Local league cricket
- Thread starter Stattos child
- Start date
Sunday 3rds encourages/ requires juniors and making them mandatory has probably forced the creation of several extra XIs. It's a good rule.
brandon
Striker
So why did you?
It’s a fantastic breeding ground for youngsters looking to make the step up to senior cricket.
Voice of fair play
Striker
Because I think one league that disagrees and criticises another for not letting a team progress, to then put in a criteria that could possibly mean a team cannot progress to their league is double standards, whoever them leagues maybe.
I disagree, that a club could work really hard to have a first team, second team and juniors, but will not be allowed in a league because they cannot find enough players to play on a Sunday afternoon for third team cricket, especially in this day and age with participation at a low ebb.
Its the lack of numbers that's the key point here, of course in a ideal world a lot of these are good, but when numbers drop considerably that's the time to change them
Don't think anybody will disagree with that, of course you are right.
However this should be optional not mandatory, I am not sure why making it mandatory will all of a sudden get enough players.
It could actually punish some clubs or stop them progressing because not enough players to get 3 teams out.
Last edited:
Stattos child
Full Back
Let's try and move on from dsl nepl debate. Lots of faults in both set ups. In terms of moving forward my personal view is mega clubs like hlcc and clscc whilst doing amazing work with juniors etc are preventing competition at a junior and 2nd xi level. I don't want these clubs to stop what they are doing but we may end up with junior leagues of 4 Or 5 teams in total. How about restricting clubs to school area recruitment would this help??
Outside junior cricket the players who jump clubs year on year following money or status need to be stopped. Could 2 year stipulations be brought in. This may stop downward spiral of some clubs as some players if they stayed would ensure promotion next year. Those who played at a decent level will understand this.
Also whilst on soapbox how do we stop old dsl dcl average cricketers getting paid and sucking money our of junior cricket that's a huge problem for me
Outside junior cricket the players who jump clubs year on year following money or status need to be stopped. Could 2 year stipulations be brought in. This may stop downward spiral of some clubs as some players if they stayed would ensure promotion next year. Those who played at a decent level will understand this.
Also whilst on soapbox how do we stop old dsl dcl average cricketers getting paid and sucking money our of junior cricket that's a huge problem for me
wicketkeeper
Striker
The senior league was not elitist. There were no stupid titles like director of coaching or players ponsing about in track suits. Just a good standard of entertaining cricket played by players with an affiliation to their local villages.
Players joined their home club or if they couldn't get in the team the next village . They didn't ponse around thinking which club has clubmark status or the best junior structure.
brandon
Striker
So it’s tracksuits you’re against is it? Or poncing around?
The Voice Of Reason
Striker
Never met a player yet that worried about a club having club mark when making a decision to sign
I am a Clubmark fan if I am honest. Ensuring coaches are qualified and not a risk to kids, and that the club is accessible to all genders/races etc surely cant be a bad thing. It really isn't that difficult to get.
The Voice Of Reason
Striker
Me as well that wasn't the point I was making
wicketkeeper
Striker
What I am against is a very effective league structure which had been effective for over 100 years being destroyed by an entity that was and is only concerned for themselves.
robkitchuk
Central Defender
I certainly agree certain clubs should be assigned certain schools, with each club being given schools based on size and set up etc. So for example a club like rainton could get two. Eppleton 5. With the best players then moving to higher standard academies to progress them.
It must have been attractive enough to entice clubs to join in the first place.
Clubs think of themselves first and rightly so. If the DSL was so good I wonder why so many decided to jump ship in the 90's and then again when NEPL1 was formed. If you ask the clubs in question I'm sure they wanted progression and not just tradition.
1 big problem That I agree with is money being thrown at average players can't be sustained. It happened in the DSL but not at the scale of today
Eggman
Winger
In actual fact it was a league structure that was only concerned for itself that was destroyed by a more 'senior' organisation.
If the 'oh so powerful' DSL committee had seen the bigger picture, instead of wanting to retain their closed shop, there might have been a much more harmonious move to the pyramid system.
A system which is in use all over the country.
To be fair to the committee it was the clubs who voted for decisions, the committee just made proposals.
The problem I thought that the people representing the clubs weren't clued up to the times and were representing their clubs past history and not the players who were currently playing.
Totally agree things may have been so much better had clubs reps listened instead of trying to block progress
Eggman
Winger
Fair enough, but who voted at club level. Did they involve the players and members or was it just the committee ?
My experience of the DSL committee, albeit 10 or so years ago, was that they thought they were an elite club and mostly out of touch with modern cricketers.
brandon
Striker
The Voice Of Reason
Striker
The irony of this post is f***ing marvellous
It's just unbelievable
This is one of the things that fills in my time in the run up to the new season. Which club certain cricketers will sign for next? For some players there aren't that many clubs left at the level that would pay them, that they haven't already played for
wicketkeeper
Striker
They saw the bigger picture alright. I remember speaking to our club representatives and they all said that they were concerned at the influence people like Geoff Cooke were having on the DSL and that there were people of influence who were only concerned with the County and not local cricket. The predictions they made at the time that the preoccupation of some influentiual individuals with the County would lead to the decline of local cricket have proved very accurate.
The irony of this post is f***ing marvellous
No irony at all the Durham Senior League were concerned with their clubs. The people concerned with setting up the pyramid system in the NE were totally preoccupied with the County and as a result club cricket has markedly declined as many predicted it would at the time.
They werent blocking progress. Many of the reps I spoke to were expressing views such as why is Geoff Cooke interfering in our league.?
The pedictions they made at the time have been reamrkably accurate. Many of them expressed the view that were influential people trying to interfere with the league who were solely pre-occupied with the County and that would lead to the decline of club cricket with many clubs going to the wall.
They have been proved totally right. I have spoken to some since who expressed the view that they have no sympathy with the plight of Durham as they were responsible for destroying club cricket in the region.
Last edited:
