The Voice Of Reason
Striker
If a team isn't good enough to bowl the other team out tuff luck
Clubs unable to get 22 players out on a Saturday
- Thread starter hello
- Start date
- Status
If a team isn't good enough to bowl the other team out tuff luck
SAFC2403
Striker
But it's up to you to bowl them out. It's not their fault. I don't see why you should win if you can't bowl them out.
I batted 11 the other week for the 1s and the amount of balls I didn't have to play at was silly. If you don't bowl a side out you don't deserve to win imo.
shkatërrues
Midfield
I love bowling at teams trying to save a draw as well as grafting hard to save one. Enjoyed many a game where you've tried everything to get that last wicket but they've hung on or you've just got it in the last few. And the respect you get at the end for lads who hang in makes it the game it is
Take away the draw and you take away that special something for me. Make batsmen retire and you make it easy for bowlers. If they're smashing you about think about how you get them out not wait until they have to retire
Less overs might work well lower down the 2nd leagues, getting people involved in a way that suits, they catch the bug and want to play better standards and longer days. Then the premier league 2nd divisions can still have the longer overs so that younger players can get the experience of longer cricket, playing for points etc
Ageing trundler
Midfield
General agreement then that you'll play in a format of your choice and less overs is the way forward to ensuring clubs lower down the system don't fold. Making the decision to progress with the latter is a different problem altogether.
The Voice Of Reason
Striker
Another part of it is the lads who are perhaps what is best described as not front line players who hardly get a bowl and bat down the order. They just think why bother giving my Saturday up to stand in a field and pay subs when I could be doing other things.
shkatërrues
Midfield
This is the main difficulty and it's understandable. People play cricket to participate. Not fetch the ball back for the others that are actually playing.
It's a real fine balance between utilising your best players to win games and keeping everyone involved
If it were a change that was made you might find a fair bit of movement with lads wanting g to play longer overs going up leagues and then lads that want shorter games dropping down standards.
Might increase the standards across the board. Or it might be a gigantic fuck yo that takes years to settle
Last edited:
Rick O Shea
Striker
I think the same sort of problems are facing clubs across the country.
We have 'social minded' club playing in Aberdeenshire Grade 3 (generally up against bigger clubs' seconds and thirds). We're in a fortunate position of having a reasonably big pool of players to pick from - even then it can be struggle to get 11 players out. Other clubs are less fortunate - there were quite a few new teams set up recently by ex-pat Asian lads - but many of them have moved on with the oil down turn.
We play 90 over games on Saturday - maximum 45 per side. We used to have a draw - if you declared or bowled the other team out cheaply you got to use their 'spare' overs - but that was voted out (people didn't like it when the side batting second dug in) and now it's a straight win or lose. We had an 'activated' draw for a couple of seasons which was a good compromise - the team batting second had to get 75% of the first teams runs to earn the draw.
A really positive move this year has been the introduction of a Sunday 'recreational & development' league aimed at getting old blokes who haven't played for years back into the game as well us bringing through juniors. Flexible rules up to a point, 20, 30 or 40 overs depending on weather, common sense to be used when bowling, loaning players between clubs - that sort of thing. Hopefully that will bring more players in (particularly youngsters - they're the future of the game after all). Both my lads are keen to play - but they have competing interests which makes it difficult to either get to practice or be able to commit to a full day playing.
We have 'social minded' club playing in Aberdeenshire Grade 3 (generally up against bigger clubs' seconds and thirds). We're in a fortunate position of having a reasonably big pool of players to pick from - even then it can be struggle to get 11 players out. Other clubs are less fortunate - there were quite a few new teams set up recently by ex-pat Asian lads - but many of them have moved on with the oil down turn.
We play 90 over games on Saturday - maximum 45 per side. We used to have a draw - if you declared or bowled the other team out cheaply you got to use their 'spare' overs - but that was voted out (people didn't like it when the side batting second dug in) and now it's a straight win or lose. We had an 'activated' draw for a couple of seasons which was a good compromise - the team batting second had to get 75% of the first teams runs to earn the draw.
A really positive move this year has been the introduction of a Sunday 'recreational & development' league aimed at getting old blokes who haven't played for years back into the game as well us bringing through juniors. Flexible rules up to a point, 20, 30 or 40 overs depending on weather, common sense to be used when bowling, loaning players between clubs - that sort of thing. Hopefully that will bring more players in (particularly youngsters - they're the future of the game after all). Both my lads are keen to play - but they have competing interests which makes it difficult to either get to practice or be able to commit to a full day playing.
