SA Footy

Grade cricket has to change to provide an environment where the best cricketers in the state can be challenged. Every Saturday at the moment there are 528 young kids under the age of 16 playing in junior club competition under the grade cricket banner.There are then another 286 players in third and fourth grade playing every Saturday, so at 814 players before you get to second grade the likelihood of developing elite players through all of these grades is not there with funding having to be spread so thinly.

To develop elite players we need to provide a higher quality of competition for 14/15/16 year olds who are above average. We need 15 year old talented players to be challenged, at the moment the likelihood of this happening is not there.

We are not the only state struggling with this but South Australia has been fractured by 2 separate competitions(Grade and Redbacks) rather than developing a quality first grade competition. Resourcing needs to be focused on 'elite' talent at club level as has been identified in the most recent previous Cricket Australia report, out of the current financial stress, clubs will be put under the microscope and the ideal in my view would be to get a more elite competition with 8 to 10 clubs. Clubs should not be rescued.

We can only hope that this happens for the betterment of cricket in this state.

The Bedge wrote:Probably gonna sound bad.. but has Grade cricket lost its "prestige" and appeal to people?

I remember growing up, district cricket was like the pinnacle to reach - from Ray Sutton up.. now seems no one could give two hoots, and kids can get a better experience at their local turf club..

Made worse when grade clubs chase players on a Friday just to fill sides - reeks of desperation, and I've seen guys get gigs in 4th grade line-ups that wouldn't make a 4th grade PDCA club side.

I think this is a very good point. In particular seems like players would rather go and play 'A' grade at their local club than stick it out in the 2nds or 3rds at a grade club and try and work their way up. Instant gratification. A lot of 2nd grade sides are very young now. Then you also have the talented younger players who give up cricket all together as a result of as little as half a poor season.

Tom Andrews off to Tasmania. Big blow for Woodville.

Tony Clifton wrote:Tom Andrews off to Tasmania. Big blow for Woodville.

Huge news for SACA too if true, Pope our one spinning hope across all formats now with Zampa gone as well.

Catter4lyfe wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Tom Andrews off to Tasmania. Big blow for Woodville.

Huge news for SACA too if true, Pope our one spinning hope across all formats now with Zampa gone as well.

It's on Cricket Tas website.

Catter4lyfe wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Tom Andrews off to Tasmania. Big blow for Woodville.

Huge news for SACA too if true, Pope our one spinning hope across all formats now with Zampa gone as well.

Try to get Tom O'Connell back?

Tony Clifton wrote:

Catter4lyfe wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Tom Andrews off to Tasmania. Big blow for Woodville.

Huge news for SACA too if true, Pope our one spinning hope across all formats now with Zampa gone as well.

Try to get Tom O'Connell back?

His body is stuffed and only 21. Was over rated anyway.

Eagles2014 wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:

Catter4lyfe wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Tom Andrews off to Tasmania. Big blow for Woodville.

Huge news for SACA too if true, Pope our one spinning hope across all formats now with Zampa gone as well.

Try to get Tom O'Connell back?

His body is stuffed and only 21. Was over rated anyway.

He's 19 and has had one injury

Bit harsh!

I reckon he's a superb prospect for what it's worth. Has a better leg break than Pope (who I also rate) and bowls at a more 'first class speed' than Bowering (another really good kid). Was disappointed when we lost him, stolen by the Vics - we have so little!

Tony Clifton wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:

Try to get Tom O'Connell back?

His body is stuffed and only 21. Was over rated anyway.

He's 19 and has had one injury

Bit harsh!

I reckon he's a superb prospect for what it's worth. Has a better leg break than Pope (who I also rate) and bowls at a more 'first class speed' than Bowering (another really good kid). Was disappointed when we lost him, stolen by the Vics - we have so little!

Probably because he doesn't/didn't play for West Torrens!

Got nothing to do with WT. We are allowed to have opinions on this website aren’t we??

He turns 20 in week or two, how many spinners miss so much cricket with a back injury. Heard from friends of his parents had major stress fractures which is a huge worry at his age.

Lots of kids are talented and don’t progress. You can’t argue his form since moving to Melbourne has been ordinary at best.

