Subbies Thread

[compulsive]

If the proposed new model was an expanded subbies model to cover all of Melbourne with North, South, West and East regions, that would be great.

They could have two highest divisions play in the subbies format of rotating regions each season.

For the third division and below, they can play in a regionalised format. I guess similar to how subbies 3rd's and 4th's works.

 

[westland]

No problems mate, sorry if it looked like I was having a go, certainly wasn't.

No one replaced Phil, it was more a case of CV not being happy with Subbies and getting rid of that element.

Not sure about the document, as I am on the committee, it was forwraded to us to give Subbies our thoughts. I am not sure if it is to be made fully public, I will find out.

Oh dear--sounds as if battlelines are being drawn up between subbies and CV. As you know, the relevant article in the most recent edition of VTCA's Leading Edge suggests that comp is also far from happy. Never any thought you were having a go at me mate. I just got confused, thinking the article in the Bayside Leader, which I couldn't access, was the document. You have now set me straight. On the assumption the document will not become public until the clubs' have expressed their views, I will wait until that happens before posting on the matter.

 

[rat'n'bat]

I've tried uploading it, but it is apparently too big. If you're really keen to read it – flick me your email in a PM and I'll send it across
The VTCA are vehemently against it – although I reckon the document didn’t really change their mind. They were opposed from the start and have looked for reasons after forming their judgement. The VTCA clubs I've spoken to (admittedly in the south) are all for it – it seems to address the primary concerns of those clubs, that for many years the VTCA has ignored. I don’t think there are many things in the document that people would disagree on that couldn’t be worked through – certainly not enough to cause widespread disapproval in my opinion.

The VTCA's only grievance that I think has merit is to include Premier Cricket in the review (or at least have their own review – which would hopefully keep Premier Cricket at 1st and 2nd XI only). Premier clubs could then run their own development squads, with players playing at their home clubs in senior cricket – before being called up to Premier 2nds if needed.

Once again, in my opinion, the administration of cricket generally (and turf cricket specifically) has to be streamlined to ensure the viability of clubs, and the progression of talented players to higher levels. The sooner it all happens the better, I believe.

 

[Round the grounds]

Oh dear--sounds as if battlelines are being drawn up between subbies and CV. As you know, the relevant article in the most recent edition of VTCA's Leading Edge suggests that comp is also far from happy. Never any thought you were having a go at me mate. I just got confused, thinking the article in the Bayside Leader, which I couldn't access, was the document. You have now set me straight. On the assumption the document will not become public until the clubs' have expressed their views, I will wait until that happens before posting on the matter.

Westland, here is a link to the Port Phillip Leader which carries the article (not Bayside Leader which was what the author said on twitter).
You will find the article on Page 53, no subscription required. However, if you private message Rat'n'Bat he will email you the whole CV document which will provide 100% of the proposal not just what the spin doctors want you to hear.

http://leader.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

 

[Super Saint]

I've tried uploading it, but it is apparently too big. If you're really keen to read it – flick me your email in a PM and I'll send it across
The VTCA are vehemently against it – although I reckon the document didn’t really change their mind. They were opposed from the start and have looked for reasons after forming their judgement. The VTCA clubs I've spoken to (admittedly in the south) are all for it – it seems to address the primary concerns of those clubs, that for many years the VTCA has ignored. I don’t think there are many things in the document that people would disagree on that couldn’t be worked through – certainly not enough to cause widespread disapproval in my opinion.

The VTCA's only grievance that I think has merit is to include Premier Cricket in the review (or at least have their own review – which would hopefully keep Premier Cricket at 1st and 2nd XI only). Premier clubs could then run their own development squads, with players playing at their home clubs in senior cricket – before being called up to Premier 2nds if needed.

Once again, in my opinion, the administration of cricket generally (and turf cricket specifically) has to be streamlined to ensure the viability of clubs, and the progression of talented players to higher levels. The sooner it all happens the better, I believe.

I'm not sure this model will make clubs viable. Certainly in Subbies, I think the 4 group concept is pretty good and the travel doesn't have much impact on people not playing. I suggest it is more the mal-administration of clubs. Plenty spend on players when they simply cannot afford it.

I do agree that Premier 3's and 4's is a nonsense: a 'dead pool' for talented kids to get jack of cricket and exit the game.

 

[rat'n'bat]

I'm not sure this model will make clubs viable. Certainly in Subbies, I think the 4 group concept is pretty good and the travel doesn't have much impact on people not playing. I suggest it is more the mal-administration of clubs. Plenty spend on players when they simply cannot afford it.

