Gippsland Cricket Thread Part 3

[saint leo]

Sounds like he can play a bit then. Is he a local? never heard of him or seem him in the papers.

Just saw the last 10 overs Bairnsdale playing sunraysia, had them 7/130 after 40, ended up on 215. Costy dropped catch by bairsdale captain (i think) then bringing a spinner on for the last 2 with a bloke on 40 odd, making him bowl to a very short leg boundary he got smashed. Seemed a very strange decision.

 

[EDFL follower]

Sounds like he can play a bit then. Is he a local? never heard of him or seem him in the papers.

Yes his father and uncles all played for Drouin. He goes to one of the private schools in Melbourne and plays for them a fair bit but he does play a few games for Drouin.

 

[mayhem20202]

Anyone have any country week scores today?

 

[saint leo]

West Gippy made 240 odd, mick torney a ton. Warragul not a lot against LDCA, 160 odd i think.

 

[mayhem20202]

West Gippy made 240 odd, mick torney a ton. Warragul not a lot against LDCA, 160 odd i think.

Yeah, sorry, I meant any scores that aren't already on the mycricket site. Mainly interested in T'gon's score to see whether they have accumulated enough bonus points to qual for final seeing that Warragul are going to lose.

 

[saint leo]

Yeah, sorry, I meant any scores that aren't already on the mycricket site. Mainly interested in T'gon's score to see whether they have accumulated enough bonus points to qual for final seeing that Warragul are going to lose.

Didnt know they were on my cricket, just watched the end of the WGCA game. So if leongatha win easily and traralgon lose then LDCA would probably pass them. Big chance to come down to bouns points at the end.

 

[mayhem20202]

Looks like T'gon vs B'dale final in Div 2, so, there will be 2 Gippsland sides in Provincial division next year. T'gon bowled Ferntree Gully out for 109, and T'gon are 4 for 60 in pursuit.

 

[saint leo]

Looks like T'gon vs B'dale final in Div 2, so, there will be 2 Gippsland sides in Provincial division next year. T'gon bowled Ferntree Gully out for 109, and T'gon are 4 for 60 in pursuit.

Was always going to be after yesterday with 4 teams in the top 4!!

 

[mayhem20202]

Was always going to be after yesterday with 4 teams in the top 4!!

Yeah, I believe I pointed that out yesterday as well. The post was actually focusing on the point that T'gon have qualified to face B'dale. Unless B'dale lose and Warragul end up winning and getting a heap of runs in a second innings which isn't looking likely from the scorecard.

 

[Nugget1985]

Team of the Year (with a round and a day to go)

Batsmen -Ian Wrigglesworth (wurruk) 665
Batsmen -Thomas Tudor (bundalaguah) 501
Batsmen -Stuart Anderson (college) 469
Batsmen -Brett Lanigan (maffra) 464
Batsmen -Toby Leeds (boisdale briagolong) 450
Batsmen -Steve Parry (sale) 421
Bowler -Luke Klasen (sale) 34
Bowler -Ben Durrant (maffra) 33
Bowler -Nathan King (bundy) 28
All Rounder -Pete Roberts (sale) 6th in bowling, 7th in batting (his batting stats are wrong on the site)
Wicket Keeper - Sam Anstee (stratford) 22 dismissals.

I would think that not too much would change. Pete Roberts is bowling this weekend, and if he picks up 2 wickets moves into outright 5th as a bowler, which when you factor in that Stuart Anderson is the 3rd placed bowler (and already in the team of the year as a batsmen), should just about lock Pete Roberts into the final spot in the side. The other spot which is up for grabs is probably the keepers spot, as Nugget is not playing the last game and Stratford have already fielded in the current game they are in. Buddha Massey or Daniel Cameron could steal that spot. If it were to happen, Daniel Cameron would be a deserved recipient, as he is by far the leading run scorer amongst keepers and has done well this season.