On the debate of format (overs or win/lose), I just think leagues need to be flexible, and use the format most are in favour of. There is no doubt that the majority of those in the Premier League favour overs based cricket, although there is no real issue as the majority of those clubs don't struggle with numbers. Further down the pyramid though why not give players what they want. If the Durham League players were surveyed and were in favour of 45 overs win/lose, then why not change things around. Even if just the second teams revert to this format should there be an appetite for it.
On the note of players standing around in the field and not batting/bowling, this one has to be down to the clubs themselves. Retiring at 50 and 5 overs max would be a shambles IMO, but there is no reason clubs cannot ensure more people are given a chance to bowl and bat by moving orders around.
My personal opinion is that we should be moving to an NYSD style model, to ensure clubs aren't forced under with an inability to field 2 senior teams. Clubs should have the option to enter 1 or 2 teams, with the 2nd XI fitting into the pyramid structure in their own right. Naturally, you cannot have 2 teams in the same division, but within a few seasons the standard will be levelled out, and clubs won't feel pressured to field more than 1 team on a Saturday.
On the note of players standing around in the field and not batting/bowling, this one has to be down to the clubs themselves. Retiring at 50 and 5 overs max would be a shambles IMO, but there is no reason clubs cannot ensure more people are given a chance to bowl and bat by moving orders around.
My personal opinion is that we should be moving to an NYSD style model, to ensure clubs aren't forced under with an inability to field 2 senior teams. Clubs should have the option to enter 1 or 2 teams, with the 2nd XI fitting into the pyramid structure in their own right. Naturally, you cannot have 2 teams in the same division, but within a few seasons the standard will be levelled out, and clubs won't feel pressured to field more than 1 team on a Saturday.
SAFC2403
Striker
Werent the members of the DCL surveyed and timed cricket won? Also would having the 2nds in the structure in their own right cause massive issues with fixture scheduling? its easy as it is now as the fixtures are simply reversed but that wouldnt necessarily apply in your example.
good ideas though
I
Icarebecauseyoudo
Guest
How does moving orders around work?
The best batsman always want to bat in the top order. They are generally as stubborn as fuck
Clubs could sort out players who never get to be involved, but they never do
It would be a challenge but surely possible. On a smaller scale the Premier League already has it in that 1st and 2nd teams are promoted/relegated in their own right. So fixture wise it isnt as simple as mirroring the 1st teams. Agreed it will be more challenging with more divisions but in essence one team is home and one away, surely there is a way of sorting it.
I agree and guess the higher up the structure you go, the less opportunity there is to do it. However, further down the pyramid there must be a way of mixing things up a bit. If a batsman is intent on bashing 100s every week at a level much lower than he could play at, then he needs telling to give someone else a chance, or step up to a more appropriate level. I have played quite a bit of 1st and 2nd team cricket over the years and hate seeing these blokes who wont progress past poor 2nd team level as they want to bash it all over every week, without challenging themselves.
Last edited:
Greavsie
Striker
This is an excellent discussion and demonstrates how differently people view the game
A few opinions:
Timed cricket keeps the game interesting. I watched a 2s game a few years ago where the side batting first scored 290. The other team was never going to score this as long as their backsides were facing downwards. Instead, realising that the win was unlikely, they battled hard for the draws, getting their heads down rather than throwing wickets away, playing stupid shots. They were 8 down at the end and the game remained interesting until the final over. Take away this element and the game becomes all about scoring runs and less about taking wickets.
I'd investigate promotion and relegation in 2s cricket in DCL rather than having them in pyramid. There are huge mismatches each week which could be avoided with some sensible decisions. The PL have done this with Sunday 3s this year, splitting the division into 3. Getting XI on park is harder if you know your gonna get dicked.
Keep retirements for social cricket. It devalues a game and actually can be a huge leveller putting some teams at a disadvantage.
I'm not convinced any capt turns up on a Saturday determined not to give everyone a good opportunity to bat or bowl. Sometimes the game situation dictates the choices that he makes which is unfortunate. That said, he needs to keep a close eye on how often this happens. Most lads can only play sat or sun. I'd hate to be that lad who bats 10/11 and pays his match fee to field. That said, I'd happily do it as a favour to help out now and again. Its swings and roundabouts and needs a sensible captain and VC to try and keep everyone happy.
