Barclay Shield 2017/18

Top Contributors
lower11 said:
Helmets arent really necessary against most bowlers in dvca except a few in A grade.
Click to expand...

Did you read about what I've personally witnessed on a cricket field? I might point out that the most serious of those injuries was in G grade. Even a moderately quick bowler is going to hurt you if they hit you in the head. I'l repeat my stance; if we are all that worried about player safety they would make helmets while batting mandatory. I know you can't agree with me on this because if you do then you have to logically concede that playing in hot weather is also a choice. A less dangerous choice than that of not wearing a helmet.
 
statistically it has been proven more percentage of people die in extreme heat conditions than on a cricket field due to not wearing a helmet, google it and you will find out. I rest my case.
 
in fact you dont even need to google it, because you know how many ppl died last year while not wearing a helmet in cricket in australia??? ZERO!!!!!
 
Nah I've learned my lesson in the past. I've been dehydrated once on the cricket field, wasn't a pleasant experience, although I still managed to carry my bat. I remember before the heat our rule we played in the heat no worries, the hottest was 45C. We were at South Morang's old ground opposite the pub. We fielded 77 overs and defended 280. I lost 3.5kgs that day, but no one turned up their toes.

Besides, I wasn't picked this week.
 
lower11 said:
What happened not scoring enough runs?
Click to expand...

Fitness apparently, doesn't matter that the only players ahead of me in runs scored this year are 1's guys, 3 of the 4 have played 2-3 games more than me. I'd like to say more, but I'd risk the wrath of committee.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
Fitness apparently, doesn't matter that the only players ahead of me in runs scored this year are 1's guys, 3 of the 4 have played 2-3 games more than me. I'd like to say more, but I'd risk the wrath of committee.
Click to expand...


You didn't get picked anyway. Let loose.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
Fitness apparently, doesn't matter that the only players ahead of me in runs scored this year are 1's guys, 3 of the 4 have played 2-3 games more than me. I'd like to say more, but I'd risk the wrath of committee.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the bowling in Money Shield, B grade, and then F3 are all similar, so it's a fair comparison to make on your behalf.
 
CricketBox said:
I'm sure the bowling in Money Shield, B grade, and then F3 are all similar, so it's a fair comparison to make on your behalf.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. There's a bigger gap between Money and B than there is between F3 and B. The top sides in F are comparable to B grade, the bottom sides not so much. Sure you might run into the odd quicker bowler in B, but that happened in F as well.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
Yes and no. There's a bigger gap between Money and B than there is between F3 and B. The top sides in F are comparable to B grade, the bottom sides not so much. Sure you might run into the odd quicker bowler in B, but that happened in F as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah the gap between money and b grade is called mash shield you peanut! Your a joke thinking the gap between b and f are comparable. Maybe at your rabble of a club they are
 
ABSOLUTE GLAM JNR said:
Yeah the gap between money and b grade is called mash shield you peanut! Your a joke thinking the gap between b and f are comparable. Maybe at your rabble of a club they are
Click to expand...

Have played both in recent years, since the reshuffle taking 1's teams out of B, there isn't much difference between the better F3 sides and B. It was strange in F3 grade, even though it seems like a low grade, you have/had multiple clubs where that was their 3's. Epping, us, Macloed, Old Paradians, Plenty and then we also had Riverside that were strong right way down. While your opinion seems based on grade 2 name calling, mine's based on actually playing in both those grades.
 
MacRat19 said:
Also wondering the same or is it the 20 overs constitutes a game?
Would be an unfair advantage for some to have a one dayer and others having to continue the 2 dayer with teams in control
Click to expand...

Not sure if rule has changed in last few season but used to be 20 overs or more constitute a game unless 50% of the games do not get that far. Having a quick look at the results, the 3 games on Mycricket with a scorecard played more than 20 while I am not sure about the other two. I wasn't at our game so not sure how many overs were bowled but we were 2/34 when play was stopped (according to FB update).
In short, unless you played less than 20 overs, will be a 2 day match is my understanding.
 
The rule is that if "more than 50%" of games didn't make the minimum of 20 overs, then the entire round is scrubbed that week for 1 day match day 2. I wonder what's happening with grades that had a 50/50 split, will they scrub the entire round of hold it to the letter of the rule and keep the 1st weeks result as not "more than" 50% of the games were washed out under 20 overs.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
The rule is that if "more than 50%" of games didn't make the minimum of 20 overs, then the entire round is scrubbed that week for 1 day match day 2. I wonder what's happening with grades that had a 50/50 split, will they scrub the entire round of hold it to the letter of the rule and keep the 1st weeks result as not "more than" 50% of the games were washed out under 20 overs.
Click to expand...

Pretty simple if the rule still same as it was a few years ago, this is what needs to happen to revert round to one day matches. I think they will stick by the rule the way it is written, as they should.

8 & 10 sides - 3 matches required under 20 overs

12 & 14 sides - 4 matches required under 20 overs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top