debate this please!!!!!

[paul]

I think the point made by a few about the priority of fixtures being 1st XI then 2nd XI is a valid one. I would suggest that this be put to the league committee at the rules meeting. To do so, one club must propose and another second that the issue needs to be addressed by the league.

My first instinct is that if clubs have more than one side in the league they should fulfill the fixture of the club in the highest league. As webmaster I don't like to pass too much comment on issues such as these, preferring to remain impartial. The action taken this weekend however seems to be at best unsporting.....well enough said.

[paul]

I still can't help thinking that the problem in THIS instance is the order in which matches are played and not the "seniority" of the players within the club. For many of the smaller clubs in the league that field two sides in the league flexibility is essential. We often have players that need to switch from 1st to 2nd purely for practical reasons, work etc.

Another thread earlier on in the season made it clear that the league approach was that a player is committed to a club and not a 1st or 2nd team. I would still suggest that the best solution would be that if a club can only fulfill one fixture then they should be obliged to complete the fixture in the highest division.

[paul]

The reason I keep harping on about keeping the rules simple is two fold. Firstly, the league as it stands is governed by a relatively small and dedicated committee. The introduction of rules that require a deal of monitoring and implementation such as described above and in other threads regarding overseas players only serve to increase the work load on an already hard working committee (not to mention individual club members who would have to submit these stats). Secondly, I presently captain our 2nd XI at Thorley in the Saracens Cricket league. My experiences of rules such as are described is that they are often over played in the top divisions and completely ignored in the lower divisions. The reason? It suits clubs in their respective division to play the rules in that fashion. In short it never easy to get a ruling and trying to get an amendment to the league rules is like "picking flies out of treacle!!" Near impossible.

I am not for one moment suggesting that HECL should not attempt to become more professional and develop rules more suited to the league and the clubs within it. Just that we should aim to do it in a measured and managed fashion over time.

My two pence ;-)

[andrewshields]

Jelski, you have our sympathies. I thought it was standard practice that if a club was unable to field an XI, it would be the more senior fixture that would be fulfilled. If it's not in the rules, it should be. We received a walkover this weekend: our opponents did the decent thing and cancelled the 2nd XI fixture, even though we understand it was mainly their 1st XI players who were unavailable.

[andrewshields]

I'll happily second your main point if you want to propose it for the AGM.

I'm slightly uneasy about the Rule 15c interpetation, though. While the case under discussion here is extreme, ie Div 1 players turning out in a Div 5 match, there could be a situation where a club's 1st XI is in, say, Div 3 and their 2nd XI in Div 4. I'm not sure the Rule 15c argument would then apply. Quite honestly, I don't think you need to include that in any proposal for the AGM –your first two paragraphs are strong enough as they are. And judging by the comments posted here, there won't be anyone voting against it.

[andrewshields]

Point 1: I agree entirely.

Point 2: Can't say I've come across a league which has a rule like this. I agree with the sentiment behind it, and have played in 2nd XI games where a top 1st XI player has totally distorted the outcome. However, there sometimes are legitimate reasons why a 1st XI player may need to play in the 2nds: he may have another commitment in the evening which prevents him making a long 1st XI away trip, for example. Rather than not play at all, it's better for the club that he plays at home in the 2nds, especially if numbers are tight.

If we're questioning the honesty of clubs (which is in effect what this is about), what's to stop clubs nominating five specific 1st XI players unable to play in the 2nds but not choosing the best players? I can't see how you could oversee this.

Point 3: I agree again. The system you propose sounds workable. It may seem a bit tough to demote a club's 2nd XI (who may be performing well) just because their 1sts get relegated, but this is actually similar to leagues where 1st and 2nd XIs play in parallel divisions and the status of the 2nds is entirely dependent on the performance of the 1sts.

Now that teams are finding their own level it seems unlikely that two XIs from a club will find themselves in the same division (as happened to ourselves, Theydon Bois and, briefly, Langley a few years back) but it's as well to guard against it as it is far from ideal.

[andrewshields]

As a deterrent, it would be useful. In practical terms, it would be a potential nightmare. But I agree with you, Ginster, that merely putting something like this in the rules would probably achieve its aim.

