PDCA

[Dr Phil]

Dont think we need u18s.

U16s would be fine if changed away from T20.

Dont really want to see U10. U12, U14 in Para, change to U16 in different comp and different day, then back to seniors in Para.

Juniors in 1 comp then into seniors in same comp is how id like to see it.

Sent from my SM-J530Y using Tapatalk

[The Bedge]

Juniors in 1 comp then into seniors in same comp is how id like to see it.

ideal world I agree, but not every club can accommodate juniors for whatever reason.

Perhaps PDCA need to explore incentives for clubs to build juniors? For instance, in Lacrosse SA I believe they reduce winning points in the senior grades if they don't fill xx amount of junior sides i.e. instead of 4 points for a win they get 3.

Sure people wont like it and it hampers the senior side, but there is an obvious and simple solution - put some effort into getting the kids sides up.

[daysofourlives]

U16 should be the oldest a kid gets before entering senior cricket.
With the BLCA moving to u15s and U17s my club has chosen not to worry about the U17s, if the kids want to play at u17s level they can go to another club, they still play seniors for us on a Saturday afternoon.
Its far better for the kids to play in a senior grade that suits their ability rather than the talented ones beating up on the not so talented. Just too much of a talent difference at U17 level. They can also play 2 day cricket (65ov) where they there's no pressure to score and if theyre a bowler get more than 4-6 overs.
The concept of U18s is laughable and could only possibly have been dreamt up by some stooge at SACA

[whufc]

U16 should be the oldest a kid gets before entering senior cricket.
With the BLCA moving to u15s and U17s my club has chosen not to worry about the U17s, if the kids want to play at u17s level they can go to another club, they still play seniors for us on a Saturday afternoon.
Its far better for the kids to play in a senior grade that suits their ability rather than the talented ones beating up on the not so talented. Just too much of a talent difference at U17 level. They can also play 2 day cricket (65ov) where they there's no pressure to score and if theyre a bowler get more than 4-6 overs.
The concept of U18s is laughable and could only possibly have been dreamt up by some stooge at SACA

Bang on!

[Tony Clifton]

What structure do the kids want?

[Lightning McQueen]

Dont think we need u18s.

U16s would be fine if changed away from T20.

Dont really want to see U10. U12, U14 in Para, change to U16 in different comp and different day, then back to seniors in Para.

Juniors in 1 comp then into seniors in same comp is how id like to see it.

Sent from my SM-J530Y using Tapatalk

It's a no brainer, I actually think 16's is equivalent to Grade 3 at a mnimum.

[james07]

U16 should be the oldest a kid gets before entering senior cricket.
With the BLCA moving to u15s and U17s my club has chosen not to worry about the U17s, if the kids want to play at u17s level they can go to another club, they still play seniors for us on a Saturday afternoon.
Its far better for the kids to play in a senior grade that suits their ability rather than the talented ones beating up on the not so talented. Just too much of a talent difference at U17 level. They can also play 2 day cricket (65ov) where they there's no pressure to score and if theyre a bowler get more than 4-6 overs.
The concept of U18s is laughable and could only possibly have been dreamt up by some stooge at SACA

I totally disagree with this, U17 has worked well in the BLCA and whilst some of the better kids do well its the middle bracket that get the better opportunities. majority of kids in the U17 age group play seniors but not all get the opportunity in the seniors as they do in juniors, plenty of kids are lost in this age group and the longer they can develop playing against kids their own age the better. 90% of the better kids will play senior cricket regardless its the middle bracket clubs need the most.

