Forum

James disagreement is GOOD. We need many differing views not Yes men. Also some great points made by every poster re the league structures. I just hope we have healthy open discussions at the roadshows next week. Cricket isn't and should never ONLY be about the Premier League. Re Section one or Premier Two as
is suggested I think it's great that such respected figures as Mark and Neil have come out with well thought out ideas.
Weather forecast not great for Saturday and Sunday so maybe more 20 over rearrangements.

Ed's response

Marty, I would love to think you're right but over the last few years the clubs have voted to restrict the number of attempts at rearrangements and shortened these to 20 overs, I don't think that really shows that people want to play more cricket...

Ed,

I agree with you and Marty. At first, I was amazed that the 20 over rearrangement rule was voted in, but on further reflection, we had a few terrible summers, weather wise, and the top teams, who had cup runs, were really struggling to get fixtures played. I think, at that stage, a lot of people were fed up; I know I was.

Thinking about Premier 2, it doesn't sit well with me that players could wake up on a beautiful June Sunday and have no option, but to play 20 overs. Could match 2 start as 50 overs and, in the event of poor weather, be reduced to 20 overs?

I also believe that given the lack of cup runs for Premier 2 teams, they should have 2 opportunities to rearrange matches so that players can get full value out of their subscriptions.

Neil, Hutchy and Marty here here.
8 team leagues belew premier league is absolute madness. More cricket you play the better you get not the less you play. Might try and tell the skipper im not praticing as much because it'll make me a better player!!
I for one don't want to be sitting on my arse on a sunny saturday mid july saying wish we had a game today.
I would also change league games to 40 overs starting at noon.

Ed,

Fair point made regarding voting for less re-arrangements, but perhaps this was in the aftermath of a particularly bad summer or if there were teams refusing to play Sundays?
Clubs will have to think long and hard about these proposals and actually know what they are voting for or against at the AGM. As we know, this isn't always the case.
The real issue is of how to get people to keep playing, take the game up or come back playing. Numbers are dwindling and would back up the theory that cricket in this country is a dying sport. There will obviously be success stories, but overall there are less people playing the game.
I for one don't think that by offering less, you get more.

Ivan - look at the experience of All Ireland rugby where it was purported to be "best-v-best". Now main emphasis is on the Ulster/Leinster/Munster teams and club rugby is nowhere. The large crowds that used to attend league matches are now at Ravenhill on a Friday instead of club matches on a Saturday - and the number of teams is continually being reduced. The mighty Malone who used to boast 12 - 14 teams is down to 4 or 5 is one example. there are so many similarities in the way our game is going. As for some clubs not providing teas - this is disgraceful as it is an integral part of the match although there is at least one club where this may not be a negative thing as their teas are awful. No names but I'm sure players will know who I mean!!

I think Neil and Hutchy cover everything well.

My own view is that if clubs below the Premier League vote for a reduction in teams, it's a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. Playing less games is not going to improve levels of competition or indeed the overall standard.
Premier League clubs have left everyone else behind. There are a number of contrubutory factors to this and it would take a long time to go through it, but that does not mean that everyone else in the NCU should be simply swept up in this.
I'm very much of the old school and believe that by playing more games, you actually get better. Best vs best is an ideology that may never happen and ultimately what would it produce? Irish players are primed from under-age teams or encouraged through the residency door. Club cricket produces very little by way of international cricketers anymore and is unlikely to in the future as Cricket Ireland continues to grow and employ more coaches etc throughout the island.
The main role of the union should be to provide what it's members want and I ultimately believe that all members of the NCU would favour playing more rather than less.

re:- neil cahill's post

i hope the new task force take neil's comments on board. very sensible views on how we need to move forward.

I have to agree with a few of the views proposed on this forum.

The league structure proposed by Neill Cahill seems like a good idea. We have to be careful not to offer too little cricket. We play cricket because we enjoy it.

I agree with the views of Mark Hutchinson as well. The whole focus seems to be on reducing the number of overs we play. Why reduce the number of full games? If a game is called off at the end of April why reduce it down to a 20 over game, when we have the rest of the summer to squeeze in a game (if the 21 day rule didn't exist)? Yes, flexibility in re-arrangements is needed, but this should not mean that teams have to play shortened.

As J Keenan says, we need to be careful that there is not too much of a gulf in class in Section 3. Keep games competitive.

The new rules introduced into Junior cricket have not worked entirely, as highlighted by Gordon. Dundrum have fallen victim of this. If one game is rained off, it automatically goes to a 20 over re-arrangement, depriving cricketers of full games. Even worse... if the game is called off a second time, the match is VOID. Neither team get any points, nobody gets to play any cricket!! Ludicrous.

