SA Footy

heater31 wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Wasn't the idea always that the 4 team PL and the 13 team Grade comp meet somewhere in the middle?

Where are the rumours of the 10 team competition coming from?

Bradshaw due to recommend a restructure at the next board meeting.....
10 teams is all but a formality is my mail...

Probably well over due.
Was always gunna take someone to say this is the way it's gunna be.

heater31 wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Wasn't the idea always that the 4 team PL and the 13 team Grade comp meet somewhere in the middle?

Where are the rumours of the 10 team competition coming from?

Bradshaw due to recommend a restructure at the next board meeting.....
10 teams is all but a formality is my mail...

H31, your mail is good, been discussed and approved, devil is in the detail, long overdue.

Who gets the final call on club numbers?

Is it the Board? Does it have to get passed at a SACA AGM? The grade cricket committee?

Tony Clifton wrote:Who gets the final call on club numbers?

Is it the Board? Does it have to get passed at a SACA AGM? The grade cricket committee?

The Full SACA board. Surely they will give clubs the opportunity to sort it out themselves. If no one moves then I guess they will go down the path of creating licences and setting KPI for all clubs to meet.

heater31 wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Who gets the final call on club numbers?

Is it the Board? Does it have to get passed at a SACA AGM? The grade cricket committee?

The Full SACA board. Surely they will give clubs the opportunity to sort it out themselves. If no one moves then I guess they will go down the path of creating licences and setting KPI for all clubs to meet.

This should have happened years ago, if clubs dont meet certain KPIs they shouldnt get the SACA funding all clubs get.

How will SACA guarantee that all the best coaches, administrators/volunteers and players gravitate to the ten clubs?

If poorly run clubs are an issue now why won't it be in the future?

Tony Clifton wrote:How will SACA guarantee that all the best coaches, administrators/volunteers and players gravitate to the ten clubs?

If poorly run clubs are an issue now why won't it be in the future?

I dont think its 'poorly run clubs' thats the issue..... this is subjective unless you are at a poorly run club . Its the number of clubs and players playing at the top level each weekend which is the issue.

By clubs merging, folding, going elsewhere etc etc the players who are committed to playing at GC level or above will spread throughout the 10 clubs. As will the coaches, some of the volunteers etc.

Simple questions.
1)When The redbacks won the shield last how many grade teams were in the comp and what was the population of adelaide.
2) How many teams in the comp now and What is the population now

Stumps wrote:Simple questions.
1)When The redbacks won the shield last how many grade teams were in the comp and what was the population of adelaide.
2) How many teams in the comp now and What is the population now

1) 14, less than now

Spot on. It's bullshit I reckon. Should just have two grade clubs so it's the best playing against the best every week!

Fewer clubs won't fix anything. Some players will join the newly formed merged club. Some might drift off to other grade clubs. Some will filter into Adelaide Turf or back to their home club. Others will stop playing. There will be the perception that a merged club is really just "Club A" with a different name and its players are favoured.

Look at Northern Districts. Salisbury were THE absolute powerhouse. Merged and now they can't get all those old Salisbury champions to go back there to coach or do anything. They're more likely to be involved with Pooraka. Will people want to play for a blended club that no one is passionate about?

Performances of clubs ebb and flow depending on who is in charge at committee level, who is coaching, who is running juniors. Better off setting some minimum standards and a proper process regarding the appointment delegates, junior coordinators, senior coaches, junior coaches and women's coaches rather than culling clubs.

Have heard quite a big name has been linked with Northern Districts coaching role.

Tony Clifton wrote:

Stumps wrote:Simple questions.
1)When The redbacks won the shield last how many grade teams were in the comp and what was the population of adelaide.
2) How many teams in the comp now and What is the population now

1) 14, less than now

Spot on. It's bullshit I reckon. Should just have two grade clubs so it's the best playing against the best every week!

Fewer clubs won't fix anything. Some players will join the newly formed merged club. Some might drift off to other grade clubs. Some will filter into Adelaide Turf or back to their home club. Others will stop playing. There will be the perception that a merged club is really just "Club A" with a different name and its players are favoured.

Look at Northern Districts. Salisbury were THE absolute powerhouse. Merged and now they can't get all those old Salisbury champions to go back there to coach or do anything. They're more likely to be involved with Pooraka. Will people want to play for a blended club that no one is passionate about?

