another is valid. However, if we followed your proposal, it could be perceived to remove the objectivity from any NCU decisions (regarding pros)and doubtless, someone would scream blue murder if their pro was sent home (for being too good!) after investing so much to get them over here in the first place. Whilst the rule concerning Section 1 pros may not be perfect, it at least sets a standard that all clubs can follow. For example, if your club feels that the standard of cricket is better in Australia than in Sri Lanka, maybe they should opt for an Australian as their overseas player instead. I'm not having a crack at you because I can understand your frustration but the rules are there for all to follow. It would set a very dangerous precedent if the NCU were to start providing dispensation for such scenarios as your club is currently experiencing.
rodney, i would have to disagree that if both captains agree it should be ok. So what would happen if the section 1 team went through to the next round and some other team that was playing a premier league club who hadnt agreed to play pro's didnt? there wouldnnt be too much fair about that.
The rule may well be flawed but there is no way that it could mean if clubs agree it can be ignored.
Even though having a pro playing in the premier league team means it lessens the chance of an upset I firmly believe that if both captains decide then they should be allowed to play. We simply want to give our pro a game of cricket and would be willing to lessen our chances of a win if it meant our pro playing. (there pro would be playing too).
Regarding what the defination of a pro is, my opinion would be that he is the primary overseas player in the side who is also being paid to play. I know there may be some teams who pay more than 1 player but I think it's clear to the clubs themselves who their overseas professional is.
Even though I refer to our overseas cricketer as a professional he is not actually a professional, he is an amateur playing at amateur level in Sri Lanka.
This leads me on to another gripe I have with the rules. The rule about professionals for section 1 is that they cant have played regular or recent first class cricket in the past 3 years. This rule has been created without common sense in mind as first class cricketers in Sri Lanka playing second division would be a worse standard than more expensive pros in Australia playing non first class cricket. Basically the point I'm making is that the standard of first class cricketers in each country differs greatly. The rule allows certain professionals to play in Section 1 who can dominate the games and hit 1000 runs in a season but yet a professional who has scored less than 400 runs in a season is not allowed back because he played a few First Class games between seasons. The difference in quality between these two players is obvious however the worse player is not allowed to play.
Surely common sense should prevail here and the NCU should consider pros who have had previous experience in the NCU. They could base there decision on eligibility from the previous seasons performance and monitor them over the course of the forthcoming season. If they suddently turned in to world beaters they could then send them home.
Anyway, this is not a rant against the NCU but sometimes rules raise more questions than they do answers. Jeff also had a good point, sometimes clubs dont propose something at the AGM because they know the senior clubs will outmuscle the junior ones and it won't be passed.
Ok so in this debate the pro is the overseas player, but is this the same as far as the NCU is concerned? I would have thought that a pro is a pro and therefore those players paid to play should not be able to do so in Senior Cup!
Johnny, any team in the NCU can pay as many players as they want, in fact all 11 if that is their preference. However, you can only have one overseas playera and it is this person whom the rules refer to for both the league and cup.
re ryan
would u get rid of the clubturf
jeff, yeah the crowd were there to watch him bat so i had to spill it, peer pressure!!!
Re Andy / Craig...some ideas...
I think we currently have a good mix of comps. I still have a feeling with our weather there is maybe one competition too many, not sure which one I would drop though!
jeff - just an idea, but do u not think that for ur club's "biggest ever game" the schoolboys could just miss their school game? the start time for cup matches has been the same for as long as i can remember. if the boys cant prioritize what game is more important then its hardly the ncu's fault. i'm sure the school wud understand.
andy - alot of club cricket in south africa is 60 overs (maybe even 65) but they start at 9am, so not something i am keen to see introduced over here haha.