I do agree that Premier 3's and 4's is a nonsense: a 'dead pool' for talented kids to get jack of cricket and exit the game.

But if you extend the 4 group model of subbies, you get what the restructure will provide. Except over the whole of metropolitan turf cricket, and 5 regions instead of 4 groups.
Teams will play against other teams of similar standard throughout ALL grades (in the Bayside region for example there will be 14 grades of 12 teams)– there will still be divisions at the top with some outstanding cricketers playing, there will be less travel (doesn’t really affect me, but it certainly affects others at our club, and other clubs. We had a 60km trip last week which I could probably have done without), it will be far easier for councils to deal with competitions (I think the doc says there is one council dealing with 6 different comps, or something similar), there will be greater options for flexibility within each comp (1 day cricket, t20 cricket, Sunday cricket) – there aren’t many negatives in my opinio

 

[Scratch]

I've tried uploading it, but it is apparently too big. If you're really keen to read it – flick me your email in a PM and I'll send it across
The VTCA are vehemently against it – although I reckon the document didn’t really change their mind. They were opposed from the start and have looked for reasons after forming their judgement. The VTCA clubs I've spoken to (admittedly in the south) are all for it – it seems to address the primary concerns of those clubs, that for many years the VTCA has ignored. I don’t think there are many things in the document that people would disagree on that couldn’t be worked through – certainly not enough to cause widespread disapproval in my opinion.

The VTCA's only grievance that I think has merit is to include Premier Cricket in the review (or at least have their own review – which would hopefully keep Premier Cricket at 1st and 2nd XI only). Premier clubs could then run their own development squads, with players playing at their home clubs in senior cricket – before being called up to Premier 2nds if needed.

Once again, in my opinion, the administration of cricket generally (and turf cricket specifically) has to be streamlined to ensure the viability of clubs, and the progression of talented players to higher levels. The sooner it all happens the better, I believe.

Are you representing the VTCA.

 

[rat'n'bat]

Are you representing the VTCA.

I play for (and am on the executive of) a club in the VTCA.
I don’t know how you could find anything in what I wrote that would pin me as a rep for the VTCA. I'm so far down the other end of the spectrum it isn't really funny!!

 

[Round the grounds]

But if you extend the 4 group model of subbies, you get what the restructure will provide. Except over the whole of metropolitan turf cricket, and 5 regions instead of 4 groups.
Teams will play against other teams of similar standard throughout ALL grades (in the Bayside region for example there will be 14 grades of 12 teams)– there will still be divisions at the top with some outstanding cricketers playing, there will be less travel (doesn’t really affect me, but it certainly affects others at our club, and other clubs. We had a 60km trip last week which I could probably have done without), it will be far easier for councils to deal with competitions (I think the doc says there is one council dealing with 6 different comps, or something similar), there will be greater options for flexibility within each comp (1 day cricket, t20 cricket, Sunday cricket) – there aren’t many negatives in my opinio

I don't think travel is a concern for Subbies clubs, they are accustomed to it and it only really affects the top 2 grades. Some other issues that are affecting the VTCA also don't apply to Subbies. As I have said previously, I just don't think there is an appetite for change as far as subbies are concerned. It is obvious that the big players, Caulfield, Oakleigh, South Caulfield etc will not be significantly affected at 1st XI level. What does concern me is the lesser lights in both VSDCA and VTCA, how they fit in a 14 division comp. I would like to know what the Sunshine's, the Moorabbin's, the Murrumbeena's, the Middle Park's think about an EPL system. I asked Scratch not long ago if anyone had ever been promoted to VTCA Senior and won the flag? Doesn't sound like anyone has, the promoted sides just yo-yo between top flight and the divi below. Is that really what clubs want? How will that affect the lesser lights, especially lower ranked Senior clubs who might never get back? Then there is the issue of 2nd's playing against 1st's, 3rd's playing against 1st's, 4th's playing against 1st's, is that really what club's want? Anyway, I will continue to look on and see how it pans out, still sticking to my view that it won't proceed.

 

[Round the grounds]

I play for (and am on the executive of) a club in the VTCA.
I don’t know how you could find anything in what I wrote that would pin me as a rep for the VTCA. I'm so far down the other end of the spectrum it isn't really funny!!

