Open letter to DDCA

Goochy · Status: Offline

RE: Open letter to DDCA

fathertime · Status: Offline

i may've moaned......never squealed

Goochy · Status: Offline

fathertime wrote:

i may've moaned......never squealed

Yes you did. You didn't have to tell anyone who did it to you. SQUEEEEEEALER!!!!!

fathertime · Status: Offline

Goochy wrote:

fathertime wrote:

i may've moaned......never squealed

Yes you did. You didn't have to tell anyone who did it to you. SQUEEEEEEALER!!!!!

whatever you wanna think......

fridge roberts · Status: Offline

rob i think your out of order for saying that pal.

Scruffy · Status: Offline

Lots of people including players and club officials from many clubs. Some on the DDCA executive. Would it be OK next year if in round 1, both teams declared for 0/0 in the 1st Inns? Perfect scenario really 2pts for a lose (better than 0) and 8 for a win (better than 6).
It would not be ok for both teams to declare at 0/0 because then there would have to be collusion!   But if there was no collusion and SS declared at 0/0 against us, we would go out and make as many runs as we could, take first innings and a chance at outright! What Im trying to say is there needs to be collusion to have this happen and if that does happen i totally agree they should be dealt with (and I believe it would be with the current rules) but its highly unlikey that it will happen.

And if there is more than SS not happy then fair enough to look at the rule(I beleive they shouldn't change it tho)  but I have not seen the others talk about it thats all!

Our club is very concerned that after a week of great weather, a pitch (Mordialloc) may appear to be so poorly prepared that it would clearly advantaged the bowling team to such an extent that Doveton could take 17 wickets in a day for approx 180 runs.

you have never played a 2 day game there so you would not know whether a low turning deck is normal or not. Mordi dont have a spinner so the week before may have suited turn as well but mordi didnt have the bowler to exploit it

See my answer above and you clearly haven't seen Beaver bowl leggies!

Ha Ha yeah Beav turns em sideways but obviously not against Doveton!

The SSCC has no animosity at all towards the Doveton CC and congratulates them not only on their win but their finish to gain a spot in the four. Nor does it have any issue with the Mordialloc CC,

Their curator is a Mordialloc player so how can you say you have no issue with them?

So we can't make any comments on pitches? It doesn't matter who the curator is, and I am not the first to criticize Mordi's pitch? Did others have a problem with mordi or were the passing comment about the pitch? How many turf 1 games have seen 17 wickets in one day (during a 2 dayer) apart from P'field V Buck of course.

Just a question here, did officials of other clubs criticize mordi's pitch or did ppl on this forum? because there is a big difference from putting it on your official website and passing comment on a forum!

Thanks BB for clearing a few of your points up and as I said rival clubs respect ss very highly and just didnt think this letter helped keep that respect at the highest level!

-- Edited by Scruffy on Thursday 4th of March 2010 06:45:13 AM

slocs · Status: Offline

you obviously show a bit scruffy by coming on here and hiding?

Scruffy · Status: Offline

Slocs if I could come on her and just talk about ddca issues and events without all the other bullsh1t that goes on here I would disclose who I am! But unfortunatley there are ppl on this forum that like to take the piss out of ppl and argue for the sake of argueing which doesn't interest me!

I have only talked about ddca events and believe I've not tried to sling off at ppl or clubs while doing that. I commented on Beave's position next year which imo is ddca news, and ive talked about this letter which bb openly asked for opinions. I did not have a personal dig at him or the club. And already he has admitted to writing some things in there which he could of left out as have i with the "last years granny" comment.

Goochy · Status: Offline

If you said who you were you would get far less flak than you are getting now.

As things stand, you are just annoying people. People at a club who can see your IP address....

Scruffy · Status: Offline

Thats fine goofball!!!!

fathertime · Status: Offline

Scruffy wrote:

Slocs if I could come on her and just talk about ddca issues and events without all the other bullsh1t that goes on here I would disclose who I am! But unfortunatley there are ppl on this forum that like to take the piss out of ppl and argue for the sake of argueing which doesn't interest me!

I have only talked about ddca events and believe I've not tried to sling off at ppl or clubs while doing that. I commented on Beave's position next year which imo is ddca news, and ive talked about this letter which bb openly asked for opinions. I did not have a personal dig at him or the club. And already he has admitted to writing some things in there which he could of left out as have i with the "last years granny" comment.

when did he say this Scruff.

From what i can see he has posted it on SSCC website for OUR members to read and to know our official response. Very open to our members and hid nothing (including his name Scruff) And has invited forum members to read as well. The SSCC does not require your imput to move on.

Not that he or we'd care.....but nowhere did he ask for anyones opinions.

Scruffy · Status: Offline

fathertime wrote:

Scruffy wrote:

Slocs if I could come on her and just talk about ddca issues and events without all the other bullsh1t that goes on here I would disclose who I am! But unfortunatley there are ppl on this forum that like to take the piss out of ppl and argue for the sake of argueing which doesn't interest me!