You would think as far as awards go that Ian has the batting sewn up unless Ryan Ingram plays in the last Home and Away game, in which case he would need to make approx. 20 runs to ensure his average is higher than 70 and maintain his lead over Ian. I am unsure of qualification, however, I think it is 4 games and 250 runs. He has the runs, however, has not played 4 games.

Nathan King appears to have the bowling award sewn up.

I will throw Luke Klasen out there as a contender for Cricketer of the Year. Has played well when Sale have won, I can see as many as 5 vote winning performances, and in most year's there aren't massive vote totals to win. King and Anderson's all round performances may beat him to the punch, however, a top 3 finish is certainly a big possibility.

A few questions raised with this. One is about the one day final, which is a final therefore not a home and away match so in reality Buddha Massey has 17 dismissals instead of 20, so Daniel Cameron is actually second on 18. We also have to take 96 runs off Tom Tudors tally..

So it just means a reshuffle in the runs but means Tudor is the last batsmen in rather than third...

 

[mayhem20202]

Well, now that the finalists are decided in the SMCA, it is time to discuss 2 things. Who will win the flag? And, what is the future of the SMCA? This may seam like a strange question, however, I see it as relevant, and once I explain in what context I propose the question, I am sure it will make a lot more sense.

So, firstly, College will play Stratford at College, whilst Bundy will play Maffra at Bundy in the semis. I would think that College should beat Stratty, however, am not so convinced about Bundy beating Maffra. That results will hinge on how well the star studded and in form Maffra batting line up handle Nathan King in his first final on home turf since returning to Bundy. I am going to predict that Maffra will get over the line to set up a replay of last year's grand final. I will wait and see where the Grand Final is going to be played before I predict who is going to win that!

Secondly, the format of the SMCA and country cricket in general (just to make it clear, I am in no way having a go at the SMCA, I am just speculating as to how I see the SMCA continuing to evolve and thrive, rather than sit still and stagnate). I think that too many people have little to no interest in fielding for 80 overs. There is a group of people within the league that are cricket nuts and don't have an issue with it, however, in general, the average person can find more enjoyable things to do with their time than be tied to cricket (as a 2 day game tends to do) and more so, fielding for 80 overs (in a lot of cases when it is for no reason as a result may be painfully obvious, or already decided).

I, along with the majority of the SMCA playing stocks, are big fans of the changes this season. The introduction of more one day cricket and the importance placed upon that by a one day final, has been greatly enjoyed and generated some interest. I see the shorter forms of the game being as important, probably more important, locally than what 2 day 80 over cricket is. I know there will be plenty of opposition to this, however, I think the way forward is to scrap 2 day cricket all together and amend the draw so that it still has 21 playing days, however, there are 14 one day games, which decide the home and away ladder, and the finalists. Then, I would use the other 7 days play for 20 20 games, and have this as a completely seperate competition which has no bearing on the 1 day side of things.

I don't agree with this, and, personally, I would prefer things to remain exactly how they are, however, I think that for the league to remain, it has to accomodate a different target market to the one that it has traditionally aimed towards. With an increased amount of shift workers, family commitments and people who generally couldn't really care, unfortunately, I can see the league diminishing to the point where it is no longer to the standard that it currently is. If every club has 4 guys that are A grade standard, however, they can't play because they can't commit to 2 day cricket, then this is a solution which would aid the overall standard of the comp. As a rule, those cricketers are available either every second, or 2 out of 3 weekends, however, with 2 day games, it rules them out completely.

The other point is that all of our rep cricket locally is 1 day cricket. If people wish to make cricket a career, then, they have already left the SMCA prior to playing much senior cricket, so, the argument that you need 2 day cricket to produce tomorrow's stars is ridiculous, as they get the longer form when they move on to play Premier Cricket.