[ginster]

Well, for me, if they didn;t fulfill the first team fixture, the second team match should be voided. Its probably not actually a rule, but it should be in any league which has clubs with multiple teams, that teams should be picked, on merit, from the 1st team downwards, each week. This may mean that occasionally you get one or two players swapping up and down, but that is all. If a club does not have enough players to fulfill all its fixtures, it should be the lowest team in the leagues that forfeits matches. Thats just common sense. Maybe another area for the rules committee to look at.

cheers,

Ginster

[ginster]

I was just thinking about the best way to legislate multiple teams in the league. I play in the North West Counties Squash league, up here in Manchester, where clubs run up to 11 teams in a pyramid situation of 5 divisions ( 1 1st division, 3 2nd divisions, 6 3rd divisions etc).

they have a rule for selection that goes like this...

"Clubs must select and play available players in order of merit and in accordance with the clubs’ playing order. If any team in a club shall not have a match on the relevant day, the club in question shall select players for that team as though it has a match so that the order of merit of other teams is maintained. The Committee may require any club to produce its selection of players for the team which does not have a match. "

there is also an end of season eligibility rule that goes like this:

"No player may play in the last four league matches of a division or the play-offs for that division unless he or she has played in at least four league matches in that division, or a lower division, for that club earlier in the season."

I wonder if something like this could be produced and added to the league rules for HECL. If htere was a dispute about the team selection, a club would be expected to justify the team selection to the league. Although I would guess that once the rules go in, it would stop people trying to take advantage.

thoughts?

[Stokesy29]

One possible solution would be to use a system in place used in another league I used to play in. This consisted on monitoring who played each week for either XI and for the last 3 games of the season any player having played in more than more than 80% of the 1st XI games up to that point i.e. over 12 is not eligable to drop down to the 2nd XI. This would still allow flexibility during the season but would prevent a club putting out a 1st XI in an important 2nd XI game at the end of the season.

[Sammy]

I raised a thread on rule 15c earlier in the season, motivated out of curiosity more than anything else, but with an inkling that this could become an issue come the end of the season. Clearly a rule on the priority of fulfilling fixtures is required when a club with two XIs can only fulfill one. Given that it would be unthinkable to have a rule on the lines that the fixture fulfilled in such circumstances, would be the one that suited the club best (i.e. in terms of relegation/promotion etc.), then common sense would dictate that the rule should state that 1st XI fixture should take priority. Otherwise the only other way would be to have the team to be run independently of each other (i.e. no swapping of players between teams) - which I would not be in favour of.

Additionallly, I wonder how the opponents of the 1st XI that "Cried off" this Saturday, feel about missing out on their cricket on a great summer's day, when their opponents decided to play at home against a Div 5 team in a game which on which no promotion/relegation was riding for them, rather than travel to just about their furthest fixture in Div 1? I'd be furious, whether I was given the points or not! Hopefully not too much effort was expended on wicket preparatoin, teas, getting players etc. Hopefully we can hear some comments from them during this debate.

Lastly - sympathies to Potter St.

[Sammy]

I agree with what has been suggested so far, but I think this issue opens up some other points that will need addressing. Sorry if this rambles on a bit, or widens the scope of the debate, but if we are going to propose rule changes on 1st and 2nd XI’s, we should look at all the issues.

1. The issue of players moving between a clubs XI’s. This should be allowed and the rules should be explicit on this. Clubs can not run more than one side effectively with out this and on an earlier forum (Rule 15c), the “Webmaster” confirmed that this was intended in the current rules. So let’s get this stipulated. I think rule 15c was intended to stop sides fielding players who regularly play in a higher standard of cricket – not players who play within the HECL..