We have until the end of Spetember to play, why not use it if necessary. If it means re-arranging the game numerous times, if the two clubs are happy, why not? With the current regulations, offering only one re-arrangement (a T20 at that), clubs will be punished, not for how they play, but for when they chose to arrange fixtures.

if there are less mataches will subs for each team at all the clubs be different?

Re: Senior League Structure

Excellent suggestions from Neil Cahill and Mark Hutchinson regarding the proposed changes to the league structure. I hope such suggestions are not overlooked at the roadshows and the current proposals not set in stone.

From a Section 3 point of view, teams currently play only 12 league matches of 50 overs. If the proposals are approved this will be reduced to 10 matches and will no longer play teams home and away. The suggestion has been to create a new competition for Section 3 teams to create more matches – presumably this will be T20? I don’t feel discussion on this can be put off until the fixture meetings as appears to be the case from reading the proposals. There does not appear to be much enthusiasm either from Section 3 players for more and more T20 matches at the expense of full matches.

I like Neil Cahill’s suggestion of keeping Section 1 at 10 teams but would go even further and keep Section 2 at 10 teams leaving 9 in Section 3. This would allow 16 league matches in Section 3 with home and away matches against teams. Inevitably there will be a few T20s if the weather intervenes. I feel that 11 teams would be too many in Section 3 with too wide a range in standards between the top and bottom of the league. Two up and two down could also be kept to avoid more meaningless matches towards the end of the season. The Twenty20 Shield could always be expanded into a knockout competition for the new Section 2 and 3.

I would be interested to hear other views from clubs in Section 2 and 3 regarding the changes but would feel that a larger Section 3 has less chance of being approved as teams will not vote to be relegated.

RE Ivan

We should be trying to promote clubs and not individuals

There will always be those who come and go for whatever reason, clearly you had yours - however that attitude aint for me or many or my teamates.

Cricket in this country is of a very very low standard, you could throw your cap over those who could actually "make it" - therefore the sooner we accept that and re-establish the clubs then maybe we can entice people to stay or come into the game.

I have to say Ivan, I fundamentally disagree with just about everything you said in that last posting.

Cricket like you describe would have me pushing a trolley round Tesco's on a Saturday...!

James, who ever you are I really don't understand your thinking or worse what is it your thinking ?
I would not promote a cradle to a grave attitude. I promote a "play at the highest level you can " attitude. If your original club's ambition doesn't match your own why should you stay ?
Muckamore is my club and always will be. However in the early 80's I got a chance to play in the top league with Saintfield and I went because I wanted to see if I could get wickets or score runs at that level. Simple. Otherwise why leave your friends and go 45 miles for a home match AND practice twice a week. Twenty odd years on and I still have friends from those days. A few years later I went to Ballymena again to play in the top flight and I still have many friends from those days. I had the pleasure of looking after the Colts team during that spell that included Neil Fullerton, Robert Kennedy , Michael Glass and John Glass who captained the side.Those guys were outstanding cricketers at that age.
I would never try and hold someone back in cricket or in a job if they have higher ambitions. We only live once and unfortunately that time in cricket playing years is relatively short. So it would be hypocritical for me to advocate a cradle to the grave scenario.
Now James if you are an official at a club concerned about losing players then I suggest maybe you need to get together with other officials and decide what you need to do to make sure your club matches the ambitions of these players and if you can't then wish them well and welcome them back at any time. We have a saying which is very true "there are no gates at Moylena". Remember it's no use crying over spilt milk.
We are scraping hard to survive in the Premier League this season and if we fail we will fight even harder to get straight back.

people are going to stop playing at all levels young and old if the task force(what players)get it wrong playing less cricket is not the way forward some leagues next year are going to be of a poor standard and when it dosent work what happens then?

Dundrum club is thriving because i went againest my princibles that pros be allowed play below PREMIER and still would agree that they SHOULD NOT but i will still raise the cash over the next ten years to coach our juniors over 50 under 11/13/15 and 4 primary schools even if they do ban them as i dont want a pro that dominates as its not what Dundrum require . Dundrum need to survive or compete as a TEAM not rely on a match winner.Academy are another example there coach dont bat before six and they have great structure in place as they go schools and have triving junior section, in my opinion its about getting the balance right over pro an team but il settle for getting it right at Dundrum before i try change the world . totally agree with neil cahil post only thing id add is 40 over CRICKET BELOW PREMIER .GOrdy is correct in saying the present rules for second team games are flawed bigtime as the pay same fees an want more games not less and that needs redressed . but the work pary have done their bit now its up to the clubs too vote the way they want . ive played 40 years but if i was starting now id guess id last 15 years maximum as we must move with the times relationships and work committments put more pressure on players than any FAST BOWLER or THE NCU.

RE Ivan

Please, the cradle to the grave scenario is exactly What you should be promoting FGS...!

The mobile society (what are you talking about)if it actually exists, it is a nonsense that those that no better should be castigating..

step back pal and smell the coffee...