2014/15 D Grade And Below

Top Contributors
_Blackhawk_ said:
Sure, why is it not applicable? Any argument used here against players in lower grades is applicable to the T20, particularly when people like Brad Hodge have played in it as I think it's fair to say he'd be better than any of us in the comp. Even more so if your club plays it only for a 'hit and giggle'. You could even take it further if you wanted into the 'unfair' argument as unlike the DVCA divisions, there is cash on offer to the winner.

So if you wouldn't oppose marquee players or overseas players, there is no reason to oppose high grade players occasionally being in the lower grades.
Click to expand...

Come on now, you're being very silly comparing the two. The T20 comp is not a serious competition, thus being optional for clubs to participate in. Sure, some clubs take it more serious than others, but its there for a fun unique way of fund raising for clubs. They're not games that are for premiership points.

What are you going to say next, comparing Saturday cricket to me playing beach cricket with a mate who plays district 1s over the Christmas break?
 
Tongs said:
I must admit, I don't like the idea of established A Grade players (Players who we all know are not likely to ever be dropped on performance) playing in the lower grades for one week and smashing sides, with bat or ball. I don't think its a good look on the DVCA, Club or Player.

I would like to see it stamped out, but I think some suggestions are bordering on ridiculous. I would like to see a rule along the lines of - "If you've played 7 (example) or more games in BS or MS in the last season and current, then you're not eligible to play in D grade and below". Obviously, there needs to be special consideration for clubs that their twos are in D grade or below, but they are special cases.
Click to expand...
Why make it 7? Make it none! As you said we all know who the regular A grade players are. Who in D grade or lower gets paid and trains twice a week every week? Maybe a few but not those who are likely to win their club promotion or prevent relegation (with all due respect)!
 
I haven't played a game all season ( I have another hobby). Even though I'm "available" t play now, I'm not sure I can be bothered. The training, the empty felling of scoring 10. It doesn't get me going like it used to, especially off the back of my new hobby (motorkhanas). But as someone who often did umpiring once I finally made that 10, I could be interested in being an actual umpire.

I'd expect there to be some qualification needed. What's the procedure?
 
Brian Lara said:
I haven't played a game all season ( I have another hobby). Even though I'm "available" t play now, I'm not sure I can be bothered. The training, the empty felling of scoring 10. It doesn't get me going like it used to, especially off the back of my new hobby (motorkhanas). But as someone who often did umpiring once I finally made that 10, I could be interested in being an actual umpire.

I'd expect there to be some qualification needed. What's the procedure?
Click to expand...

http://www.dvca.org.au/umpires-required.html
 
Brian Lara said:
I haven't played a game all season ( I have another hobby). Even though I'm "available" t play now, I'm not sure I can be bothered. The training, the empty felling of scoring 10. It doesn't get me going like it used to, especially off the back of my new hobby (motorkhanas). But as someone who often did umpiring once I finally made that 10, I could be interested in being an actual umpire.

I'd expect there to be some qualification needed. What's the procedure?
Click to expand...

Your new hobby is negotiating Plenty Rd in peak hour?
 
I had a chat last week about doing umpiring. You have to jump through a few hoops. So it's a bit inconvenient to do it for this season.
 
So what was the point of OP/SF smashing 8/468 chasing Creeks 178 without an attempt at outright in F Grade this round? Especially after Macleod got an outright in a day, wouldn't you look for an extra 4 points to widen the gap between them and you rather than bat all day? If we ever did that to a team and I was still batting, I'd kick my own stumps over a walk off.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
So what was the point of OP/SF smashing 8/468 chasing Creeks 178 without an attempt at outright in F Grade this round? Especially after Macleod got an outright in a day, wouldn't you look for an extra 4 points to widen the gap between them and you rather than bat all day? If we ever did that to a team and I was still batting, I'd kick my own stumps over a walk off.
Click to expand...
Because it was StFrancis. Flogs
 
Watching the BBL final last week. It's just affirmed in my mind, that DVCA should make all lower grade days one-dayers, possibly decreasing the games to 30 over innings. With the intention to help players play as quickly as possible, and develop their skills. What I like about T20. Is that I've noticed there isn't an emphasis of individual performance.

When I recall all the rhetoric from training. The intent from a batting perspective, is all about sharpening survival skills and wearing down the bowlers. That's not fun. It'd be better to force guys to play good shot from as early as possible. That'd be more fun.