2. However, in doing this, we will inevitably encounter a situation when a club’s lower XI will need a win in a “Promotion/relegation” decider and pick a number of 1st XI players for this fixture (I am not talking about a cancelled 1st XI game like last weekend – just using 1st XI players for a 2nd XI game). This will eventually happen if there is no rule to prevent it, so if we think this is wrong, why not address it now? This could be done by limiting the number of 1st XI players allowed to play in the 2nd XI in any one game, or designating which can 1st team players (maybe this should be 5 specific players) that can’t play in the 2nd team at the beginning of the season. It sounds a bit draconian, but either suggestions does in fact give the clubs flexibility to pick players on form/availability and cushions some of the perceived distortion from 1st XI players playing in lower leagues. Hockey leagues have the latter suggestion and it is effective. Anyone seen this in other cricket leagues?

3. A club should not have two sides in the same division. Even though these fixtures could be competed in good faith, the club will be left wide open to criticism from other clubs having an unfavourable outcome from the result. Of course, if this becomes a rule, there will need to be another to deal with sides getting promoted or relegated into division with another XI from the same club. I would propose that a team can not be promoted into higher division if a side from the same club is in it (in which case the 3rd place team goes up) and that if a side is relegated to a division with a side from the same club in it, the lower club also drops one division (in which case the 9th placed team stays in the same division.) – the obvious exception here being the bottom division where I would suggest that it would be OK to have two sides from the same club rather than kicking the 2nd XI out.

As I play for a club with only one side in the HECL, I will not have the full range of issues that having two sides presents – so I would encourage those clubs with two sides to contribute any other suggestions. As I wrote earlier, I think it is worth addressing all the issues on this subject at this time, rather than just one aspect.

Regards,
Sammy.

[Sammy]

Andrew,

You are right, there is a way around everything - although I think in this case and in the long run, the club will end up weakening thier 1st team, as "Lesser" 1st XI players would have to stay in the 1st XI if/when they lose form and it would be "Better" players would have to make way for any "in form" 2nd XI players.

It may be too much to legislate on this particular point - so be it - and you may calll me a cynic if you like - but one day someone will complain that they were stuffed out of sight by a club's 1st XI when they were supposed to be playing the 2's.

Sammy.

[Sammy]

I think Stokesy29's suggestion, which was along similar lines, got this about right. Easier to implement and control and would probaly achieve its aim.

[Sammy]

Paul, I think everyone agrees with that. It is just that while we are on this subject, I thought it made sense to address all the issues associated with fielding two sides in HECL. Please take a look at the earlier message I sent on 18/8. Your input would be welcome.

Sammy.

[reado]

As part of the Willingale team who effectively 'benefitted' from Stansted 1's withdrawal, I'd add the following....
Along with the majority, I look forward intensely to the weekend, and MY game of cricket. The receiving of the previous weeks results only adds to my anticipation of how I can improve/maintain my performance, and come Saturday, I'm well up for the game. I would never wish to obtain a victorious walkover in preference to an actual match.

On Saturday, our position was a little difficult. We needed one more win to maintain our Division 1 status, and the cynics might say we'd have been content with 26 points. A fair point, but this isn't the correct way to do business. I am amazed that the teams seconds weren't all shunted up to the firsts - isn't this just the most obvious solution ? It's not fair on High Roding (who now can't catch us), Potter St and a number of other clubs. I saw a couple of members of the club in question later on, on Saturday, and they knew nothing about the possibility of swapping the first and second eleven's games. Bit strange....
OK, so Willingale are safe, but I'm not proud that it took a w/o for us to make our position safe. Besides, I've got my targets, and I want to hit 20 wickets !
No teas were prepared, and a few of us would've had a hangover due to our skipper tying the knot the day before - but you just can't beat a game of cricket.

[Greg]

When referring to the second point, in regard to 1st XI players playing for the 2nd XI, I have to agree, and say that although this is not necessarily unfair as the you could argue that the 1st team players haven’t performed all season, therefore resulting in relegation as you referred to, that clubs selection committee then may have decided to give some 2nd XI players a run in the 1st XI, as the position of the 2 clubs will not be affected, if the changes are not that effective
However you are right that this possibly is not in the spirit of the game as it affects other clubs involved in relegation/promotion battles including yourselves. Rule 15c maybe unfair in this case, but it will never be able to be changed for the reasons that you suggest, as clubs with more than 1 XI will always be putting out different sides with players regularly playing for both 1st & 2nd XI during the season.
Also Rule 15c mentions
“No player shall be eligible to represent a club if, during the current season they have or shall be playing at a 'significantly higher standard of cricket' on a regular basis.”