[daysofourlives]

U16 should be the oldest a kid gets before entering senior cricket.
With the BLCA moving to u15s and U17s my club has chosen not to worry about the U17s, if the kids want to play at u17s level they can go to another club, they still play seniors for us on a Saturday afternoon.
Its far better for the kids to play in a senior grade that suits their ability rather than the talented ones beating up on the not so talented. Just too much of a talent difference at U17 level. They can also play 2 day cricket (65ov) where they there's no pressure to score and if theyre a bowler get more than 4-6 overs.
The concept of U18s is laughable and could only possibly have been dreamt up by some stooge at SACA

I totally disagree with this, U17 has worked well in the BLCA and whilst some of the better kids do well its the middle bracket that get the better opportunities. majority of kids in the U17 age group play seniors but not all get the opportunity in the seniors as they do in juniors, plenty of kids are lost in this age group and the longer they can develop playing against kids their own age the better. 90% of the better kids will play senior cricket regardless its the middle bracket clubs need the most.

Sorry cant agree with you, its the middle bracket of kid that finds his niche in a senior grade. These are the kids that might peak in A3 maybe A2, they are never going to play higher. There is more risk losing these kids by them continuing to play against highly talented kids of their age group.
The talented ones are fine and dont need to be playing juniors, its only stroking their ego's.

[Lightning McQueen]

Sorry cant agree with you, its the middle bracket of kid that finds his niche in a senior grade. These are the kids that might peak in A3 maybe A2, they are never going to play higher. There is more risk losing these kids by them continuing to play against highly talented kids of their age group.
The talented ones are fine and dont need to be playing juniors, its only stroking their ego's.

I can see both sides of the fence from my back porch, the middle/lower bracketed kids probably aren't there to dominate or possibly learn/develop, most of them are happy to be out there with their mates, that's what I noticed with the 17's out there, the better teams have 5 or 6 guns while the lower ranked sides might only have 2 or 3.

[Dr Phil]

Juniors in 1 comp then into seniors in same comp is how id like to see it.

ideal world I agree, but not every club can accommodate juniors for whatever reason.

Perhaps PDCA need to explore incentives for clubs to build juniors? For instance, in Lacrosse SA I believe they reduce winning points in the senior grades if they don't fill xx amount of junior sides i.e. instead of 4 points for a win they get 3.

Sure people wont like it and it hampers the senior side, but there is an obvious and simple solution - put some effort into getting the kids sides up.

Clubs should want juniors, as im sure most do, and be incentivised to grow the juniors.

I see the 2 biggest roadblocks for junior teams are players, and coaches/volunteers. I defintely think saca and or maybe even the assoc could do more to help clubs develop and grow.

Could the assoc get a grant for a part time development officer? Help clubs with all manner of things especially growth/development.

Free/heavily discounted training for new junior volunteers. Financial breaks for new junior players and teams.

Make it as easy as possible for new teams/players/volunteers.

Easier said than done but we should, as individual clubs and the association, by striving for a strong junior comp, not moving to other comps.






Sent from my SM-J530Y using Tapatalk

[The Old Fellow]

I am sure that all club would prefer to have juniors as they are the life line of a club. As you say the stumbling points are get volunteers and some of the older areas do have a problem in getting junior players. Clubs in some of the newer areas should be blessed with juniors over the coming years.

The Association have been offering heavily subsided or free training for various things for over 10 years and they still have to cancel sessions due to lack of numbers. The Association again for over 10 years have given clubs a 50% subsidy on all affiliation fees. It costs a club under $40 to field a junior team. Other incentives have been offered to field more junior teams from time to time with no success. Clubs have been given a number of free balls per season again for the last decade. Occasionally clubs are supplied other equipment such as sets of stumps, counters and helmets.

SACA do have development officers who are there to assist associations. Maybe more help can come from that area. Also some clubs can be their own worse enemy and may need to structure a plan for their future which has to to include junior cricket. Some clubs have been successful in their growth. Look at Enfield and North Pines while maintaining the seniors or even growing them have established more junior and womens teams.

[Dr Phil]

I am sure that all club would prefer to have juniors as they are the life line of a club. As you say the stumbling points are get volunteers and some of the older areas do have a problem in getting junior players. Clubs in some of the newer areas should be blessed with juniors over the coming years.