The other point is, in recent times, I have been involved with 2 X 20 20 games, which have both been extremely enjoyable and still allowed the players involved the chance to show what they can do. Put this up against 2 day cricket, which in a lot of cases, can be very boring for the participants, and I think that the future is clear, and it is shorter cricket. I know people will say that I am having a sook cos Maffra flogged us on the weekend, however, I have been unofficially discussing this topic with most of our opposition since the year begun, it is not just something that I have come up with in the past week. The other thing is, my club has only lost 2 2 day games this season, and I have found even some of the games that we have won to be very boring, so I can only imagine how uninteresting it can be for the sides that are losing 5 or more out of their 7 2 day games.

 

[Nugget1985]

You make a choice to play cricket at the start of the year. We all know the draw and we all know the formats involved! If you don't want to play 80 overs and risk fielding for that period. Well you probably don't have a desire play cricket and willing to be apart of the succes involved in team sports.

Yeah society has changed and we are all busier with heavy commitments but I can think of plenty of times when I have finished one day games at 7.00 o'clock at night because we all had to hang around for the result of a one dayer. And with strict guidelines on wides etc play always goes longer than expected.

I think the format having the thirds and fourths play 60 overs in a day is appealing with the seconds being 75 and firsts being 80 is the way to go.

I hate in life how everything needs to be shortened for various reasons and cricket more than anything is a traditional game where its values have been kept over many years!!! Yeah you might get belted in the field all day and the teams your playing against might be flogging you but there is no reason to shorten the game to enhance motivation, maybe the team needs to look at why they are in that position in the first place!!

I would say 90 per cent of the time that captains make the right decision towards ending games at the 60 over mark, and as said before you do bear the fruits of playing the maximum time ie Maffra last year.

The league this year has been great and with only one outright win has been as even as ever. Why the need to change it???

The other part of your post intrigues me, you say the final four is set but Sale still have a chance of outright victory and remaining in the hunt, If College beat Stratford.

Personally i think if Sale are giving up already on trying for an outright victory (which is what your'e saying) they may as well not play. Beacuse according to your theory it is a meaningless game???

I think all four sides (that are currently in the four) are in with massive chances and perosnally I can't wait for the finals to begin.

 

[lynchy4610]

I agree with mayhem, I wrote about the same thing weeks ago.

One day cricket. Would hopefully get more people interested, I know of a lot of people that won't play cricket because they either don't want to field for 80 overs or they can't commit to playing every week.

Just play 40 over games and bring in a properly run 20/20 competition.

Hopefully being one day games would bring the comp more even. The worst thing I find with 2 day cricket is that somtimes depending on weather conditions you can go a month without having a bat or a bowl .

The league just looks stale at thr moment whilst you still get good a grade teams on the park I think numbers and players of ability who could actually play 1st grade are really dropping in the 2nd grade standard.

As mayhem said people just loose interest and from what I have seen in my time at sale is that the girlfriends/ wives or even your mates that don't play they couldn't be stuffed coming to watch a side bat or field all day, yet at one day games they seem to come and watch.

One example would be of if you work a phsyical job and long hours and you've been working in thr heat all week the last you would want to do is field all day in 35 degree heat. You would rather be at the beach or pool relaxing with your family or friends

 

[lynchy4610]

D what killed heyfield in terms of 1st cricket was the lack of interest.

We all loved our cricket and trained hard but we we're only good enough to compete for half the game in 2 day matches at best, yet in one dayers we enjoyed it because we knew we could beat sides!

In all my time at heyf in the ones I can only remeber winning 2 2 day matches one which was against a string bundy side which was the highlight of my cricket in terms of my own results and I think we rolled boisdale once. One day cricket was a different story and we won some games and even beat good sides like sale and maffra and came close to college.

We enjoyed the one dayers but there was probably 3- 4 a year, and the rest of the time we where getting flogged.

It's very hard to keep yourself up and enjoying cricket when every year you kept on loosing, which is somthing people like yourself nugget that has played at sucessfull clubs like stratty and maffra, but when your in a side that has no chance of winning most weekends people become angry, frustrated and lose interest, in the end people like duff called it quits because he was a proud man who wanted to win games but there was never a chance for us to be succesfull, how do you recruit players to teams like heyfield, boisdale and rosedale.