I have only talked about ddca events and believe I've not tried to sling off at ppl or clubs while doing that. I commented on Beave's position next year which imo is ddca news, and ive talked about this letter which bb openly asked for opinions. I did not have a personal dig at him or the club. And already he has admitted to writing some things in there which he could of left out as have i with the "last years granny" comment.

when did he say this Scruff.

From what i can see he has posted it on SSCC website for OUR members to read and to know our official response. Very open to our members and hid nothing (including his name Scruff) And has invited forum members to read as well. The SSCC does not require your imput to move on.

Not that he or we'd care.....but nowhere did he ask for anyones opinions.

BB wrote:

a) do we want this type of situation occuring (what do people think I am throwing it out there and I can see both sides

fathertime · Status: Offline

Big brother wrote:

Stocky Stumper wrote:

fathertime wrote:

i know what you meant Brett ...i was just been a smartass.

And no i do not agree with you. It may seem to outsiders that we are taking the high moral ground and people again from outside beleive we would've done the same thing if in the same posistion.....wrong. For those that now Slocs it would not happen.

FT....I'm loathe to engage in any conversation with yourself on this topic but can you please give me a full explanation as to what your mate Slocs and SSCC would have done at 8/90 chasing 251 needing points to play finals?

Stocky I thought you were smarter than this. Clearly this is the whole point. Who knows what we would have done (although I have my thoughts)? The point needs to be asked:

a) do we want this type of situation occuring (what do people think I am throwing it out there and I can see both sides

b) if we don't then what can we do about it

Yes we will be accused of sooking and we are bigger enough to cop that on the chin. But surely the debate this issue has caused is proof enough that in the very least it needs to be discussed, so that there is no ambiguity, no grey area and everyone knows where they stand. The DDCA wants issues clubs fell are important to be brought to their attention by the clubs. We think this issue is important so we are bringing it to their attention (like I have been asked to do, by the way).

On the seperate issue of pitches I think we as a collective should work harder at ensuring the quality of pitches produced is the best it can possibly be. How we do that? I have no farking idea, but once again we are prepared to raise it as an issue.

Did we seek legl advice, well we explored all options. Did we seriously consider them all, clearly not.

Scruffy...this was not abt the letter. He has asked forum members whether we would like this to occur again (the buck/poark scenerio). A simple no would've been good

Scruffy · Status: Offline

I also saw this:

BB:

"G Train/Beaver comment away. I couldn't care less if everyone had a different opinion to us. I/we aren't that precious that we would crack the 5hits becuase someone doesn't agree with us. If you think we're sooking fair enough, say it I am more than happy for you to tell us your opinion, It doesn't matter with whether you agree or not, I know the DDCA will talk about the events of Saturday which they probably would have done with or without our letter at some stage.

I want to know if people think the DDCA needs to consider these types of situations? Is this a non-issue? Should teams be allowed to bat for 5 overs each in the 1st innings and then play for 8 or 10 points? Why would that be any different?

Stocky stumper, I am not asking you to justify what happended. You believe you guys made the right decision fair enough. I am not sure why you think we are angels, the moral police or just plain sooks but we are interested in what people have to say and if they think this needs to be discussed as an issue. Forget what happened at the weekend and tell me as an experienced cricketer who has played District cricket, whether you think the DDCA needs to do anything to prevent these types of situations happening again. If not fair enough I respect your view."

Sorry if I took it the wrong way FT but to me thats asking for opinions!!!

If I'm wrong i apologise!

fathertime · Status: Offline

ok...my fault. Pott away then

champ · Status: Offline

Scruffy wrote:

I also saw this:

BB:

"G Train/Beaver comment away. I couldn't care less if everyone had a different opinion to us. I/we aren't that precious that we would crack the 5hits becuase someone doesn't agree with us. If you think we're sooking fair enough, say it I am more than happy for you to tell us your opinion, It doesn't matter with whether you agree or not, I know the DDCA will talk about the events of Saturday which they probably would have done with or without our letter at some stage.

I want to know if people think the DDCA needs to consider these types of situations? Is this a non-issue? Should teams be allowed to bat for 5 overs each in the 1st innings and then play for 8 or 10 points? Why would that be any different?

Stocky stumper, I am not asking you to justify what happended. You believe you guys made the right decision fair enough. I am not sure why you think we are angels, the moral police or just plain sooks but we are interested in what people have to say and if they think this needs to be discussed as an issue. Forget what happened at the weekend and tell me as an experienced cricketer who has played District cricket, whether you think the DDCA needs to do anything to prevent these types of situations happening again. If not fair enough I respect your view."

Sorry if I took it the wrong way FT but to me thats asking for opinions!!!

If I'm wrong i apologise!

Beaver please stop it now...

fathertime · Status: Offline

its one of three Benny...... and yep he's one of them

G Train · Status: Offline

It's not Beaver. Beaver couldn't put an argument together like scruffy can.

By the way, from what i've read here, scruffy is dominating you blokes. All of you.

BErnst · Status: Offline

I will put any amount of $$$$$$ on with anyone that i am not Scruffy...........please come forward and offer your bets to me. As i post under Bernst the Persuader can check Scruffys IP adress for a match to mine.

prince mark · Status: Offline

I am yet to hear any logic that points to anyone being the winner but Scruffy here.