Agree, you never said you represented the VTCA, glad you are willing to state your opinion, and share the doc which everyone knows is still draft and shouldn't be kept under lock and key.

 

[rat'n'bat]

I don't think travel is a concern for Subbies clubs, they are accustomed to it and it only really affects the top 2 grades. Some other issues that are affecting the VTCA also don't apply to Subbies. As I have said previously, I just don't think there is an appetite for change as far as subbies are concerned. It is obvious that the big players, Caulfield, Oakleigh, South Caulfield etc will not be significantly affected at 1st XI level. What does concern me is the lesser lights in both VSDCA and VTCA, how they fit in a 14 division comp. I would like to know what the Sunshine's, the Moorabbin's, the Murrumbeena's, the Middle Park's think about an EPL system. I asked Scratch not long ago if anyone had ever been promoted to VTCA Senior and won the flag? Doesn't sound like anyone has, the promoted sides just yo-yo between top flight and the divi below. Is that really what clubs want? How will that affect the lesser lights, especially lower ranked Senior clubs who might never get back? Then there is the issue of 2nd's playing against 1st's, 3rd's playing against 1st's, 4th's playing against 1st's, is that really what club's want? Anyway, I will continue to look on and see how it pans out, still sticking to my view that it won't proceed.

In my time in the VTCA, Old Mentone won the flag in South, and won straight away in Senior (2 seasons ago I think). Then the guys in their 2s didn’t want to travel, so they were forced by the VTCA to be play in South A (check their scorecard from last week) because the VTCA doesn’t want to have teams at Senior or South levels whose 2s don’t play – and they refuse to have non-aligned seconds comps.

The top flight will always be strong – the strong subbie clubs you mentioned will be strong (as will South Caulfield and Bentleigh and Beaumaris who have been traditionally strong in the VTCA) – I reckon it would be a terrific comp to watch
But the increased depth will also allow lower grades to find their level. At the minute we have teams who are getting smashed every week (and losing players, and then clubs are losing teams) just because they are forced to play against other teams 2nds – when they are clearly not good enough. I could give you about 6 examples in the past 3 years of tiems when 2nd XIs were promoted or relegated based on their 1st XI performance – when they didn’t deserve to be. If they can play against teams of comparable quality then they won't become so disillusioned with the game.
And if we (as local turf clubs) lose teams, then we lose a turf ground (to synthetic cricket, or other sports) it affects all of us.

 

[Round the grounds]

In my time in the VTCA, Old Mentone won the flag in South, and won straight away in Senior (2 seasons ago I think). Then the guys in their 2s didn’t want to travel, so they were forced by the VTCA to be play in South A (check their scorecard from last week) because the VTCA doesn’t want to have teams at Senior or South levels whose 2s don’t play – and they refuse to have non-aligned seconds comps.

The top flight will always be strong – the strong subbie clubs you mentioned will be strong (as will South Caulfield and Bentleigh and Beaumaris who have been traditionally strong in the VTCA) – I reckon it would be a terrific comp to watch
But the increased depth will also allow lower grades to find their level. At the minute we have teams who are getting smashed every week (and losing players, and then clubs are losing teams) just because they are forced to play against other teams 2nds – when they are clearly not good enough. I could give you about 6 examples in the past 3 years of tiems when 2nd XIs were promoted or relegated based on their 1st XI performance – when they didn’t deserve to be. If they can play against teams of comparable quality then they won't become so disillusioned with the game.
And if we (as local turf clubs) lose teams, then we lose a turf ground (to synthetic cricket, or other sports) it affects all of us.

Yes, and these are some of the differences between the two comps. No Subbies club can drop a side, they need 4 and they do it, not always easily but they do it. Maybe it's the greater certainty that the structure provides that makes subbies clubs more stable but no ground is ever lost because no-one drops a team. This is what subbies stand to lose, would Sunshine or Moorabbin drop a team if they could? Maybe. But they can't. If you remove the structure then the risk emerges. Throwing it all into a melting pot isn't necessarily the panacea for all evils, you could actually be breaking something that doesn't currently need fixing.

 

[westland]

I now have a copy of the document and thank rat'n'bat and Round the grounds for their helpful advice. I have 80 pages of bedside reading to do!