Where it mentions the club, not an individual XI, therefore showing that no rule has been broken.


edited by: Greg, Aug 15, 2004 - 07:53 PM

[Greg]

Sorry was not aware that the 1st XI game was called off.

Certainly a rule should be added or amended where a club with more than 1 XI will always endeavour to fulfil the 1st XI fixture first

Only where at the league digression, when in this case there is such a gap in the strength of the 2 XIs and the majority of players missing are 1st team players that possibly the 1st team fixture could be called off, to maintain the competitiveness of the league, understanding that the other 1st team players will not be included in the 2nd or something along those lines.

Obviously in this case this didn’t happen and in the future as their 2nd XI was filled with 1st team players.

[moon]

completly agree with everyone comments this farce shouldn't happen
unlucky potter street.
I haven't seen any defence from the offending club, which would prove interesting.

special thanks to stansted for taking a closely fought season(well for us it was as a young 2nd II first time in the top division team) and making the last two games a bit of a waste of time without the excitement they deserved

[Buckets]

I agree wholeheartedly with both Sammy & Reado on this, & not just because I know them both! We at Takeley are in the exact same position as Willingale found themselves prior to their fixture this weekend. We too need a win at the weekend to guarantee our survival in Div 1. Far from hoping that we get 26 points by default, I want us to win fair & square, & stay up because we've won enough games to stay up. The main point is though, I actually quite enjoy playing cricket! & I'm looking forward to my game on Saturday after a long hard week at work (As a "colleague" Reado know's that I'm lying here!).

In terms of rules etc, if there isn't one already there should be one stating that 1st team fixtures always take priority if a club is short as mentioned earlier. It's common sense & I know that there is such a rule in the Herts league. Something that they have strangely got right.

[jelski]

A small club joins the league and into its third year is starting to understand itself and its players, when playing under the stress and the competitive edge the league brings to cricket.
This club into its third year has found that they can win more games than they lose and are now second in the league and looking towards promotion if they can win the next three games, our destiny in our OWN HANDS you might say!!!

A nice position to be in you might add. Well the club thinks so, all the hard work put in over the season to get this far, all the phone calls trying to find a team of say a handful of cricketers who can lead out a handful of newbies on to the pitch and then play against the teams they have met over the past two years, a true test of the skippers skill and know how and his knowledge of these teams and the players he has.
We then have the joy of playing against a team with 6 new faces in, that is looking like taking the league by storm, they did not beat us I would say we lost it.(some of the nicest people the club has had the good fortune to play may I add)
All of this aside we knew that we could fight it out to the end of the season and still have that chance of promotion. ( if this was to happen the club could only go one way in its future UP).

Now a second side in the league with along history and a club that is some 5 times the sizes of ours with a first team that has just been relegated from the first division, has half it's first team not looking to play the last remaining fixtures it has (this it self gives a false measure in that division as to where teams sit at the end of the season) not a good example being set by one of the leagues top teams.

However half of the team are still available to play and the second 11 are playing at home this week in a game that will not win them promotion or stop them from going down as they are destined to stay in the 5th for another year. So tell me this why would they feel the need to leave the players of their 2nd 11 on the sideline watching
as they first team batsmen lead out the better half of the 2nd 11 on to the field( OUR DESTINY NO LONGER IN OUR HANDS) with the opening bat from the first game batting down at number 7!!!!!

THE POINT HERE IS RULE 15c IS A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!!

Because half the team we played that day had been playing at a significantly higher standard of cricket on a regular basis.

Please be constructive with your views and please note that no matter what way the result went I would still be typing this post because rule 15c is wrong and needs to be revised because first team players from 4 divisions above should not be able to come down into the second team on a whim!!!

One of the first team players from this side said himself he was digusted with the way the 2nd 11 had been loaded with 1st team players when the game meant nothing to them and everything to us.

