Forum

Davy,
A bit catty and personal don't you think?
Everybody can run somebody else's club better than their own these days and expressing an opinion in a pubic forum takes a bit of courage. You even agree with the comments. Let's hear something more positive than a dig at your peer.

I was disappointed to read the comments in the News Letter on Saturday from a Section 1 captain who belittled the standard of cricket in this division. The standard is decreasing yes, no question but maybe he should be looking closer to home at his own team and how they would be shaping up without their professional plus 2-3 other hired guns who I doubt are there just for the challenge of playing every game away from home.

Maybe the selectors at his club should also to reflect why they have a skipper who rarely bowls and bats 11.. club development isnt just about results in the short term but maybe running nets in a shopping centre will see to that.

As a skipper of Academy IIs for the past four years, I agree strongly with the need to revise Division 2. I had hoped the proposed 8 team leagues right through would have passed at last years AGM as this would have sorted the problem of the huge gulf in class between the top and bottom teams in 2-3, and the unsatisfactory nature of playing each team only once.

I have considered straight through promotion through connecting 2-3 with 3-1 but struggle to see this either working well or passing any AGM.

Assuming the 8 team leagues motion is proposed again this year, this would solve the problem. However in case it is defeated I agree that we should propose the move to 10, 8, 8, 7 as a good interim solution.

As a secondary issue, I am wary of the suggestion of shortening the length of league matches. T20 matches are great, but so are 50 over games. I would rather league games were kept at 35-50 overs in length with perhaps fewer of them and then the expansion of separate T20 leagues.

I was saddened to hear of the passing of Club Patron Sammy Haire when I was at North Down on Sunday.

On behalf of both the NCU and my Club Carrickfergus, I would like to pass on our sincerest condolences to Robin, Ryan, Andrew, and the family circle.

Dundrum cricket club would like to pass on condolences to Robin ,Ryan and Andrew and their family on the sad loss off their father . May he rest in peace .

On behalf of CIYMS C.C. I would like to pass on the condolences of the club to Robin and his family on the passing of his father, Sammy.

I agree with M Parks that 10,8,8,7 appears to be the sensible way to go in Division 2. To achieve this would only require a very simple amendment to Competition Rule F3 omitting "and II" in the fourth line. Perhaps some club can take this on board for this year's AGM if they feel strongly enough about it?

On behalf of NIACUS could I express our deepest sympathy to Robin, Ryan, Andrew and the wider family circle on the recent passing of Sammy, one of our Vice Presidents. Sammy will always be remembered as a gentleman who always had a kind word for the umpires on each and every occasion.
Noel McCarey
NIACUS Chairman

Comment

M Parks – a quick synopsis of some topics that were discussed:
8 team leagues from Division 2 Section 1 down, the implementation of straight through leagues up to Division 2 Section 1, the current rearrangement policy of postponed/abandoned games – perhaps to introduce one rearrangement only with this being a T20 game with it being played during the week only, a sliding scale of overs per game starting at perhaps 50 per side in Division 2 Section 1 and ending at perhaps 30 overs per side in what is now Division 3 Section 5 and starting lower league games earlier so that they are finished earlier.

Those are just a flavour of what was discussed – hope it helps the debate - i'll update again after our next meeting

Andy Clement

Response

What about two seperate Divisions below Div 2 Section 2, one for teams wanting 40 over cricket and one for teams wanting 20 over cricket...

While I would be in support of the introduction of straight through promotion and T20 games for matches that have been rained off so they can be re-arranged in midweek, I would be against earlier starting times and the two league ideas, though the first one could be because i normally have a hangover on a saturday morn, and the second one is because it taks me 10 - 15 overs now before I "get in" with the bat, so purely selfish on my behalf :-)

T/20 -v- 20 over matches. Andy Clement mentions this in his posting and I wonder if he is indeed referring to a 20/20 game or a 20 over match. Indeed this morning's Newsletter reported that North Down defeated CSNI in a T/20 game when it was in fact a Match 2 as defined in the NCU rules.

M Parks – a quick synopsis of some topics that were discussed:
8 team leagues from Division 2 Section 1 down, the implementation of straight through leagues up to Division 2 Section 1, the current rearrangement policy of postponed/abandoned games – perhaps to introduce one rearrangement only with this being a T20 game with it being played during the week only, a sliding scale of overs per game starting at perhaps 50 per side in Division 2 Section 1 and ending at perhaps 30 overs per side in what is now Division 3 Section 5 and starting lower league games earlier so that they are finished earlier.

Those are just a flavour of what was discussed – hope it helps the debate - i'll update again after our next meeting

Andy Clement

Re: Andy Clement

Would it be possible to let us know of any of the suggestions made at this meeting?

I would like to guage opinion on this and see if something could be changed. One sided matches aren't good for any team. From our perspective at Victoria, if we play our socks off in haf the games, we will porbably lose, meaning that we have to target 4-6 games a season that we know will be evenly balanced. Would it not be better that every week the outcome of the game is in the balance, depending on who performs on the day?

As you say, a club having to switch from a 12 game season to a 18 game season will always put a strain on playing resources.

I would like to add my support to the comments regarding the need to change the current Division 2 Section 3 structure.
The first issue is the spread of ability across the 13 teams leading to many one sided games. The second is that while there are maybe 2-3 teams that are too strong for the section they are often not strong enough for the section above either in playing ability or in playing resources.Having to move to an 18 game league season puts considerable pressure on the player resources of any club promoted from Section 3. My own club,Cregagh, had first hand experience of this in 2009.
It seems to me that there is a section missing in Division 2 and that this could be solved by evening out the numbers as suggested in other postings.

Andy Clemment,
Sorry Andy, I have got you confused with the other Andy (McCrea), it was youself who put up a robust and vigorous case as to the changes I mentioned in my last post at the previous A.G.M. and not A. McCrea, although sounds like he would agree as well, so maybe no harm done.

Apologies to you both !