Eggman
Striker
You must have incredibly low standards !
I played there in 2003, bowled them out for 44 and then the heavens opened.
No covers, no sawdust, no inclination to play ..... but you would say that’s spot on ?
-
The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Seaham Harbour CC
- Thread starter The Voice Of Reason
- Start date
- Status
I played there in 2003, bowled them out for 44 and then the heavens opened.
No covers, no sawdust, no inclination to play ..... but you would say that’s spot on ?
matt_catchpennie
Midfield
I agree with your second point, second team on a Sunday would perhaps be a way forward, or changing the format.
But I don't see how some teams just having one team would hinder 2nd team cricket? In effect, instead of struggling teams fielding 2nd teams with 8 players, or with kids whom are not ready for adult cricket, surely it would in effect mean only clubs with strong structures and with strong enough 2nd teams would play each other, making the standard better? Perhaps in effect the 2nd team structure needs to be completely separate from the 1sts.
Both opinions are correct. The Harbour was a dump of a ground up to a decade ago because it was open and prone to vandalism. Improved beyond recognition in the last decade which is why it would be such a shame if all that effort was to go to waste.
Just their Annual Emergency meeting announcement to drum up some interest. I assume numbers are low so they are concerned whether they can find 22 on a Saturday.
Big daft centre half
Subs Bench
With all due respect Eggman 2003 was nearly 15 years ago. I also played there then, and yes, the facilities weren't the best. I have played there the past 4 years and the facilities and ground are top notch.The bar area is a credit to them aswell. I really wish them all the best for the future
Eggman
Striker
That’s fair enough and credit to them.
I was really meaning, there was obviously issues that held them back in 2003 and before, but while other clubs maybe didn’t want to over commit the Harbour possibly have done.
Once their recent upswing, on and off the pitch, has levelled off wouldn’t there be a good chance they’d refer to type ?
There are lots of well run clubs who have just kept going about their business
Completely agree with this. The NEPL are clear over what is required to be in the league, and there is nothing that says a club has to go to that level. Others seem to think this is hindering progress but surely to ensure the league is of the highest quality, you need clubs with plenty of players, and having a 3rd team surely reduces the strain on the 2nd team in the event of an injury crisis/bad holiday season. People will say that a club can have 15 good players in their whole club so why shouldn't they be allowed to compete at the highest level. My argument would be that this is completely unsustainable and one poor year could see that club unable to field a single XI, thus making a bit of a mockery of the leagues.
I hope Seaham Harbour come through this. They are a good club, with good people, and the facilities are decent these days.
This.
And it forces clubs to have junior set-ups etc. e.g. Am I right in thinking that Newcastle have had times without juniors but have one now (could have the club wrong)?
Agree always a good set of lads at the Harbour and not all clubs have ambitions to progress to NEPL because of the cost of paying players if you wish to compete. Does having 3 senior teams however not mitigate against juniors progressing through the ranks?
Personally I think the opposite. Done properly, second XI cricket serves 3 purposes in my opinion. You have players who have designs on a first team slot, with the potential to do so. You have genuine 2nd teamers. And finally you have young lads coming up from Junior/3rd XI cricket, trying to progress, ultimately challenging for the 1st team or finding their place in the 2s. So for me a perfect 2nd XI would include players falling into all of those categories, even if it means some of the upcoming kids taking the places of some of the older, more experienced players where necessary. If done properly then the 3rd XI can be made up of a couple of experienced lads who maybe dont make the 2s any more, with quite a few younger players who are learning how to play the longer form of the game.
Granted this needs to be managed properly, and you need buy in from players - but in my experience when you are open and transparent with everyone, and have the numbers to back this up, it really does work. The last thing any club should aim for is a second team full of older players, and a third team completely full of kids. I actually think this approach sees the likes of South North/Benwell Hill etc fall down a bit. You play against their second teams and there isnt a promising youngster in sight. With a little more foresight they may bring a couple through into their first teams and save themselves a few quid at the same time.
A 3rd XI imposed of mainly youngsters with a few experienced heads to guide them is the ideal scenario as it gives youngsters their 1st experience of the longer form with the step up not being so great. It's 3 senior teams monopolising the use of the ground at weekends that is my objection.
Voice of fair play
Striker
I think the point is missed here.
Everything in your post makes perfect sense and logic if they were enough players who wanted to play cricket on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon.
There is one major problem numbers are dwindling and teams can't get enough players, you talk about the make up of youngsters and senior players in second and third teams, a lot of clubs can't find enough players never mind getting the right balance!!
If leagues such as the NEPL continue with strict criteria then eventually they will just have a handful of certain teams in the league with a closed shop, which is the very thing they fought against when first formed.
B
Buchans Boots
Guest
I'm amazed that no one has faced up to an inevitable truth - there are too many cricket clubs chasing too few players.
Aye but if you shrink the number of clubs you shrink the number of junior systems, then 10 years later the number of seniors shrinks again due to the lower junior numbers and you're in a horrible cycle.
I think the likes of the DCL and top Northumberland leagues should give clubs say 2 years to get at least one junior side fielded, and a second side a couple of years after that. Go to a lower league if you fail to do so. That way by 2022ish you'd have at least got back to having good numbers feeding into the bottom of the system again.
B
Buchans Boots
Guest
Some of them dont even have junior systems - thats the problem.
If you dont have a junior system then perhaps you shouldnt be allowed to play in a league.
Agreed.
They can change format, start times etc as much as they want to wring an extra couple of years out of the older lads but it doesn't solve the underlying structural issue i.e. there are less kids picking up a bat than a generation ago.
So I guess the NEPL can be seen as a good example where they are forcing the hand of clubs to develop junior sides and 3rd teams?? Stops clubs being lazy and just give up and not try harder with junior set ups?
Unfortunately it has become survival of the fittest with clubs looking after number instead of the wider game which is shocking in my opinion. But we can’t have it both ways I guess, we either encourage (or force in the NEPLs case) clubs to build sustainable foundations where obviously they will look after number 1, or we have a flexible system where teams can chop and change whether they have juniors or 2XI teams but the numbers continue to Drop and standards keep on falling.
But let’s blame the NEPL for the national shortage of players......
Voice of fair play
Striker
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying, maybe there is an argument to slightly lower the standards. But as far as I can see, the criteria of having to have 3 senior teams means the club are showing they can satisfy fixtures in the foreseeable, and requiring a junior set up means clubs cannot just come along with a sugar daddy who finances a superstar XI, with no regard for the rest of the club (ie 2nd/3rd/junior development), get them to the top, then destroy the club once he or she loses interest. That IMO is the intention of the NEPL. To give clubs the opportunity to rise to the top, but not to the detriment of their junior section, and not getting an unfair advantage by investing heavily in their 1st team whilst other clubs think of the future.
- Status
