Grade Cricket

[oyster]

So there's a parlimentary enquiry, what a farce, if SACA cant run the comp how they want to, the politicians may as well run it. Its SACA's right to do what they think is in the best interest of the comp, I dont care who is right or wrong, its got nothing to do with parliament and you are clutching at straws to get them involved.
Just wind both clubs up if they want to go down this path, create a new comp and dont invite them to partake, simple

You're a hard wicket hack from out in the Barossa, and not a very good hard wicket hack at that.
Just worry about rolling the matting out next season champ, shine that 2 piece ball, and leave the big clubs to sort out their own competition.
Leave the top grade clubs, which are run by former grade players, and people that know what they are doing, to worry about the grade competition and two clubs which are over 130 years old. While the grade clubs are doing that, go make some new pegs to hold the matting down

[daysofourlives]

Better Turf wickets in the Barossa than most grade clubs pal and we dont need SACA to prepare a decent wicket either.
You'd think such an old club would have an established home base.
There's more likelihood of a club being based in the Barossa than West Torrens in the future. Maybe you could relocate again

[Tony Clifton]

Just gets worse - Glenelg now claim they, and other Clubs, were asked by SACA to get info out to members,etc to stop this Parliamentry enquiry.

Where is this mentioned?

[oyster]

Better Turf wickets in the Barossa than most grade clubs pal and we dont need SACA to prepare a decent wicket either.
You'd think such an old club would have an established home base.
There's more likelihood of a club being based in the Barossa than West Torrens in the future. Maybe you could relocate again

People who play in second rate competitions always believe they are up there with the big boys, with ability and conditions.
Each of the grade clubs have their own wickets prepared either by their own, or the local council. Don't flatter yourself with the wickets.
You really are making yourself look like a dill. As I said, you're a hard wicket hack champ, and not a very good one at that.
Best leave this discussion to people who have played grade cricket and know a little about it legend.
Be a good little boy and run along.

[Tony Clifton]

Pipe down oyster, geez

[oyster]

Pipe down oyster, geez

Tony.
DOOL the TOOL is involving himself in something that has nothing to do with him.
The SACA are trying to get rid of two clubs with over 130 years of history.
Tony - if it was your club, you also would be just as obstinate, passionate, and infuriated with how things are transpiring.
We hardly need some hard wicket hack to be involving himself in the discussion
And I am sorry about calling the Barossa cricket second rate. They only aspire to be second rate, it's really about 5th rate.

[Trader]

Pipe down oyster, geez

Tony.
DOOL the TOOL is involving himself in something that has nothing to do with him.

Oyster, by asking for our taxes to pay for your enquiry you are making us (that is the 1.5m South Australian's who aren't involved with grade cricket) a part of it.

[The Old Fellow]

Oyster, abuse only cheapens one argument, or does it bring out one's true self. One can be passionate about one's own club without abusing and down grading others. Where would grade cricket be without all the the community cricket associations? That includes Adelaide Turf, the other metropolitan associations and all of the the country competitions, whether turf or hard wicket. Where do the majority of players progress from?

For a peak association to have a odd number of teams and a bye every round is not right. With weather conditions (I am aware the weather may differ across the metropolitan area) shield matches and other higher matches making some players unavailable and other events make the competition more uneven due to the bye. If a days play is abandoned across the board it must favour the team which had the bye that week. Also with any one day matches even for double points has an effect on the bye team. So what is the solution? Easy get to an even number of teams. Now the hard part, increase the number of teams to 14 or decrease to 12 or even 10. The cop out would be increase to 14 - dilute the standard of play even further by bringing in more every ordinary players ( there are already too many playing throughout the grades). So to strengthen the competition there is a need to decrease the number of teams by 1 or 3. Maybe SACA need to review what SA Netball did a few seasons ago (this has been mentioned on this site before). Clubs need to meet certain standards (number of teams in seniors, juniors and women, playing facilities, finance of the club, etc) and if they don't, they are not affiliated. That means all grades as the lower grades need to follow the "A" grade team of the club. What SACA did with PA a number of seasons ago by setting them targets to achieve or they would be out was a joke. They were never going to be disaffiliated. To see clubs forfeit seniors and/or juniors is an absolute disgrace. SACA should be looking at having no "D" grade or under 16's and 14's white teams. If necessary start an under 15's competition.

