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.
Can a club just not decide not to get a pro?
Personally i think pros are good for clubs and cricket. You should learn from them, learn about other cricket and utilise them to enhance the skill sets in the game. The right pro can be the nucleus of a good team/club development. Taimar Khan, Ewen Thompson, Kamal Merchant etc etc over the years have been great ambassadors.
Whilst I dont know the background Bangor do not seem to have had a pro/coach for a few years and a great club with a proud tradition is losing players to other clubs and its status in Div 1 is under threat. It is not fair to use an example but why is this happening? Could a pro/coach have helped provide the nucleus of a club while an era retires and kids come through and develop?
There are pros and cons but fundamentally each club has an income stream and it is accountable to its members as to how it spends it. If a club wants to spend money on machinery etc as part of a medium term strategy then surely that is up to the club. Whether pros are banned or not by the union will not matter.
If that means missing a pro for a year then that is a clubs choice.
You would find if pros are banned that there is always a back door and those clubs worried will find local players to pay via non club funds etc so it wont matter that much in many ways if pros are banned. money would still be spent
re Michael Kennedy
Best post ever on this site. Let the clubs find their level and get folk enjoying the game again instead of relying on 1,2 or however many overseas players. Plenty of quality local coaches out their.
Hope the end of the summer is better for all of you Groundsmen.
I have no intention to re-open previous debates re the pros & cons of professionals but the outworking of the reduction of the Premier League to 8 teams means a reality check for one of those sides that have in previous seasons been "cushioned" by the usual suspects for relegation. One of the big spenders is for the drop!
Re Matthew
Noon starts are one of the reasons why I am intending to say this season will be my last as a player (or at least regular player).
To have to leave the house at 9am or 9.30 to go to a game in august that is over by 4.30 after the full allotment of overs is in my opinion ludicrous.
For 30 - 35 over games a 2pm start at any time of the year is plenty early enough, and it means that players can often take their children to the pool or park or whatever before going to the game, or can get the grass cut or flowerbeds weeded thus earning brownie points from the Boss.
One of the reason why i feel so many people are turning away from playing the game is early starts and too much Sunday cricket, meaning that those that are available to play both days often work all week, then have to leave the house at 9am or shortly after for an away game on both saturdays and sundays, not good for a Work life - Cricket life balance, quite a few girls in my younger day were willing to let me go play cricket on a saturday as they knew we would be doing something on a sunday, now it is both days.
glad to see Michael Kennedy speaks more sense than his da!!
Re Ken Simms
I have to say I like Holywoods thinking on the overseas players issue. I honestly think the money could be better spent elsewhere. Having taken over doing the ground at Muckamore at the start of this season i've had my eye opened to the need for ongoing investment in machinery, training etc. If you ask any player in the country what their wishes would be i'd bet in the top one or two answers would be to play on better pitches, yet thousands of pounds gets spent every year getting pro's to keep teams in whatever league they find themselves in, and for what reason??
Surely we need to think more long term, invest in facilities, get the kids playing on better surfaces and we'll see better home grown talent coming through. Having seen first hand the coaching the likes of Hinky can provide, the hiring overseas coaches arguement doesn't hold water to me either.
Say the average section one club is paying a pro between 8 and 10 grand a season, i'd be pleased if I had half of that as a budget for even one season to get some new machinery.
What are the priorities here folks? Do clubs get pro's because all the other clubs in the league do? Surely if we banned pro's from section one down, it's a level playing field? How many times do we hear that once the pro is out the game is effectivley over? Premier league is a different kettle of fish to me, but below it we need to take a step back, stop thinking of the short term gains of our individual clubs, and think of what sort of structure we are leaving for the next generation of players.
editor my posts were ideas looking for DEBATE on overs/pros /dl/ power plays as to see if it worth proposing at AGM ,so think its good chance for anyone on this forum to voice there views .
No issue with debate Jeff, just emphasising that a lot of these issues have been talked to death for a couple of years!