A few opinions:
Timed cricket keeps the game interesting. I watched a 2s game a few years ago where the side batting first scored 290. The other team was never going to score this as long as their backsides were facing downwards. Instead, realising that the win was unlikely, they battled hard for the draws, getting their heads down rather than throwing wickets away, playing stupid shots. They were 8 down at the end and the game remained interesting until the final over. Take away this element and the game becomes all about scoring runs and less about taking wickets.
I'd investigate promotion and relegation in 2s cricket in DCL rather than having them in pyramid. There are huge mismatches each week which could be avoided with some sensible decisions. The PL have done this with Sunday 3s this year, splitting the division into 3. Getting XI on park is harder if you know your gonna get dicked.
Keep retirements for social cricket. It devalues a game and actually can be a huge leveller putting some teams at a disadvantage.
I'm not convinced any capt turns up on a Saturday determined not to give everyone a good opportunity to bat or bowl. Sometimes the game situation dictates the choices that he makes which is unfortunate. That said, he needs to keep a close eye on how often this happens. Most lads can only play sat or sun. I'd hate to be that lad who bats 10/11 and pays his match fee to field. That said, I'd happily do it as a favour to help out now and again. Its swings and roundabouts and needs a sensible captain and VC to try and keep everyone happy.
shkatërrues
Midfield
You tend to find the higher up the structures you go the more it sorts itself out. You normally get picked in teams to perform certain roles batsmen/bowler/keeper and the odd week you wont be needed but generally you get a go
It's where people are filling in and filling the gaps. It's the captains job to make sure they're involved though and feel part of it but it helps if you've got good young players that come in and bat in the top 6 if they're bats or bowl a decent spell if they're a bowler
Big fish syndrome needs to be dealt with by clubs don't ya think? You pick em in first teams and if they don't play there they don't play? It you ask them to step aside fir a new young player? You'll probably annoy a lot doing this but if they're club guys or cricket lovers they'll understand or they're t**ts and complain
The Voice Of Reason
Striker
We had a situation on Saturday where because of circumstances 4 lads had to step up to firsts one lad is a 12 overs 2 for 36 type of lad opens the bowling then bats 11. Saturday he batted 11 and didn't get a bowl could fully understand this as the match situation was tight and the captain wanted to maintain control. Not much fun for the number 11 but as a one off not a real problem it's when it's regular that lads get pissed off
Ageing trundler
Midfield
There is an argument to make all league cricket a '5 bowler' affair. All FC cricket does this. League cricket should follow IMO.
SAFC2403
Striker
Absolutely no point in taking someone like that and not bowling them or batting them. Just pisses them off and when they next get asked they won't want to do it. This creates a them and us attitude a team clubs(and I've seen it at all the clubs I've played at)
The Voice Of Reason
Striker
The point I was making was as a one off lads have to see the bigger picture but it's not sustainable in the longer term.
So difficult finding a niche for everybody in the team
Ageing trundler
Midfield
I've experienced that situation TVOR. It's OK once, maybe twice a season. More acceptable if you win but quietly, under the surface, you're fuming with the futility of it all.
matt_catchpennie
Midfield
Think this is done at all clubs at somepoint during a season to be fair.
Although when I was captain and we had to do this I would make a point to at least give the person a opportunity in their chosen discipline, as hard as it may be in a tight game I think it's more important to keep someone interested with a few overs then to just ignore them, if they get slapped take them off and have a word, usually they would understand. And if someone bats for the seconds then let them have a chance in the top 6, usually it meant that I would put myself down the order, but I think that's the responsibility you take on as captain.
shkatërrues
Midfield
In earlier years I'd often taken the stance of if you're taking me out of the twos to play ones I want to bowl/bat depending why you've taken me because you're taking away a guaranteed bat and bowl for me but everyone has to take their turn for a TFC at some point
I always dropped down the order to let others have a bat but never gave up a bowl for them, that was why I was there and how I enjoyed my cricket. Yeah captains have to sacrifice but they have to enjoy as well, where's the reward for the shitty week you've had getting a team together if not with cricket
But I do agree in general a couple of overs here and there is easy to give away. although I had to serve my time as a young un fielding for senior teams knowing I wasn't getting a sniff of a bat or a bowl, felt like when I did get a chance I deserved it
- Status