Pope, in MY opinion, is so much better it’s not even a contest!

Eagles2014 wrote:Got nothing to do with WT. We are allowed to have opinions on this website aren’t we??

He turns 20 in week or two, how many spinners miss so much cricket with a back injury. Heard from friends of his parents had major stress fractures which is a huge worry at his age.

Lots of kids are talented and don’t progress. You can’t argue his form since moving to Melbourne has been ordinary at best.

Pope, in MY opinion, is so much better it’s not even a contest!

Just having a laugh. Agree - of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. I did hear he had an issue with his back. Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me as I suspect as a spinner he would have been bowling plenty of overs in the nets etc. which would have eventually burnt him. I also think if he wasn't injured he would have played some shield matches for Vic by now (the injury may be why he didn't bowl well during the first half of last season?).

Minimum Chips wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:Got nothing to do with WT. We are allowed to have opinions on this website aren’t we??

He turns 20 in week or two, how many spinners miss so much cricket with a back injury. Heard from friends of his parents had major stress fractures which is a huge worry at his age.

Lots of kids are talented and don’t progress. You can’t argue his form since moving to Melbourne has been ordinary at best.

Pope, in MY opinion, is so much better it’s not even a contest!

Just having a laugh. Agree - of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. I did hear he had an issue with his back. Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me as I suspect as a spinner he would have been bowling plenty of overs in the nets etc. which would have eventually burnt him. I also think if he wasn't injured he would have played some shield matches for Vic by now (the injury may be why he didn't bowl well during the first half of last season?).

Didn't he get a three contract with the VICS?

Any news out of the PCC meeting last night.

Delegates had the opportunity to ask questions about the proposed competition restructure.

The Hound wrote:Any news out of the PCC meeting last night.

Delegates had the opportunity to ask questions about the proposed competition restructure.

Is it for this coming season or to be rolled out in the following season?

Tony Clifton wrote:

The Hound wrote:Any news out of the PCC meeting last night.

Delegates had the opportunity to ask questions about the proposed competition restructure.

Is it for this coming season or to be rolled out in the following season?

Believe it is for current season, however in true PCC style they will probably vote against and then complain about the standard in 2020/21

Re juniors, I would think priority would be to not have the SACA comp clash with school cricket. So schools on Saturday, SACA and Turf on Sunday. One U15 and U17 team would be fine with fluidity between SACA club and Turf club. Perhaps every player is registered and pays subs to their turf club and the SACA comp is funded so juniors don’t pay two lots of subs.

Re seniors, again, if there is fluidity of player movement between SACA and Turf clubs, less teams would be fine.

I’d have a Premier League of the top 8 clubs playing each other club in all 3 formats plus finals.
Then a District League of the remaining 5 clubs and the 2nds of the Premier League.
Then the 3rds, with an option for those not in Premier League to field two teams if they wish.

The premier of the District League, if not already in a Premier League, would replace wooden spooner of Premier League in promotion/relegation system.

This would improve standard of top level and make current 2nd Grade/District League far more competitive and important.

Aerie wrote:Re juniors, I would think priority would be to not have the SACA comp clash with school cricket. So schools on Saturday, SACA and Turf on Sunday. One U15 and U17 team would be fine with fluidity between SACA club and Turf club. Perhaps every player is registered and pays subs to their turf club and the SACA comp is funded so juniors don’t pay two lots of subs.

Re seniors, again, if there is fluidity of player movement between SACA and Turf clubs, less teams would be fine.

I’d have a Premier League of the top 8 clubs playing each other club in all 3 formats plus finals.
Then a District League of the remaining 5 clubs and the 2nds of the Premier League.
Then the 3rds, with an option for those not in Premier League to field two teams if they wish.

The premier of the District League, if not already in a Premier League, would replace wooden spooner of Premier League in promotion/relegation system.

This would improve standard of top level and make current 2nd Grade/District League far more competitive and important.

Where that falls down is any player with serious state aspirations has to move any time the club is relegated. Becomes a revolving Much simpler to get rid of three teams altogether imo. Keep 4 grades with 10 clubs should raise the standard of 4th grade and clean out some of the players who have no prospect of playing higher.