SACA started a new competition to bridge the gap between grade and shield cricket. What a farce that turned into. I was informed that some who played in it didn't even play in their club's "A" and it finished up a preseason competition. How does that help players playing shield especially after Christmas? Don't get too carried away with the state's shield performance this season. What has it been, one finals appearance in how many seasons. To show success you need to make the finals consistently and win them.

SACA has stated that it may withdraw or cut funding to certain clubs if there is no merger. If these two clubs are as strong as some are saying within their community surely they should be able to generate funds from other sources and be less reliant on the SACA hand outs.

Have to agree with Trader, all of South Australia is involved if a tax funded enquiry is held.

Have gone on for too long so will finish with what I said many posts ago that there is a draft program for 2016/17 with no PA. It was mentioned to me last week again.

[Tony Clifton]

Pipe down oyster, geez

Tony.
DOOL the TOOL is involving himself in something that has nothing to do with him.
The SACA are trying to get rid of two clubs with over 130 years of history.
Tony - if it was your club, you also would be just as obstinate, passionate, and infuriated with how things are transpiring.
We hardly need some hard wicket hack to be involving himself in the discussion
And I am sorry about calling the Barossa cricket second rate. They only aspire to be second rate, it's really about 5th rate.

Your club has lots of country cricketers whose pathway included these "second rate" competitions you are bagging. Have some respect. Every level of cricket is important and every level plays a role.

[Tony Clifton]

Have gone on for too long so will finish with what I said many posts ago that there is a draft program for 2016/17 with no PA. It was mentioned to me last week again.

Just on this - it doesn't necessarily mean anything. The programmer probably has a few drafts on the go, depending on whether there are 12 teams or 13 teams, or varying start date, the number of Sat/Sun games etc. Each season the clubs have a few versions of the draw to choose from. No Port might just be a guess - it doesn't matter which club is removed because the playing dates are the important thing.

[Aerie]

Oyster, abuse only cheapens one argument, or does it bring out one's true self. One can be passionate about one's own club without abusing and down grading others. Where would grade cricket be without all the the community cricket associations? That includes Adelaide Turf, the other metropolitan associations and all of the the country competitions, whether turf or hard wicket. Where do the majority of players progress from?

For a peak association to have a odd number of teams and a bye every round is not right. With weather conditions (I am aware the weather may differ across the metropolitan area) shield matches and other higher matches making some players unavailable and other events make the competition more uneven due to the bye. If a days play is abandoned across the board it must favour the team which had the bye that week. Also with any one day matches even for double points has an effect on the bye team. So what is the solution? Easy get to an even number of teams. Now the hard part, increase the number of teams to 14 or decrease to 12 or even 10. The cop out would be increase to 14 - dilute the standard of play even further by bringing in more every ordinary players ( there are already too many playing throughout the grades). So to strengthen the competition there is a need to decrease the number of teams by 1 or 3. Maybe SACA need to review what SA Netball did a few seasons ago (this has been mentioned on this site before). Clubs need to meet certain standards (number of teams in seniors, juniors and women, playing facilities, finance of the club, etc) and if they don't, they are not affiliated. That means all grades as the lower grades need to follow the "A" grade team of the club. What SACA did with PA a number of seasons ago by setting them targets to achieve or they would be out was a joke. They were never going to be disaffiliated. To see clubs forfeit seniors and/or juniors is an absolute disgrace. SACA should be looking at having no "D" grade or under 16's and 14's white teams. If necessary start an under 15's competition.

SACA started a new competition to bridge the gap between grade and shield cricket. What a farce that turned into. I was informed that some who played in it didn't even play in their club's "A" and it finished up a preseason competition. How does that help players playing shield especially after Christmas? Don't get too carried away with the state's shield performance this season. What has it been, one finals appearance in how many seasons. To show success you need to make the finals consistently and win them.

SACA has stated that it may withdraw or cut funding to certain clubs if there is no merger. If these two clubs are as strong as some are saying within their community surely they should be able to generate funds from other sources and be less reliant on the SACA hand outs.

Have to agree with Trader, all of South Australia is involved if a tax funded enquiry is held.

Have gone on for too long so will finish with what I said many posts ago that there is a draft program for 2016/17 with no PA. It was mentioned to me last week again.

You are spot on old fellow.