I'm sure if we had of played more shortened games, got a few wins, people would have stayed at thr club, myself included

 

[gus mckay]

Its not the assosiciations fault if teams are poor. the clubs are the only ones to blame not the league.

Name ten A grade standard cricketers who are not playing due to the format of two day cricket???

 

[mayhem20202]

Personally i think if Sale are giving up already on trying for an outright victory (which is what your'e saying) they may as well not play. Beacuse according to your theory it is a meaningless game???

I think all four sides (that are currently in the four) are in with massive chances and perosnally I can't wait for the finals to begin.

Just being realistic. There have been 24 2 day games this year, with only one outright result which was due to great bowling by Luke Klasen and 2 terrible batting performances by a side that has a history of being bowled out in a low number of overs. Rosedale on the other hand do not generally crumble, and have shown they are a side capable of batting close to the 80 overs more often than not.

 

[the Ultimate Warrior]

what a whole lot of crap that one day cricket is the future to get more to people to play!!!! One day cricket means less people get a chance to do be involved in the game. Yes fielding for 80 in A grade can be long some days but not batting for 4 weeks because your side makes 5 for 160 means as many people will stop playing. Why do we always accomidate for those that arn't involved than those who still play. If so many of your friends son't play because of one day cricket then why don't they play in the 5ths which is a one day comp???? In my opinion to many people use the the excuse they hate 2 day cricket to not paly when in fact there is other reasons. If you don't like 2 day cricket don't play 1st XI cricket!!!!

Close season all sides are competitive = don't fix it. nothings broken.

On another issue, it is great that more and more clubs are using 20/20 cricket as fundraisers. Next year the league should run there own before xmas and play a town vs country game all money going to fund 2 country week teams, new uniforms and a paid GCL/country week captain. More people might care if there a chance to play in either side and it is so important to keep giving young blokes a chance to play at the highest level.

 

[mayhem20202]

Its not the assosiciations fault if teams are poor. the clubs are the only ones to blame not the league.

Name ten A grade standard cricketers who are not playing due to the format of two day cricket???

For starters, if you actually read my first post, the first thing that I highlight is that I am not saying this is the league's fault, nor am I saying that the league is doing anything wrong. Unfortunately, if the league wish to continue on in the long run, they have to be adaptable, cater to the current market and move with the times, which I will go on record as saying, they have done this season with some of the changes they made, and the current committee is to be applauded. The way the league has been run this year has been a breath of fresh air, and for the majority, I would think they would say has been a vast improvement on years gone by.

The problem with that extremely short sighted and narrow minded view that you just posted about how it is not the league's problem about the standard of teams, well, in reality, it is, because if there are no players, there are no teams, there is no league. This is a very pessimistic view I know, however, that is the eventual outcome. There have been reductions in teams for approx. the past 6/7 years in SMCA, and there are no signs of this halting in the near future. If the standard becomes too dilluted then eventually (and I am not saying the SMCA is anywhere near this at the moment), people will either quit, or play elsewhere. Remember the TDCA and the BCA are not very far away.

As for the 10 A grade players not playing due to 2 day cricket:
- Barry Thistlethwaite
- Sam McNickleberry
- Paul Diddington
- Wilfred Nippleton
- Garry O'Reilly
- Nigel McBarrington
- Anthony Nguyen
- Keith McSmith
- Charles McNugget
- Ian Vincent

If I am to name someone specifically, lets say John Mayman, you then say, no, I know John Mayman, and he doesn't play cos he is fat, or, cos, his uncle has 3 left nipples. It is a pointless exercise, because unless you are that person yourself, no matter how much you think you know, you don't know the real reason that they are or aren't playing cricket, however, I am the age of these people that are not playing regular cricket, and I can tell you that I can comfortably fill an A grade side that would be the equivalent of or better than my Sale A grade side with players not playing due to not wanting to have to play 80 overs of 2 day cricket week in, week out, or, conversely, due to not being able to commit to it, due to work.