From the bowling perspective. I think it'd make a wider variety of balls more effective. Which is good because lower level have nowhere near the control of Ryan Harris, and naturally bowl a wider range of lengths/lines. The droning on and on about "hitting the spot" is boring. It's hard to be a disciplined bowler, and bowl the right line/length. You have to be pretty committed, which is something lower grade players aren't. So just make it easier for bowlers to work with what they've got. It's likely deeper/defensive fields will be set, making it easier for scoring opportunities. Not necessarily boundary opportunities.

It'd take a year or two for clubs/players to get used to it. But I think it'd be better comp, and more fun to play.
 
I have no doubt that sooner or later the whole competition will be one day games. I use to be opposed to the idea, but I'm not anymore. As a batsman who can't bowl to save his life, it'd give me more hits in a season. I don't think you need to cut down the overs though, it should be 40 overs and maybe 50 overs for the higher grades. The only issue then is trying to squeeze in an extra hour of play in the first few rounds before it's too dark.

The other advantages I can think of are less fielding and as a by product, you'll probably extend the playing careers of most people.
 
Last edited:
Brian Lara said:
Watching the BBL final last week. It's just affirmed in my mind, that DVCA should make all lower grade days one-dayers, possibly decreasing the games to 30 over innings. With the intention to help players play as quickly as possible, and develop their skills. What I like about T20. Is that I've noticed there isn't an emphasis of individual performance.

When I recall all the rhetoric from training. The intent from a batting perspective, is all about sharpening survival skills and wearing down the bowlers. That's not fun. It'd be better to force guys to play good shot from as early as possible. That'd be more fun.

From the bowling perspective. I think it'd make a wider variety of balls more effective. Which is good because lower level have nowhere near the control of Ryan Harris, and naturally bowl a wider range of lengths/lines. The droning on and on about "hitting the spot" is boring. It's hard to be a disciplined bowler, and bowl the right line/length. You have to be pretty committed, which is something lower grade players aren't. So just make it easier for bowlers to work with what they've got. It's likely deeper/defensive fields will be set, making it easier for scoring opportunities. Not necessarily boundary opportunities.

It'd take a year or two for clubs/players to get used to it. But I think it'd be better comp, and more fun to play.
Click to expand...

To those up echelon snobs.

Please go away. One day games and 20/20 cricket is already provided for in DVCA.

One day games promote poor techniques designed for one thing, sloggers or higher grade players who can't play both weeks of a game.

The lower grades is the for the development of younger cricketers who need time at the crease, and for old buggers who play for the fun or to play with their kids.

It ain't broken so leave us alone.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
So what was the point of OP/SF smashing 8/468 chasing Creeks 178 without an attempt at outright in F Grade this round? Especially after Macleod got an outright in a day, wouldn't you look for an extra 4 points to widen the gap between them and you rather than bat all day? If we ever did that to a team and I was still batting, I'd kick my own stumps over a walk off.
Click to expand...

Try Lalor Stars in G Grade who made 300+ (on day 1) against the 2nd bottom team, then failed to get an outright by 2 wickets. (Only had 10 players to boot)

If they miss the finals (good possibility of happening), what a waste of a year, just because they felt like beating up on a team that is struggling.
 
Underarm28 said:
To those up echelon snobs.

Please go away. One day games and 20/20 cricket is already provided for in DVCA.

One day games promote poor techniques designed for one thing, sloggers or higher grade players who can't play both weeks of a game.

The lower grades is the for the development of younger cricketers who need time at the crease, and for old buggers who play for the fun or to play with their kids.

It ain't broken so leave us alone.
Click to expand...


Could not have said it better.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
I have no doubt that sooner or later the whole competition will be one day games. I use to be opposed to the idea, but I'm not anymore. As a batsman who can't bowl to save his life, it'd give me more hits in a season. I don't think you need to cut down the overs though, it should be 40 overs and maybe 50 overs for the higher grades. The only issue then is trying to squeeze in an extra hour of play in the first few rounds before it's too dark.

The other advantages I can think of are less fielding and as a by product, you'll probably extend the playing careers of most people.
Click to expand...

It would give YOU more hits, but batsmen batting at 8, 9, 10, 11 less hits. Its close to the most ridiculous suggestions I have read on here. and _Blackhawk_ _Blackhawk_ has come up with many!
 
If you're a batsman you don't bat at 8 or below.

As for 'poor techniques', oh please, give me a break, we're playing park cricket. Let's not have delusions of adequacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top