The Association have been offering heavily subsided or free training for various things for over 10 years and they still have to cancel sessions due to lack of numbers. The Association again for over 10 years have given clubs a 50% subsidy on all affiliation fees. It costs a club under $40 to field a junior team. Other incentives have been offered to field more junior teams from time to time with no success. Clubs have been given a number of free balls per season again for the last decade. Occasionally clubs are supplied other equipment such as sets of stumps, counters and helmets.

SACA do have development officers who are there to assist associations. Maybe more help can come from that area. Also some clubs can be their own worse enemy and may need to structure a plan for their future which has to to include junior cricket. Some clubs have been successful in their growth. Look at Enfield and North Pines while maintaining the seniors or even growing them have established more junior and womens teams.

Good to hear there is help and incentives, was unaware those things were in place.



Sent from my SM-J530Y using Tapatalk

[Lightning McQueen]

Bottom line is that cricket is declining in numbers at community level.

People are time poor nowadays and cricket takes too long.

As kids we grew up with two seasons, football and cricket season, there are far more options now and the cricket at the top level has dropped off, we once molded our evenings around a day/nighter to watch Bevo guide us home with a ball to spare or watch a Gilly or a Viv tee off, it just doesn't have that same appeal anymore.

[The Bedge]

We once molded our evenings around a day/nighter to watch Bevo guide us home with a ball to spare or watch a Gilly or a Viv tee off, it just doesn't have that same appeal anymore.

.. and when I was in primary school you knew you had to watch it because all your mates would be watching the game and talking about it the next morning - you didn't want to be "that guy" who didn't watch the epic finish at the SCG or whatever.

[The Bedge]

The Association have been offering heavily subsided or free training for various things for over 10 years and they still have to cancel sessions due to lack of numbers. The Association again for over 10 years have given clubs a 50% subsidy on all affiliation fees. It costs a club under $40 to field a junior team. Other incentives have been offered to field more junior teams from time to time with no success. Clubs have been given a number of free balls per season again for the last decade. Occasionally clubs are supplied other equipment such as sets of stumps, counters and helmets.

I love all that stuff, and certainly appreciative of it - but they're not real incentives for clubs to get off their arses and work for juniors.. they're more a "bonus" for achieving it, if that makes sense?

The concern is the disconnect at clubs between members - too many who are just worried about their own team or A grade side, but couldn't care less about Jnrs or Women's. Everyone knows juniors are the lifeblood, but it's not a priority to everyone except a select few.

There needs to be something that is so bold that it genuinely forces clubs and all their members to get behind creating/supporting/developing junior sides.

[Dr Phil]

The Association have been offering heavily subsided or free training for various things for over 10 years and they still have to cancel sessions due to lack of numbers. The Association again for over 10 years have given clubs a 50% subsidy on all affiliation fees. It costs a club under $40 to field a junior team. Other incentives have been offered to field more junior teams from time to time with no success. Clubs have been given a number of free balls per season again for the last decade. Occasionally clubs are supplied other equipment such as sets of stumps, counters and helmets.

I love all that stuff, and certainly appreciative of it - but they're not real incentives for clubs to get off their arses and work for juniors.. they're more a "bonus" for achieving it, if that makes sense?

The concern is the disconnect at clubs between members - too many who are just worried about their own team or A grade side, but couldn't care less about Jnrs or Women's. Everyone knows juniors are the lifeblood, but it's not a priority to everyone except a select few.

There needs to be something that is so bold that it genuinely forces clubs and all their members to get behind creating/supporting/developing junior sides.

The club chapionship based on teams and results should be promoted as something prestigious for clubs to win every year. Big fu**ing trophy, a novelty cheque or whatever. Might motivate clubs to get around all their teams. Maybe.

Sent from my SM-J530Y using Tapatalk

[The Bedge]

The club chapionship based on teams and results should be promoted as something prestigious for clubs to win every year. Big fu**ing trophy, a novelty cheque or whatever. Might motivate clubs to get around all their teams. Maybe

.. and expand from purely win based to include points for meetings attending, courses attended, work with children checks etc.. bonuses for governance.