 

[mayhem20202]

what a whole lot of crap that one day cricket is the future to get more to people to play!!!! One day cricket means less people get a chance to do be involved in the game. Yes fielding for 80 in A grade can be long some days but not batting for 4 weeks because your side makes 5 for 160 means as many people will stop playing. Why do we always accomidate for those that arn't involved than those who still play. If so many of your friends son't play because of one day cricket then why don't they play in the 5ths which is a one day comp???? In my opinion to many people use the the excuse they hate 2 day cricket to not paly when in fact there is other reasons. If you don't like 2 day cricket don't play 1st XI cricket!!!!

Close season all sides are competitive = don't fix it. nothings broken.

On another issue, it is great that more and more clubs are using 20/20 cricket as fundraisers. Next year the league should run there own before xmas and play a town vs country game all money going to fund 2 country week teams, new uniforms and a paid GCL/country week captain. More people might care if there a chance to play in either side and it is so important to keep giving young blokes a chance to play at the highest level.

Unfortunately the attitude of writing off ideas as "a whole load of crap" is part of the reason the association was in trouble in the past, and the current committee, which is much more receptive to listening to suggestions has helped to revive the interest in the league.

Please re read my posts, and you will find that I would much prefer cricket to remain as it is, however, I see that this format is the way the league will/may be pushed in the future. My point is, the majority of people my/our age and lower don't have the same level of commitment as what you and I do Hendo. And, who knows why they don't play, like I said, no one ever will know what the real reason is.

In reply to your post about people not getting a go in one day cricket, I've just had a quick flick through SMCA records, and basically in 1 day cricket in A grade, sides are losing roughly between 7 and 8 wickets per innings (the actual figure is 7.482) on average, which means that in general, only 11 and maybe 10 aren't getting a hit. Now, if you bat at 10 or 11 you get a bowl, so, its not like you do nothing.

And, you are right, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I didn't suggest to make this change, I am saying that I see this is where the league will have to go eventually, not, make the change for next season.

Great point on the 20 20 charity type games. Could be a good money spinner to encourage more people to play rep cricket by paying for some of the costs and getting some uniforms and so on.

 

[mayhem20202]

Well, I guess that is the end of discussion on this point. As per usual, Nugget, Hendo, Lynchy and myself have put up our points of view and backed it up in some way by making our opinions known, and then Gus McKay has come on, written an extremely brief post with no backing or thought behind it and then will disappear and not answer the replies to his post.

I guess when you are out of touch with what is actually going on today, and you appear concerned about people working out who you are, cos, you don't want to be held accountable for the (a lot of the time, interesting) things that you say, it is hard to write too much for fear of revealing who you are. Then again Gus, we don't know who you are, so, you might be the most up to date, informed cat cruising around the SMCA, but, no one will know, and no one will ever put much weight on your opinions because all you ever do is pop online, have a go at someone and then disappear. Maybe if you ever positively contributed something to this forum, people would positively aknowledge your existence on this forum and take notice of what you have to say. I don't care about revealing your identity, I just want you to applaud things as quickly as you knock them!

 

[lynchy4610]

I don't think it's the leagues fault either, and personal 2 day cricket suits my style of batting anyway I could almost say I'd 100 percent not get looked at for a game if it was one day and 20 20 but I think that's where it's headed .

Like mayhem I could think of at least 6 mates of mine that don't play because of 80 overs of fielding and just at sale there's guys now like Greg Carmody, craig Alcock that can't play or commit to playing because they don't know if they will be around the following week because of work.

And I said the thing bout heyfield and my experiance being at a club that had to fold it's 1sts because people lost interest because our seasons were over before we started, we did anything and everything at training to improve ouselfs but we just didn't have the talent and depth to be a succesfull 2 day team and we lost all of our up and coming junior players for various reasons but it's hard to actually keep your better players around when you keep getting flogged, and as I said how does a club like heyfield recruit good players it's near impossible, and teams like rosedale and boisdale may eventually head down the same track and if you took wrig out of wurruk they are rooted! It's pretty much impossible for rosedale and boisdale to pick up good players limited work and why would you want to go there.