Criteria to be affiliated. ALL clubs must meet them. Show ALL the results.

If the SACA is so hellbent on preventing this enquiry, just maybe they've got something they're not so proud of revealing.

[Aerie]

When the Zadow report came out, one of the only things the SACA took out of it was the upgrade in turf wickets. Glenelg Oval may have been done due to Shield Cricket prior to this report, which is fair enough.

Was University Oval the next club to get their turf square redone by SACA and has any other club been done?

[daysofourlives]

So tell me, what will a parliamentary enquiry achieve other than spending tax payers dollars?
Does the parliament have the power to overturn SACA's decision? Is that in the SACA constitution is it?
See if you can answer these Oyster instead of the abuse, im sure others are also interested in knowing what your club hopes to achieve by pushing for this?

Anyway will be catching up with the SACA bosses next weekend and congratulating them on finally doing something about the state of cricket in this state, the clubs with their own self interests have been dictating for far too long.

[heater31]

WTF happened in here overnight

Personally I can't see what this Parliamentary involvement is going to achieve apart from waste time and money. You have players still wondering where they will be playing next season and its bloody May. Informal Pre-season nets are only a couple of months away and SACA are forwarding approaches from interstate players about moving to Adelaide. Planning for 2016/17 is well underway.


Yes it sucks but take a look at the whole picture.......we have 13 teams, the only Shield State with an uneven number, 1 of those Clubs struggles for junior participation a KPI for most clubs (I'm going to leave University out of this as that is another kettle of fish). Cricket Australia has undertaken a review and has said that SACA must reduce to get to an even number.

[mickey]

Instead of killing clubs why dont SACA re-do the zone giving every club a fighting chance of competing on a level playing field. Would be interesting to do a 10 year performance ladder of the clubs.. im pretty sure there would be some surprising results...

[Aerie]

Perhaps a parliamentary enquiry might finally force SACA to take itself seriously when it comes to the administration running the game. That would be a good thing for everyone.

Further to that, it would reveal the processes put in place to get to the decision to target western clubs, and eventually why it has targeted West Torrens and Port Adelaide specifically.

It may reveal the plans SACA has long term for Grade cricket (if they have any). This would be a good thing! If things need to change, lay it on the table. Offend everyone! Don't just target a perceived weakness in the western suburbs.

Millions of government dollars have gone to the SACA. My tax dollars too. I'd like to see a small amount of investment put towards holding to account the people running this great game in our state, which is bigger than all of us.

You only have to look at the latest letter to members by Glenelg CC and the previous open letter from University CC to make you wonder what is actually going on.

The least that could happen if you are going to defunct two clubs is tell them exactly how you came to this decision and why this will be better for our game in this state.

[Aerie]

Instead of killing clubs why dont SACA re-do the zone giving every club a fighting chance of competing on a level playing field. Would be interesting to do a 10 year performance ladder of the clubs.. im pretty sure there would be some surprising results...

I did this ladder a while ago. It is last 7 years because that is all that is on MyCricket. It is purely 1st Grade and purely regular season matches. I know there is more to it than just a basic ladder to make a decision, but I'd like to see all data SACA have produced to come to this decision.

1stGrade7Years.jpg (71.92 KiB) Viewed 2119 times

[tigerpie]

I don't mind paying for an inquiry. I want to know the truth of how saca came to this decision.
If their reasons are just, then no problem.
If they aren't then I want to know HOW they came to a decision.

[daysofourlives]

What does it matter why or how SACA have come to this decision?
If its dodgy dealings so be it (as long as its not illegal), wont be the last organization to indulge in this.

The end result is what matters.
Does the parliament think its their business because they put money into Adelaide Oval, long bow

[backoftheroom]

Oyster seems to have finally imploded, only a matter of time.

The inquiry is a a strange case though, sure, it will provide some more transparency on SACA's decision making process, but like it was mentioned earlier, in the end it may amount to sweet FA with no way to enforce it. This whole saga has carried on for way to long, its now not only affecting the clubs involved, but also every other club in the comp.

If there was a good enough argument to be kept in the comp it would have been made already, if it has fallen on deaf ears then deal with it; these people are in the position to make such a decision because they were put there, so let them do their jobs. At the end of the day all of grade cricket is losing out thanks to two clubs making a mess and trying to be big dogs when they simply are not.