MORE TO COME im off to play in a nice sunday friendly now..........


edited by: jelski, Aug 15, 2004 - 10:43 PM

[jelski]

I understand the bit about club however these were not out of form players these guys bowled 20 of the overs took 5 of the wickets for around 54 runs and scored 75% of their runs.
1st divison against 5th divison at such a crucial time?

the club did not fulfil its 1st team fixture.......

I must say the game was very close and if it was not for the fielding mistakes at the end we would have won, however a 5th divison side with 5th divison players trying all year to over come the other 5th divison teams should not have to deal with half a team of 1st divison players being thrown into the mix.

Maybe a new rule to help protect the lower clubs from such scenairos.......


edited by: jelski, Aug 15, 2004 - 11:09 PM

[jelski]

hows this sound ?

If a club fields two or more teams throughout the league, it (the
club) is obliged to play 1st XI fixtures in preference.

If enough regulars are not available, the club must draw upon members from the 2nd (and if applicable the 3rd XI) in order to fulfill these fixtures.

It is against rule 15c (as opposed to being unsporting) for a club to cancel a 1st XI fixture, if enough players within the club are available to play, subsequently, the club in question will be deducted 20 points, and the opposition awarded a victory (26points) by default.
:-?

[jelski]

]I think the point made by a few about the priority of fixtures being 1st XI then 2nd XI is a valid one. I would suggest that this be put to the league committee at the rules meeting. To do so, one club must propose and another second that the issue needs to be addressed by the league.

so i will put this to the committee do we have a second ?

[MikeBurgoine]

Hi Gents,

I have stumbled onto this site for the first time and have seen the old Stansted boys getting a bit of a caning! From all quarters. It seems like what would have seemed an honest, best intentioned decision at the time has been a little blown out of proportion somewhat, but has raised wider issues which have been rightly addressed in the above debate.

I would have skippered the Stansted 1st eleven at Willingale should we have had a team to field that day. I was also one of the many who “cried off” (Thanks Sammy :o)!) that day, indeed it was a day where at least 75% of 1st team regulars were unavailable, through various reasons, weddings, holidays, origami lessons, you know the usual! (a particularly minimal selection pool for 2 teams).

We have had a tough year at Stansted this year, where we have manfully battled on in the 1st division losing every fixture (with smiles on our faces!), whilst not available in the week in question and subsequently not directly involved in the decision that was made to drop the 1st team fixture, I’m sure the key reasoning would have been:
- There is little sense in taking such an under strength side to strong opponents such as Willingale, it wouldn’t have done the young guys stepping up into the 1st’s any benefit to suffer a heavy defeat. And then the Potter St. guys would have been feeling as empty as poor old Reado! With their w/o.
- It will give the few 1st team guys available (I think the truth has been stretched here! It really would have been a few not half a team), to try and find some batting form in a lower league, and provide Potter St with a competitive fixture which is what we all play this game for.
From reading Jelski’s report, it would seem they had a very enjoyable, competitive afternoon’s cricket, moreso than Reado and the boys! Whereas I do feel his pain and take the point of doing the right thing in making these decision’s I’m sure this call was made purely with the best intentions in mind.

Having said that, following the argument through, as has been done since Jelski’s initial opener, I must concur this rule is open for abuse, and I think it would only be fair for all concerned if clear guidelines were given, and if it were agreed that the 1st fixture would have to take precedence then that would seem a fair stance to make.

Just to preempt the argument coming back of, “by fielding the team that played Potter St against Willingale, it would have been good experience for the young second teamers” – firstly, have you heard Kingy and “H” verbal assaults!! (only kidding gents!). Moreover this is precisely the decision we took in the last game against Stansted Hall mainly due to the fact we had a geater % of 1st teamers available to provide a competitive fixture. Yes we still lost!
In any case Jelski, as a club who had 36 fixtures to fulfill this year we only registered 5 wins, please don’t begrudge us one of those precious few golden moments! Congratulations on your promotion by the way! (it clearly was in your own hands after all!)

I felt I needed to make a good honourable cricketing folk of Stansted comment. Enjoy the closed season, see you next year!

8-)