Nearly ever year that I can remember the 4 has been made up out of the top 5 teams at the moment and I don't see how that will change anytime soon

 

[gus mckay]

You would be surprised John very surprised...I was not having a go at your post I was having a go at Lynchy4610. saying the league is stale and he doesn't have any connection to it.

His very short sighted view that the league is to blame for the demise of Heyfield is exteremely ridiculous. They were a poor side who were poorly run in there latter stages with no junior structures in place. Pretty much guaranteed disaster.

Clubs are free to recruit who they want pay any amount of money to players (2) and generally run there juniors as they please. Outside factors like work, moving away and family contribute to the problems that we have in player retention but ultimately it is the club that needs to build its own strength to survive and be succesful!!!

Lets take your club Sale as an example, now for some unbeknown reason over the last four years they have lost there best four or five players yourself, Jason Bruce, Dean Thatcher, Layton Armstrong and Steve Nicholls. Why?? I am not entirely sure but one thing that i do know is that it is not the leagues fault that sale lost these commmited players it is SaleCC. Now lets talk about the last junior that came through Sales junior system to play a full senior cricket year at Sale in a grade who will he be....Shaun Anderson???? Now he is 24-25 (I think). Probably a poor reflection on the club in regards to either having no junior talent, or losing there junior talent and again not the leagues fault. Lets look at say any of top four clubs they have at least four to five players under the age of 25 who played juniors there. Cudos for them in instilling the proper procedures to first of all recruit players/keep there playing group/and nuture there juniors.

The league has made a step forward this year towards improving playing conditions for players. I understand that the 'wave" is going towards shortened versions of the game to help the "cricketers" that don't play actually play. My point is that these players are not playing so firstly they don't have a desire to participate and secondly they probably have other things on that are more important than cricket!!!

So we need to nurture the needs of the cricketers that turn out day in and day out every year, not for the one's that dont play. Currently all people involved are happy with this year, now in the future you may be correct and i totally agree that if the time arises where the players want the shorter version to be the main stay then it should go that way.

But right here right now the current system is fine.

Note: Anthony Ngyuen is a pretty well known cancer researcher for the CSIRO

 

[mayhem20202]

Nearly ever year that I can remember the 4 has been made up out of the top 5 teams at the moment and I don't see how that will change anytime soon

In the past 13 seasons (I am only quoting this because that is how long I have played in the 1sts, so, it is how long I can remember), the finals have been made up off:

Heyfield, once.
Rosedale, once.
Boisdale, once.
Longford, (once, I think, maybe not at all)
Wurruk, not at all.
Sale, Maffra, College, Stratford, Bundy, most of the time (not so much Sale and Maffra, but, the other 3 certainly have hardly missed the finals.

You could argue that the league is even this year, but, it is still the same sides which are going to contest the finals. I agree with a lot of what Hendo wrote on the subject, however, don't use the even competition argument. It has been a lot better this year without Sale City (although, they are to be applauded for what they have done this year, and may have been a lot better place to be competitive this season had they stayed in the 1sts, but, that is a whole other discussion), as it has eliminated outrights, but, it is hardly even, you still know 9 times out of 10 who is going to beat who, and who is going to finish where on the ladder.

I am not saying that this is a problem, and it certainly isn't anything the league has to worry about, I am just saying don't use evenness of the comp as an argument against change.

 

[mayhem20202]

You would be surprised John very surprised...I was not having a go at your post I was having a go at Lynchy4610. saying the league is stale and he doesn't have any connection to it.

His very short sighted view that the league is to blame for the demise of Heyfield is exteremely ridiculous. They were a poor side who were poorly run in there latter stages with no junior structures in place. Pretty much guaranteed disaster.

Clubs are free to recruit who they want pay any amount of money to players (2) and generally run there juniors as they please. Outside factors like work, moving away and family contribute to the problems that we have in player retention but ultimately it is the club that needs to build its own strength to survive and be succesful!!!