[Dr Phil]

The club chapionship based on teams and results should be promoted as something prestigious for clubs to win every year. Big fu**ing trophy, a novelty cheque or whatever. Might motivate clubs to get around all their teams. Maybe

.. and expand from purely win based to include points for meetings attending, courses attended, work with children checks etc.. bonuses for governance.

Good looking people +10 points

Sent from my SM-J530Y using Tapatalk

[whufc]

Bottom line is that cricket is declining in numbers at community level.

People are time poor nowadays and cricket takes too long.

As kids we grew up with two seasons, football and cricket season, there are far more options now and the cricket at the top level has dropped off, we once molded our evenings around a day/nighter to watch Bevo guide us home with a ball to spare or watch a Gilly or a Viv tee off, it just doesn't have that same appeal anymore.

I hate making excuses as such but I think your bang on LM.

Clubs do need to do everything possible to attract junior players but I think the overriding issue is actually cricket as a sport in our country.

It feels as if cricket becomes less and less attractive as each year goes on.....not sure but how does junior cricket participation rates compare to other sports like soccer, basketball, netball etc. I would imagine total junior participation rates are higher now than say 20 years ago in 2000 but that would be purely population growth, I wonder how that growth compares to other sports.

Thinking outside the square do we need to try and make cricket easier for parents/coaches. One thing that I noticed works really well in the country is we primarily use permentantly stuck down matting. Yes we lose the odd game to rain but boy does it make 'cricket' easier. Whack in a few stumps and cones around the oval and off we go. Generally players aren't required to arrive until 15 minutes before the game, toss done 5 minutes before pad up and off we go. After a game you are packed up within 5 minutes at most and off you go. I understand the matting potentially last as long as and their is a risk of vandalism but could the positive potentially outweigh the negatives.

Not sure if its currently being done but do we play much to my disgust the 5 overs at one end, 5 at the next to cut down on time. Cricket is a bloody long sport.

Do we consider more mid week games. 4pm start finish by 7pm. Teams could training Tuesday night play Thursday night then its only a two day a week commitment. I know our juniors only train once a week and that seems to be a real benefit to parents.

Is it something ridiculous like having kids play in coloured colours like the pro's, I know as a kid I loved nothing more than whacking on my footy colours and wearing it with pride. My cricket baggy has a similar feel but never really got that same feel from wearing the whites.

Obviously the cost of cricket when taking into account their own bat, pads, gloves, helmets is huge compared to buying a pair of boots for footy or decent shoes for basketball. Yes clubs have team kits but who really wants to where second hand gear especially in the Covid era.

Dunno just trying to think of different things as I don't feel whats happening at the moment is working for the majority of clubs.

[The Old Fellow]

The Association have been offering heavily subsided or free training for various things for over 10 years and they still have to cancel sessions due to lack of numbers. The Association again for over 10 years have given clubs a 50% subsidy on all affiliation fees. It costs a club under $40 to field a junior team. Other incentives have been offered to field more junior teams from time to time with no success. Clubs have been given a number of free balls per season again for the last decade. Occasionally clubs are supplied other equipment such as sets of stumps, counters and helmets.

I love all that stuff, and certainly appreciative of it - but they're not real incentives for clubs to get off their arses and work for juniors.. they're more a "bonus" for achieving it, if that makes sense?

The concern is the disconnect at clubs between members - too many who are just worried about their own team or A grade side, but couldn't care less about Jnrs or Women's. Everyone knows juniors are the lifeblood, but it's not a priority to everyone except a select few.

There needs to be something that is so bold that it genuinely forces clubs and all their members to get behind creating/supporting/developing junior sides.

You are correct that the incentives I listed are for the ones who have got off their back sides, it doesn't get clubs to get off their back sides.

Too many people within clubs have the attitude 'what can the club do for me' or 'what can I get out of the club' instead of 'what can I do for the club'. I have seen it for too many years in all sports.

The huge question is, as you say, what will get members to support & assist their clubs to grow including developing juniors. If you make it too hard or make the few willing to help a lot of extra work or severe penalties you may create the opposite affect and drive those people away and then you will have nothing..