Get rid of 16 whites. Lots of kids in it who are not much good and are only money makers for the clubs. Keep 14 whites but very much bowlers bowl and batter bat. Seeing 14s teams where every bowler gets a bowl regardless of ability is no good imo.

Aeropti wrote:

Aerie wrote:Re juniors, I would think priority would be to not have the SACA comp clash with school cricket. So schools on Saturday, SACA and Turf on Sunday. One U15 and U17 team would be fine with fluidity between SACA club and Turf club. Perhaps every player is registered and pays subs to their turf club and the SACA comp is funded so juniors don’t pay two lots of subs.

Re seniors, again, if there is fluidity of player movement between SACA and Turf clubs, less teams would be fine.

I’d have a Premier League of the top 8 clubs playing each other club in all 3 formats plus finals.
Then a District League of the remaining 5 clubs and the 2nds of the Premier League.
Then the 3rds, with an option for those not in Premier League to field two teams if they wish.

The premier of the District League, if not already in a Premier League, would replace wooden spooner of Premier League in promotion/relegation system.

This would improve standard of top level and make current 2nd Grade/District League far more competitive and important.

Where that falls down is any player with serious state aspirations has to move any time the club is relegated. Becomes a revolving Much simpler to get rid of three teams altogether imo. Keep 4 grades with 10 clubs should raise the standard of 4th grade and clean out some of the players who have no prospect of playing higher.

Get rid of 16 whites. Lots of kids in it who are not much good and are only money makers for the clubs. Keep 14 whites but very much bowlers bowl and batter bat. Seeing 14s teams where every bowler gets a bowl regardless of ability is no good imo.[/quote]

Does this really happen at Grade level. Absolute disgrace if it does, grade clubs are for the best kids not for giving everyone a go.
Do what ever needs to be done to make these clubs the elite in the state, easiest way to do that is thin out some clubs.
With funding cuts this year why dont SACA invite clubs to be part of a new comp with the carrot of funding and no funding for those not invited?

How would people rate the clubs overall. Interested in people's thoughts

Leading Clubs
1. Kensington - the standard for a long time. Small but very affluent zone. Churn out elite juniors.
2. Glenelg - Probably should have won another flag or two across all formats in the 1's over the last few years
3. Tea Tree Gully - weighted towards their success in top grade over last 10 years with mostly internally developed talent

Strong Clubs
4. Sturt - great junior development. Very strong over the years.
5. West Torrens - Probably slid a bit from where they were 10 years ago but leading womens club, strong track record of junior development.
6. Adelaide - Developed a strong 1st grade from home grown talent. Very strong juniors currently as well.
7. University - Great facilities, very good in the grades that they have but lose points for no juniors and reliance on recruiting.
8. East Torrens - Rising fast in all aspects.

Going Okay
9. Woodville - Struggle hard in seniors below 1st grade. Juniors seem to go up and down a fair bit. Not what they were 10 -15 years ago.
10, Southern District - bit of an improvement albeit bringing in a lot of short term recruits. Have struggled to retain good young players

Struggling
11. Port Adelaide - Some credible 1st performances including a flag a few years back . Mostly poor performances below the top grade. Not a growth
area for young people.
12. Northern Districts - Struggled a lot the last 10 years. Seem to lose a lot of heir good young juniors
13. Prospect - Shambles. Relatively small zone.

Geographical Observations - not saying all of these should happen but from the viewpoint of if you were starting a 10 team league from scratch:

- Adelaide between Glenelg and Sturt is not necessary
- Kensington could be set up in the hills.
- Woodville and West Torrens are far too close together to be separate clubs
- Prospect and University are far too close together. Would seem logical to fold prospect juniors in to University. This to me is the most obvious
merger.
- East Torrens and Tea Tree Gully - not necessary to have to clubs in the North East so close together.

Problem here is some of the clubs with small / close zones have been the better performers due to their locating (i.e. relatively high socio -economic areas: East, Beachside and inner south), whilst Southern and Northern have really struggled but make up two of the larger zones. Makes things tricky.

The merger stuff over the last 15 years has caused so much angst

Would a club prefer to merge with a neighbour and remain in premier grade? Or stay as their own entity but slide into Adelaide Turf?

(If these were the only two options)