Agree with that but too early to tell who exactly will fill the 4
2015/2016 Money Shield Thread
- Thread starter Tongs
- Start date
WanderingUnity
Active Member
THREE from both Barclay and Money.
Thought it was 4 from MS?
i m pretty sure i heard somewhere there ll be no promotion from b grade this year
correct
The new model will be as follows:
Barclay Shield - 10 teams
Money Shield - 10 teams
"New" Shield - 8 teams
As a result, the winner of Money Shield will go up to Barclay Shield. The bottom 3 sides in Barclay will be relegated to Money Shield. The bottom 4 sides in Money Shield will be relegated to the new shield to join the other 4 clubs not represented in Barclay or Money Shield. My understanding is that at the end of each season, the winner of Money Shield and the New Shield will be promoted to the grade above with the bottom sides in Barclay and Money shields being relegated. There will be no relegation from the "new" shield
CliveWaterhouse
New Member
Atlas atlas atlas.....
Midwicket85
Member
What's he done now?
CliveWaterhouse
New Member
Umpired and carried on like he was
the leggie
Member
Good system, really???
If it was implemented now you would have G'borough (9 in MS), Monty (10 in MS), Hurstbridge (11 in MS), Whittlesea (12 in MS), Panton Hill (1 in B), Thomastown (7th in B), South Morang (12th in B) and Plenty Valley Bats (11th in C) in the new shield grade.
The next grade below would have sides currently occupying 2nd to 10th in B grade (except Thom Utd in new shield).
You could easily argue that B grade will be a far more competitive grade than the new shield grade, and with no relegation from the new shield grade and no promotion from B grade these grades will be stagnate. the new shield grade will be like the old Barclay and Money Reserve grades that were rife for dropping players down through the grades if unable to make finals.
How is that good for DVCA cricket??
And I wont even mention how 10 team grades as proposed for BS, MS just dont work in 21 playing days.
Good system, really???
If it was implemented now you would have G'borough (9 in MS), Monty (10 in MS), Hurstbridge (11 in MS), Whittlesea (12 in MS), Panton Hill (1 in B), Thomastown (7th in B), South Morang (12th in B) and Plenty Valley Bats (11th in C) in the new shield grade.
The next grade below would have sides currently occupying 2nd to 10th in B grade (except Thom Utd in new shield).
You could easily argue that B grade will be a far more competitive grade than the new shield grade, and with no relegation from the new shield grade and no promotion from B grade these grades will be stagnate. the new shield grade will be like the old Barclay and Money Reserve grades that were rife for dropping players down through the grades if unable to make finals.
How is that good for DVCA cricket??
And I wont even mention how 10 team grades as proposed for BS, MS just dont work in 21 playing days.
Sorry posted this on MS thread but saw the comments and just had too.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
Who cares? We're just park cricketers, the comp will not implode and we'll all be stupid enough to once again throw the whites on no matter what structure the comp has.
Ex Prez
Active Member
Disgraceful proposal... How they (DVCA) can justify moving to 10 teams with the proposed format is beyond comprehension.
Supposed to be our Premier grade - and yet we will have a compromised drawing have to play 3 teams twice next year.
I understand the DVCA will try to grade the draw so teams will play 'equal' teams in the extra One dayers...
But this system is flawed. Year to year teams change dramatically.
2 years ago, Plenty were close to being relegated, yet nearly won flag last year, and now looking at relegation again.
Riverside, would have been happy to play them twice this year based on previous form, but not now...
I am not saying i know the perfect outcome - and we all know we have to fix the lower grades - but clubs should have been consulted on the new grading structure as it was originally planned to do so.
I have not spoken to one club that is happy with the new proposal.
I agree might have been too hard to chop from 12 teams to 8, but would be a fairer comp. or leave the top grade at 12 teams, with 2 divisions of 8 below.
I received a call last night from the "Umpires" to advise that we would not be having an umpire for our C Grade game tomorrow. At the DVCA Season launch this year, we were once again assured that umpire numbers were strong and there would be umpires available down to the lower grades. How can we have a situation where there are not enough umpires to adjudicate in C grade? How can we play competitive cricket without umpires? This is our second grade side and players are trying to push their claims to move up to our Money Shield side. How can they do this without an umpire?
I would love to know what everyone's thoughts are about this. Should we persist with two umpires in Barclay Shield and Money Shield if there are not enough umpires to adjudicate in Club's second grade sides?
What will happen next year?? Will there be two umpires for all three "Shield" games? Will that mean no umpires below "Barclay"/"Money"/"?" Shield?
How can you have a Cricket Association without umpires?
I understand that there are challenges and that it's not easy. But this is another reason to drive players away from the DVCA and from cricket in general.
Do we need to pay more to attract more umpires? Would $150 per game attract more umpires to the game? For the sake of $10 or $20 per week extra per club, surely that is a better option than playing without umpires!!
Thoughts??
I would love to know what everyone's thoughts are about this. Should we persist with two umpires in Barclay Shield and Money Shield if there are not enough umpires to adjudicate in Club's second grade sides?
What will happen next year?? Will there be two umpires for all three "Shield" games? Will that mean no umpires below "Barclay"/"Money"/"?" Shield?
How can you have a Cricket Association without umpires?
I understand that there are challenges and that it's not easy. But this is another reason to drive players away from the DVCA and from cricket in general.
Do we need to pay more to attract more umpires? Would $150 per game attract more umpires to the game? For the sake of $10 or $20 per week extra per club, surely that is a better option than playing without umpires!!
Thoughts??
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
No paid umpires will probably improve the quality of umpiring. Seriously, if all the clubs saved the cash spent on them and just agreed on two points; not out LBW if it hits you on the knee roll and above and if you snick it walk off, everyone would be ahead.
I must update that an umpire was provided and attended on the day. Apparently, the Sunday rounds affect the number of Umpires available. Most umpires do not want to umpire on both Saturday and Sunday. When are we going to do away with Sunday rounds? We already have Vets every second Sunday. Surely we don't need to be playing senior cricket on a Sunday?
Ex Prez
Active Member
Apparently it is due to a shortage of grounds in the Nillumbik area. Issue is only going to get worse as that is the growth area.
Clubs like Diamond Creek, NEW, Research etc who all having growing junior numbers, and therefore growing senior teams are causing the issues...
(not bagging those clubs, just fact they are 'lucky' to located in a growth area)
Council isnt going to build any new grounds in a hurry, so apart from restricting the size of a club ( ie max teams), cant see any viable alternative...unless the Banyule & Whittlesea councils agree to allow clubs from outisde their council zones to play on those grounds.
shortnwide
Active Member
Perhaps there are grounds not being used at the moment that could be upgraded to be suitable.
Research ECCC only use one council ground in Research Park. Our other 2 grounds are College grounds, so we are not stretching any council facilities.