IPS
ref ken what about no pros at all senior cricket kept at 50 overs junior 40/35/35 people will play no team will struggle to get 11 players 12 start from the first game of the season need to be changes believe me if not cricket will be the big loser
Guys, it is broken record time - get the clubs to propose rule changes and then the clubs can make changes!
Jeff and Ivan
Myself and my clubmates at Holywood would tend to agree with the suggestion about no overseas players below the Premier League.
In general more money should be directed towards grounds, facilities, and home-based youth coaching.
My own personal view regarding 40 over games is that they are favourable to 50 overs, but that's mainly due to my advancing years!!!
I would maintain 50 over games for Premier League, Senior League 1 (and possibly Junior League 1). A maximum of 40 overs (or less) for everyone else.
RE: Graham Cup Final
The final has been postponed and will now take place at Carrick on 15th Aug with a 1pm start.
re vcc the reason i would want reduce below premier to 40 over games is simple as more players are struggling to give up quality family , after working all week and time it takes travel its a 10/12 hour day which was ok in my era but the modern WAG will not put up for . If i was starting my playing career theres no chance of playing 40 yrs and still be in a relationship. my suggestion is just for debate and as i say whats to lose if revert back if clubs dont like it? Ivan i can only talk of my club id love to see play in premier but simple fact is they not near good enough and to be honest it can ruin a club season and long term unless you have a big committed squad you have no chance of competing and better still enjoying your cricket and can possibly have bad affect or seconds moving up 8 standards in our case . I think theres only 4 clubs that even have remote chance of making or WANTING into premier Lurgan/Woodvale/Downpatrick/Muckamore AND GOOD LUCK to them . Im not being defeatest just realistic on what is best for my owns clubs future . Im sure Bangor enjoyed their excellent stint up there and Derriaghy but its what happens after and id be keen see how Carrick will want to go back up as the 8 team premier is getting tougher to even win couple of games .This is my own personal views and not a club but id ban professionals below premier, id also still employ a good coach for going schools and junior nights and look for NCU help with there various coaches maybe helping junior clubs and try . Also try upgrade the ground and facilities yearly and keep the beloved game of cricket moving forward.
Talk of clubs not being able to fulfil fixtures. Well Muckamore fielded four teams yesterday ( on a Sunday )and I cant remember the last time we had to scrap a fixture.
I think the secret for us is that we probably have more players aged 40 plus playing every week than any other club and we are pro active in getting games rearranged, because WE WANT to play. I think the NCU worked hard to make Junior cricket more appealing by reducing games to 40 overs, allowing 20 over re arrangements etc. Its now up to the clubs to get a few old hands back on the pitch.I might be 55 in a few weeks time ( actually I will be captaining our 2nds in the Ulster Plate final on my birthday and in the Intermediate Cup final the previous day) and I am loving every minute of every game but especially helping 14 year olds like Sam Gordon and Calum Weir develop when the opportunity arises.
The NCU have done their bit so now the clubs need to do their bit. Maybe a bit more recognition of Junior cricket would help.
I'm not sure about reducing Senior League One to 40 overs though. I think that clubs in that league should have Premier League ambitions. Maybe a rebranding as Premier League One and Premier League Two needs to happen.
Re: Jeff
Do clubs below Premier want 40 over cricket? I'm not sure less cricket is what cricketers want. It may be what people who aren't that fussed on cricket want... but surely a 1st XI at any club is made up of people who want to play cricket.
I also don't think one chance to rearrange is a good idea. The fewer voided fixtures we have the better. Nobody wants a league title, promotion or relegation decided on void fixtures.
To Peter :
May I say very well done for the many years of success you have brought to North Down CC.
I'm sure that Ryan and any subsequent 1st XI captains will benefit greatly from your support and years of valuable experience.
Right as someone who has playing 40 years im looking debate on 40 over cricket below PREMIER? id try it 1year then ask clubs what they prefer . no power plays 1 re arrangement with 5/6 weeks play it let clubs sort out on decent weather forecast ? premier clubs should be voting on what they want not all the clubs = bit radical but cant see how lowest clubs vote on what the biggest clubs want and need to be playing ? BY the way its just few ideas wether they silly or not any views?