Lets take your club Sale as an example, now for some unbeknown reason over the last four years they have lost there best four or five players yourself, Jason Bruce, Dean Thatcher, Layton Armstrong and Steve Nicholls. Why?? I am not entirely sure but one thing that i do know is that it is not the leagues fault that sale lost these commmited players it is SaleCC. Now lets talk about the last junior that came through Sales junior system to play a full senior cricket year at Sale in a grade who will he be....Shaun Anderson???? Now he is 24-25 (I think). Probably a poor reflection on the club in regards to either having no junior talent, or losing there junior talent and again not the leagues fault. Lets look at say any of top four clubs they have at least four to five players under the age of 25 who played juniors there. Cudos for them in instilling the proper procedures to first of all recruit players/keep there playing group/and nuture there juniors.

The league has made a step forward this year towards improving playing conditions for players. I understand that the 'wave" is going towards shortened versions of the game to help the "cricketers" that don't play actually play. My point is that these players are not playing so firstly they don't have a desire to participate and secondly they probably have other things on that are more important than cricket!!!

So we need to nurture the needs of the cricketers that turn out day in and day out every year, not for the one's that dont play. Currently all people involved are happy with this year, now in the future you may be correct and i totally agree that if the time arises where the players want the shorter version to be the main stay then it should go that way.

But right here right now the current system is fine.

Note: Anthony Ngyuen is a pretty well known cancer researcher for the CSIRO

Very insightful post with some well thought out points, a pleasant change from the usual rubbish that you post. Hopefully you can maintain this standard in the future.

I guess the angle that I am taking (and, I am guessing I am 5 - 20 years younger than you, and may have a better understanding of the lack of commitment of my generation and younger people) is that unfortunately, if all we cater for is people that are regularly playing cricket at the time, in the end, we may be putting on a feast that no one eats!

I understand through dealing with the older people at numerous sporting clubs, both football and cricket, and also in life in general, that the older generation from 35+, have a lot more of a respect for commitment, pride of involvement in a club/group/family/so on, more of a community oriented mindset. I applaud this, and like to think that a lot of this has rubbed off on me, mainly through the passion shown towards the Sale Cricket Club by my father and a group of players who had great success shortly prior to my commencing in the 1st XI side.

However, the opposite side of the coin is that because of this respect and commitment, the older generation also take a very negative view towards accomodating the younger generation that do not share this same attitude. Unfortunately, there are a lot more of the people that "don't give a stuff" than there are of the "committed crowd", and unfortunately, this shift in attitude is the only reason that we are being forced to entertain/consider changes, as things are very good as they are.

I have lots of opinions into the Sale Cricket Club and their plight, and I also have lots of ideas of how I am going to attempt to remedy these problems. I am sure they won't all work, but, hopefully if some do, it will help the club. The overall problem is, that Sale have their backs to the wall, and need big improvements, and we could still mathematically make the finals. What does that say about the clubs below us on the ladder?

 

[mayhem20202]

Lets take your club Sale as an example, now for some unbeknown reason over the last four years they have lost there best four or five players yourself, Jason Bruce, Dean Thatcher, Layton Armstrong and Steve Nicholls. Why?? I am not entirely sure but one thing that i do know is that it is not the leagues fault that sale lost these commmited players it is SaleCC. Now lets talk about the last junior that came through Sales junior system to play a full senior cricket year at Sale in a grade who will he be....Shaun Anderson???? Now he is 24-25 (I think). Probably a poor reflection on the club in regards to either having no junior talent, or losing there junior talent and again not the leagues fault. Lets look at say any of top four clubs they have at least four to five players under the age of 25 who played juniors there. Cudos for them in instilling the proper procedures to first of all recruit players/keep there playing group/and nuture there juniors.

Sale City have a good junior structure, in fact they may have the best numbers amongst all clubs(I don't know the ins and outs of SMCA juniors) yet, they are not represented in the 1sts and have lost numerous players to factors out of their control. Unfortunately, you can't always control every factor of a person's life.