 

[rat'n'bat]

Yes, and these are some of the differences between the two comps. No Subbies club can drop a side, they need 4 and they do it, not always easily but they do it. Maybe it's the greater certainty that the structure provides that makes subbies clubs more stable but no ground is ever lost because no-one drops a team. This is what subbies stand to lose, would Sunshine or Moorabbin drop a team if they could? Maybe. But they can't. If you remove the structure then the risk emerges. Throwing it all into a melting pot isn't necessarily the panacea for all evils, you could actually be breaking something that doesn't currently need fixing.

Don’t have an argument with most of what you say – but there are plenty of clubs who are struggling.
We are one of the bigger clubs (4 turf and 1 synthetic on Saturday, 1 turf on Sunday) so we have a bit more wiggle room. But we still need a comp where the likes of McKinnon, Beaumaris, Hampton, South Caulfield etc (the bigger VTCA clubs) can compete in the grades they need to, while the smaller clubs can also compete in the grades they need to, to remain viable. The status quo for us isn't providing that – and the past few years have seen clubs fall over (and players leave the game) because they were sick of getting belted week in, week out.
I'd love to see the clubs you mentioned (and you'd know the subbie system far better than me) prosper and thrive rather than drop teams. I'd love to see the strong subbie (and VTCA) clubs have 5 and 6 and 7 turf teams in their clubs
Would the clubs you mentioned (and I don’t know their circumstances, so excuse my ignorance) be better clubs if they could worry more about coaching/recruiting/social/juniors – rather than worrying about finding 6 guys to play in their bottom grade each week? If they wore the short term pain of 3 teams to focus on building for the future? Maybe, maybe not

 

[rat'n'bat]

I now have a copy of the document and thank rat'n'bat and Round the grounds for their helpful advice. I have 80 pages of bedside reading to do!

Good luck!!!

 

[Declaration Bowler]

I now have a copy of the document and thank rat'n'bat and Round the grounds for their helpful advice. I have 80 pages of bedside reading to do!

I don't think you should have to take the time to read it unless you are suitably remunerated.

 

[Platypus1]

To a degree I can sympathise with the problems of the other competitions, but all I can really see with the proposals is Sub-District being destroyed for the benefit of covering the shortcomings of other competitions. All of the arguments I have heard regarding dividends, travel, pathways, turf wicket availability, etc. don't hold much water when I think of them in terms of the VSDCA. I reckon I could mount an argument against each. Is Subbies perfect, no, but as Round the Grounds said, "you could actually be breaking something that doesn't currently need fixing"

 

[Scratch]

Well you said the VTCA are dead against it, you don't know then if your not on the executive and as you say your so far down the spectrum

 

[Scratch]

In my time in the VTCA, Old Mentone won the flag in South, and won straight away in Senior (2 seasons ago I think). Then the guys in their 2s didn’t want to travel, so they were forced by the VTCA to be play in South A (check their scorecard from last week) because the VTCA doesn’t want to have teams at Senior or South levels whose 2s don’t play – and they refuse to have non-aligned seconds comps.

The top flight will always be strong – the strong subbie clubs you mentioned will be strong (as will South Caulfield and Bentleigh and Beaumaris who have been traditionally strong in the VTCA) – I reckon it would be a terrific comp to watch
But the increased depth will also allow lower grades to find their level. At the minute we have teams who are getting smashed every week (and losing players, and then clubs are losing teams) just because they are forced to play against other teams 2nds – when they are clearly not good enough. I could give you about 6 examples in the past 3 years of tiems when 2nd XIs were promoted or relegated based on their 1st XI performance – when they didn’t deserve to be. If they can play against teams of comparable quality then they won't become so disillusioned with the game.
And if we (as local turf clubs) lose teams, then we lose a turf ground (to synthetic cricket, or other sports) it affects all of us.

South Caulfield have been the only club to never be out of the top division, but Beaumaris and Bentleigh have only come back in within the last 5 years, Bentleigh were a once powerful club and dropped nearly to the lowest grade. But good admin and they have bounced back

 

[rat'n'bat]

Well you said the VTCA are dead against it, you don't know then if your not on the executive and as you say your so far down the spectrum

I'm a bit confused as to what you're replying to!!
· I could find an old edition of the VTCA newsletter (Leading Edge) which documented their opposition to it, and as to why they were opposed.
· I'm on the executive of my club – not the VTCA
· And I'm on the other end of the spectrum when it comes to supporting/representing the VTCA in their administration

I play for (and am on the executive of) a club in the VTCA.
I don’t know how you could find anything in what I wrote that would pin me as a rep for the VTCA. I'm so far down the other end of the spectrum it isn't really funny!!