Performances of clubs ebb and flow depending on who is in charge at committee level, who is coaching, who is running juniors. Better off setting some minimum standards and a proper process regarding the appointment delegates, junior coordinators, senior coaches, junior coaches and women's coaches rather than culling clubs.[/quote

Correct. The difficult answer is to spend money on talent development, coaching, facilities the easy answer is to cull. 13 clubs for a city of 1.4 mill doesn't seem too much to me, maybe cutting out D grade will mean 30 people at training not 40 which helps coaching, helps training standards etc etc. Anyway I'm skeptical it will work. I think the main reason A grade cricket isn't the standard it was is due to decent 28-35 year olds leaving the system because of too long playing hours and too many Sunday's. 1-6pm 80 overs and maybe some Saca based incentive to keep your wes thomas' jarad Taylor's, duffet, Southam etc etc playing grade cricket, would sort out the 1 or 2 charity players every team is carrying. Kids playing against kids breeds kids standard cricket

Stumps wrote:I think the main reason A grade cricket isn't the standard it was is due to decent 28-35 year olds leaving the system because of too long playing hours and too many Sunday's. 1-6pm 80 overs and maybe some Saca based incentive to keep your wes thomas' jarad Taylor's, duffet, Southam etc etc playing grade cricket, would sort out the 1 or 2 charity players every team is carrying. Kids playing against kids breeds kids standard cricket

I tend to agree - in this time poor environment we live in now, people dont want to or have the time to commit to an entire weekend of cricket + T20 stuff during the week - especially as they get older.
Players will continue to be lost to ATCA because people want to enjoy their cricket and enjoy that social aspect that follows - being able to have a few beers after the game instead of going straight into recovery mode because you have a game the next day.

I think cut back the requirements in the grade stuff, bulk up the workload of the PL if you need to and look to make it look more appealing to the players unsure where they stand so they're retained instead of dropping off to ATCA for a few bucks.

Zartan wrote:

Stumps wrote:I think the main reason A grade cricket isn't the standard it was is due to decent 28-35 year olds leaving the system because of too long playing hours and too many Sunday's. 1-6pm 80 overs and maybe some Saca based incentive to keep your wes thomas' jarad Taylor's, duffet, Southam etc etc playing grade cricket, would sort out the 1 or 2 charity players every team is carrying. Kids playing against kids breeds kids standard cricket

I tend to agree - in this time poor environment we live in now, people dont want to or have the time to commit to an entire weekend of cricket + T20 stuff during the week - especially as they get older.
Players will continue to be lost to ATCA because people want to enjoy their cricket and enjoy that social aspect that follows - being able to have a few beers after the game instead of going straight into recovery mode because you have a game the next day.

I think cut back the requirements in the grade stuff, bulk up the workload of the PL if you need to and look to make it look more appealing to the players unsure where they stand so they're retained instead of dropping off to ATCA for a few bucks.

You can't increase the commitments of the PL. It is already too much. We have part time professional cricketers rolling up to 6am training sessions just to play 2nd XI.

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that it is all over the shop. We have reviews of seniors, but the juniors are left out. So they commission a separate review of that set up. Then the clubs with women's teams pipe up that they are left out. Commission a women's review.....

Someone on the SACA needs to show leadership and review from the top to the bottom. Hopefully we will have a clearer picture after the CEO delivers his report very soon.

I feel like some of the issues bought up here are starting to be addressed. The last thing that needs addressing is PL and getting rid of it, its missed its brief and hasnt achieved anything.

The program (minus PL) reduces mid week T20 games and Sunday one day games (points from one day games on Saturday carry across both ladders). The players are much happy with the structure of the programming.

Footy Smart wrote:The program (minus PL) reduces mid week T20 games and Sunday one day games (points from one day games on Saturday carry across both ladders). The players are much happy with the structure of the programming.

Much simpler, much cleaner, much more appealing.

the star wrote:Have heard quite a big name has been linked with Northern Districts coaching role.

Not Chuck?!

Heard Greg Quinn. He'd want to play though

Tony Clifton wrote:

the star wrote:Have heard quite a big name has been linked with Northern Districts coaching role.

Not Chuck?!

Heard Greg Quinn. He'd want to play though

Quinn was re-appointed at Para Hills CC.

Tony Clifton wrote:

the star wrote:Have heard quite a big name has been linked with Northern Districts coaching role.

Not Chuck?!

Heard Greg Quinn. He'd want to play though

I've heard Quinny as well.

Not sure if Chuck will have a cricket role, seems to building a media profile around town.

Quinn staying at para hills http://atca.sa.cricket.com.au/pageitem. ... ntityID=38

Andrew Zesers to prospect.