Forum

section 2 team:

some interesting teams out there:

1. D Kennedy
2. S Sharkey
3. R Owens (just because you just joined our hockey club dickie)
4. J Kennedy
5. A. Kirkpatrick
6. P.Mccormick
7. D. Mullan
8. M. Taylor
9. I. Cleland
10. M Glass
11. L Connor

Quite a hard choice as not too many had an outstanding season stats wise.

Stand out batsman was DK without a doubt, and big Lee certaintly had a great season with the ball. Acouple of all rounders in there in dale and fluter who probably both would have liked to have scored more runs to go with their wickets.

Interesting to see the old team of the year debate started again. I have to say I find it unbelievable that Lee Connor hasn't made it in to anybodys side yet. Leading wicket taker in section 2 by a country mile he is without doubt the best opening bowler in the section. Saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and perhaps some of the better players didnt have great games against some opposition. It would be interesting to see the final stats for the section as I dont believe they are all on yet.

Anyway, from personal experience my team of the year would be:

1) D Kennedy
2) S Johnston
3) S Sharkey
4) J Kennedy
5) B Dunlop
6) A Kirkpatrick
7) J Maguire
8) A Bassett
9) M Taylor
10) M Glass
11) Lee Connor

Interesting that M Shannon has decided to select S Dunlop, Stephen has not played for a few years now ;-) I think you mean B Dunlop.
Also intersting that you have overlooked L Connor too and picked so many Ballymena players...are you look for a contract at Eaton Park for 2009 maybe?

My NCU Premier League Team of the Year:

1 R Haire
2 J Montgomery
3 N Jones
4 R West
5 J Shannon
6 D Heasley
7 P Shields * +
8 R Eagleson
9 E Moleon
10 A Coulter
11 M Moreland

RE - Kyle Scott Section 2 Team of the year

S.Sharkey H/WOOD
C.Williams B/MENA
D.Kennedy B/MENA
J.Kennedy B/MENA
A.Kirkpatrick W/VALE *
S.Dunlop M/MORE *
P.McCormick H/WOOD
W.Pearson L/VALE
N.Gill M/MORE
M.Glass B/MENA
M.Taylor B/MENA

* - Undecided who would keep between Kirkpatrick and Dunlop but both would make it for their batting alone.

12th man S.Johnston W/VALE

Kyle,
Although I am totally biased, I would have to add Lee Connor to your team. He ended the season with over 40 wickets and he should probably be your opening bowler!

Section 2 team of the year.
All the talk was of how competitive this section would be this year - looking at the facts should start a good debate on team of the year in section 2. As an on looker, here is my choice, with no pros:
S Sharkey - Holywood; R Owens - Saintfield; D Kennedy - Ballymena; J Kennedy - Bmena; S Johnston - Wvale; A Kirkpatrick - Wvale; P McCormick - Hwood; D Mullan - Dpatrick; N Gill - Mmore M Glass - Bmena; M Shannon - Hwood

Any better teams?

Alan Bryans

I'm not sure if you are arguing that the rules should be followed or not.

You argue the Waringstown/CIYMS game should be voided but hasn't is in breach of the rules. If the circumstances are as reported then I agree with you that this is no different to the Lurgan Instonians match a few years ago.

However you argue that Lurgan should have a points deduction for defaulting a game which clearly is not in the rules either. You cannot unilaterily make them up as you go along. The merits of each case are irrelevant as you can only go by what the rules say.

Reading the proposals before the clubs for 2009 I don't envisage things improving next year unless we are blessed with some very good weather.

I would recommend a 1 point deduction for CI for the Friday match being voided!

is it true that saintfield have launched a legal appeal against the decision to relegate them. this may be old news or just rubbish. there must be a case for the future that the results form is verified and signed by both captains before it is submitted.

Wayne :- The argument is one of consistency!
Lurgan and Instonians had a match voided in the same circumstances last year and on the same weekend Woodvale had 2 matches voided for the same thing. Hence the introduction of Rule 3.
We have had the Vice-Chairman of the NCU on this forum saying that if the circumstances of the Waringstown game are as reported (and they are!) the match SHOULD be voided "if the rules are applied". They appear not to have been applied and I thought that you and your colleagues would want to know that there seems to be an ability to apply the published rules selectively when it suits.
This is what stops the noble ideal of two sides arranging and playing a game of cricket, getting a result and being happy to accept the result on the day.
I totally agree with you that that should be what it's about but through overregulation that can't, or isn't allowed to happen.
As for Lurgan, is a fine sufficient for an offence which I believe NICC/Harlequins/CSNI were guilty of a few years ago and at the time all sorts of 'threats' were made to ensure that this 'never happened again'.
A neat move by Holywood in blind-siding Lurgan by switching the game to Stormont. Lurgan's assumption that the game was at Seapark and would not take place was a costly one, if not for them for Saintfield.
I'm sure all will be sweetness and light at the AGM. RE-election of all concerned. And wasn't it great that there was an apparent improvement in the standard of player behaviour on the pitch?
It seems it's not just Bankers who can't say 'Sorry'.

Re Alan Bryans. Did CI and Waringstown players not give up a Friday afternoon in the last week of September to fulfill a fixture? Fair play to them. In the next line you want to get Lurgan docked points for not fulfilling fixtures. Consistent approach??

I know rules are rules and clubs have the opportunity to change them at the AGM (we know that well at CSN!!) but in a scenario like this where 2 clubs agree in advance of a fixture and all they are trying to do is get a game played in what was a nightmare season surely they should be commended and supported for trying to play the game?

I see that which was expected has come to pass.
I refer to the Waringstown v CIYMS 30 over match at 2.45 on 26th September arranged in breach of the NCU Rules. Has it been 'voided' as the Section 2 Secretary said at the time it 'should'? Apparently not according to the league tables. Obviously the Section 1 Secretary has a less strict enforcement policy or maybe it's just an example of Selective enforcement on the NCU's part. Wasn't this the very crime that the now infamous Rule 3 was brought in to cover?
Any news on Lurgan's punishment for failing to put out a team? Can I suggest a start to next season at -8 points.

anyone keen for a bet think PROHIBITION will win 140 at leicester tues.think tayto shud put bet on it then he might afford too pay his debt?lets hope ireland can get WEST& MCCALLAN on early &take the last 8 wickets & reach the final again.

re mark

great proposal re: penalties......BOWL OVERS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOTTED!!!!!!!!!!

sorry for the sarcasm but i couldn't resist