Dvca - Competition Restructure

What should we do with the Competition next season and beyond?

  • Leave it as is

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Go through with the proposed change (10, 10, 8)

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Change to a 12, 8, 8 Team Structure

    Votes: 6 50.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
Top Contributors
Delboy said:
Also, what's with the F1, F2 etc gradings? Are they afraid that someone might get a dented ego by playing 'K grade'?
Click to expand...

There is a simple fix for this; return to the Reserve Grade concept for the first 3 grades after Mash Shield, therefore having Barclay Reserve, Money Reserve and Mash Reserve. Then start after that with B, C, D, E, F Grades. Surely this would be far easier for fixturing as well?!?! The top two teams from each club would play home and away on their main grounds. Are we missing the easiest solution here?[/QUOTE]
I think you'll find that when they had the meeting, there wasn't anyone who could translate the alphabet confidently passed G, so they had to compromises with numbers. This could also present a problem if lots of clubs nominate extra teams, as I'm led to believe that counting is not a strong point either.
 
Can anyone explain why the 3rds competition didnt start week 1 of the season?
Also thoughts on why the 3rds who have traditionally played 80 over cricket - now playing 68 overs...?

I think the maybe 3rds have been lost in the re-structure of the grades now that they are called F grade.

Suggestion for Grade names - for next year. All 2's comp to be called B1, B2, B3, B4.
All 3's to be called C1, C2, C3....etc...
Just a cosmetic change but think it sounds better than playing F grade...
 
Ex Prez said:
Can anyone explain why the 3rds competition didnt start week 1 of the season?
Also thoughts on why the 3rds who have traditionally played 80 over cricket - now playing 68 overs...?

I think the maybe 3rds have been lost in the re-structure of the grades now that they are called F grade.

Suggestion for Grade names - for next year. All 2's comp to be called B1, B2, B3, B4.
All 3's to be called C1, C2, C3....etc...
Just a cosmetic change but think it sounds better than playing F grade...
Click to expand...

Some 3s did play on the weekend I think. Should just bring back shield reserve grades and have it how it used to be rather than dressing up lower grades as 'F4' or whatever it is now
 
Ex Prez said:
I think the maybe 3rds have been lost in the re-structure of the grades now that they are called F grade.
Click to expand...

No one cares that much about the 3rds. I reckon that throughout the competition, you'd be lucky to have 50% of 3's guys training each week and it would drop off from there the further down you go.
 
lower11 said:
You asked for your 3rds to be put in that grade, so why whinge. Unless I am mistaken, as your 3rds were in D grade last year and should be playing higher...
Click to expand...

Lower11 - INCORRECT. This is what was dictated to by the structural changes.

Our 3rd were in D grade last year. Finished about 6-7th... playing 80 over cricket against majority other teams 2's.

The restructure has now placed us against other teams 3's (not a bad thing) but I was just questioning why starting so late...and why the amendment to 68 overs ? ( also not complaining at my age)
 
Deep point said:
Some 3s did play on the weekend I think. Should just bring back shield reserve grades and have it how it used to be rather than dressing up lower grades as 'F4' or whatever it is now
Click to expand...

Just 4 of the 3's played. These were the top 4 ranked 3's teams from last year. Now playing in E grade against the lowest 4 2's teams.

The regular 3's comp ( F1-F4) start this week with the rest.
 
_Blackhawk_ said:
No one cares that much about the 3rds. I reckon that throughout the competition, you'd be lucky to have 50% of 3's guys training each week and it would drop off from there the further down you go.
Click to expand...

Depends at what level the 3's sits in the ranking of all your other teams.
If the 3s are a clubs 3rd out of 5-6 teams, then I would suggest the 3s would have a pretty strong representation at training.
The lower clubs where the 3s might be the lowest grade, perhaps not so much.

I reckon probably 9/11 of our 3s would train at least once a week.
 
Ex-Prez said:
Lower11 - INCORRECT. This is what was dictated to by the structural changes
Click to expand...

well thats crap then because out 3rds were in D grade last year and according to my seeding calculation we should also be playing higher (new E grade) same with you guys, but why we are playing F1 is beyond me....
 
2 Games in 2 days this weekend, we should be playing less cricket not more.

Way to try and make cricket appealing to people DVCA:thumbsu:

It's all good I have nothing to do on Sunday anyway:rolleyes:
 
Jesus, no complaints? Could it be, has the DVCA actually done something of which people approve, or at very least, don't dislike?
 
Having watched a lot of cricket at Research Park, I dont think I'd be wrong in saying the one topic that without fail comes up every game, is the amount of missed no balls that occur every week. As we all know, Research gives you a great view of this and to be honest, it's embarrassing to sit there every week and watch bowlers overstep by sometimes a good 12 inches and not be called. I've spoken to and heard many umpires acknowledge this but say "yeah we know guys overstep but we tend not to worry about the ones who only go a little bit over, just the ones that are really obvious. Problem with this is they're all obvious at Research and a no ball is a no ball. If a bowler is allowed to overstep by any margin and allowed to go unchecked, potentially gaining dismissals illegally, it is wrong. I'm pretty sure this happens at every game, every week but is only highlighted at Research due to the best view in the valley. How about from now on umpires adjudicate as the law says and put the onus on the bowler to get it right. I have no doubt bowlers are getting wickets and an advantage due to a flawed belief that the front foot no ball law has a varying degree of leniency. This is wrong and has a simple solution.
 
I don't think it's an issue of umpires being lenient on the front foot, I think it's an issue of umpires being 60+ and needing to concentrate on the LBW and snicks due to aging eye sight. It's just a matter of fact that they are not going to be able to watch the front line then be able to focus on where the ball pitches and hits the pads or the bat. I've noticed there are far more no balls called in the lower grades and I think that is directly related to the fact that the guys umpiring are younger and thus have better eye sight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top