…perhaps it was inevitable that the apathy should be reflected in the attendance at the annual dinner, and annual general meeting. But rain andIrelandgo hand in hand, and although the past season was particularly horrendous, it will still be rare to have seasons of bright sunshine and unaffected cricket. In simple terms, the show must go on, so we have to play the cards we are dealt, and have rules and regulations in place that provide solutions not additional problems.
As always, many of the proposals at this year’s AGM were routine tidying up of rules for more effective and practical management, some of which reflected the growing swell to play less cricket. However, several proposed changes were significant, but how the votes were cast sent out mixed messages.
The return of overseas players to the cup competitions has been on the cards for some time and should stimulate more interest. However, the decision to play a 20-overs game as a replacement for a postponed 50-overs league match is a negative step. A 20-overs bash is hardly what our senior league championship is all about, and this change is wide open to abuse, slap-wallop-and-bash cricket, and to the advantage of teams with a small number of specialist hitters. It will do nothing for bowlers, and the statistics of such matches will grossly distort the normal figures. Unfortunately this is a knee-jerk reaction to a wet summer, and while it may produce a quick result, it is not good for the overall development of the game.
Perhaps the biggest item on the agenda was the proposal to change senior cricket to sixteen teams within an overall eight-team league structure.This proposal received strong support and the fact that it was narrowly defeated by only two votes means that it has considerable merit. In the light of the numbers that supported the proposal, the development committee should be encouraged to pursue the initiative, albeit they may be disappointed that two more people voting on their behalf would have carried the vote.
Shame on those who supported the proposal but didn’t attend!
If 50 votes out of 86 are in favourof the new structure, then surely Andy Clement and his development team should now focus their attention again on direct consultation with the clubs that voted against, and ask them to review their thinking? If the proposerscan generate some additional support, then perhaps there would be enough commitment to go to a Special General Meeting and put the same proposal before the members again.
Some people might question this approach, but let’s not waste another year. After all, out of all the proposals put forward at this meeting, this was the only one that addressed the decline in the standard of senior cricket, and put forward a proposal to try and redress the trend. Of course, there’s no guarantee it will stop the rot, but focusing on sixteen clubs instead of twenty would help streamline the declining talent, and go some way to having the best players playing against the best players. It might also encourage some talented players from less ambitious junior clubs to move up the ladder, and while stalwarts might feel jilted by the exodus, they should look outside the box and encourage their best young players to better themselves at progressive clubs, rather than selfishly try to hold them. After all, if they don’t make it, then they can always return, and if anyone needs a shining example of how important this can be, then look no further than Andrew White’s move from Ards to North Down in the late nineties. Other Ards players have followed the same route for over fifty years, and the clubs have a good relationship.
Junior clubs have different aspirations and goals, but they are vital to the overall development of senior cricket as feeder clubs, and for nurturing talent to a certain level. However, they normally have limited facilities and resources, and they have different goals and objectives. Quite often they don’t aspire to be senior clubs, so let’s look after their interests in a different way from senior clubs. There is even a case for building stronger links, and for the senior clubs to assist their neighbouringfeeder clubs with resource and support.
AGMs aren’t the best forums for quality debate, but they produce decisions that we have to live and work with. Let’s hope there are more positives than negatives from this meeting, and that the re-structuring proposal is kept alive.
On another note congratulations to the union’s elected representatives and our thanks for putting your time and resources unselfishly forward in the interests of our sport, especially David Edwards who seems to sit on as many committees as the chairman!
Finally, congratulations to Ivan Anderson on being elected an Honorary Life Member of the union, as there are few cricketers who have served their sport with such distinction as both player and administrator than Ivan. He is truly one of our all time greats.
Clarence Hiles
Editor
