DDCA Finals Proposal

Goochy · Status: Offline

RE: DDCA Finals Proposal

Rocky Burdett · Status: Offline

Ringo wrote:

I'd be entirely with you Slocs - all 45 over games. Only reason I suggest the compromise is too keep the traditionalists happy who are fans of two day cricket. But either way I'd love the DDCA to just have a listen as to what the blokes that play the game want.

If I knew how to start a new alias/user name it would be "The Devils Advocate" as I don't know how to, I will play the role just this once.

There have been some very good points raised but I have highlighted the above for one reason and if my explanation or take on the situation is misinformed, I'm happy to be corrected.

The DDCA have a meeting prior to the commencement of the season (maybe in July/August) where they invite clubs to propose law/rule changes to be implemented for an upcoming season(s) and discuss these in an open forum with all clubs able to voice their opinion.

After discussions, the Executive meet and approve or deny such changes (based on what I can't be sure) for the upcoming seasons. Basically what I'm saying to Ringo's post is the DDCA aint gonna give a rats lefticle to opinions on here. Submit changes through your club and through the right avenues or we may be having the same discussions this time next year.

If clubs/individuals feel that strong on how our competition can be improved, go through the correct process' and if you gain enough support, you might be seen in the same light as Darryl Kerrigan.

PRINGLES · Status: Offline

Good point Rocky

sir · Status: Offline

i love two day cricket would hate to see it changed.

Woofa · Status: Offline

Rocky ask slocs for advise on how to start a new alias

Rocky Burdett · Status: Offline

I got some off advise against HSD this year while batting and they said there is hotmail, g mail, and fukken z mail for all I know but he said the best to use was redtube so I had a go at that. Well, I wanted to use Jackhammer but that was gone so I now I just watch for inspiration...

prince mark · Status: Offline

I have no problem with playing 45 over games each week..........

Stocky Stumper · Status: Offline

I believe that the grand finalists from the previous year should get automatic entry into the top 6. Another thought that I understand is being discussed at an executive level is that all teams that finish above and inclusive of last years grand finalists play finals. For example if SSCC or PCC finished 8th this season, itself and all teams above would play finals. The first round of finals would be a series of one dayers until 4 teams were remaining to battle it out over two days (90 overs). This would only apply if the grand finalists from the previous year did not make the 6.

Innovative idea by the DDCA and modelled on theHong Kong Super Sixes competition. Wish it had of got legs this season! Sounds far fetched by apparently works well in Hong Kong, Singapore & Bangladesh.

Check out the full workings of ladder at www.hkca.cricket.org

Elpresadente · Status: Offline

I would be absolutely shattered if we only played one dayers.

After my knee reco I came back and captained the one day side at our club, as i wasn't up to fielding for 80 overs. It just didn't feel right. You feel like you can't 'bat properly'.

Maybe its because im a 'traditionalist' and will always rather watch a test match over the limited overs format, but thats how I feel.

I guess the best way to put it, and this will sound bad as the Pres of a club, but.........

This year, before seeing the fixture I preyed we played Springy South and Berwick in one dayers, and Coomoora and Keysy in two dayers.

You get my drift.......................

Elpresadente · Status: Offline

Stocky Stumper wrote:

I believe that the grand finalists from the previous year should get automatic entry into the top 6. Another thought that I understand is being discussed at an executive level is that all teams that finish above and inclusive of last years grand finalists play finals. For example if SSCC or PCC finished 8th this season, itself and all teams above would play finals. The first round of finals would be a series of one dayers until 4 teams were remaining to battle it out over two days (90 overs). This would only apply if the grand finalists from the previous year did not make the 6.

Innovative idea by the DDCA and modelled on theHong Kong Super Sixes competition. Wish it had of got legs this season! Sounds far fetched by apparently works well in Hong Kong, Singapore & Bangladesh.

Check out the full workings of ladder at www.hkca.cricket.org

If they seriously considered that Stocky, IMO they have clearly lost the fcuking plot................

(insert post of teabag picture)

2 OLD 2 SLOW · Status: Offline

Stocky is taking the urine.

1 dayers are more of a lucky dip. The best cricket sides are disadvantaged, this is maybe why Parkfield are pushing for this format.

Elpresadente · Status: Offline

2 OLD 2 SLOW wrote:

Stocky is taking the urine.

1 dayers are more of a lucky dip. The best cricket sides are disadvantaged, this is maybe why Parkfield are pushing for this format.

You just summed up my two posts in 12 words and 1 numeral Bobby.................

Bards · Status: Offline

Rocky, you've got the rules meeting a little bit the wrong way around. This is how it works.

1. DDCA call for clubs to submit possible rule changes.

2. DDCA distribute all proposed rule changes to all clubs, along with the DDCA Executives recomendations.

3. At the Rules & Affiliation meeting each Proposed rule change is Discussed and then can be moved and seconded then put to a vote of all club representatives (2 per club). In order for a new rule to be passed it has to get a 2/3 or 3/4 majority (can't remember which). Vote also includes DDCA Exec and Umpire reps.

I'm sure Nico can probably correct me on something ( he normally does correct someone on the night!), but my point is, if there is enough support for a change then it can get up, regardless of the DDCA Executives position on it.

Goochy · Status: Offline

Elpresadente wrote:

2 OLD 2 SLOW wrote:

Stocky is taking the urine.

1 dayers are more of a lucky dip. The best cricket sides are disadvantaged, this is maybe why Parkfield are pushing for this format.

You just summed up my two posts in 12 words and 1 numeral Bobby.................

Very short sighted view gentlemen. In that case we should just play 1 20 innings match a season.

Over the course of 20 plus games the best teams will still come out on top. I can explain why if you want me to.

And while you are at it, get rid of your grand final setup. Over 22 games, the team on top wins. And thats it.
And play more cup competitions - these are where your 'sense of occasion' games are meant to come from.

sheepy · Status: Offline

Goochy wrote:

I do play for nothing.

I even pay my own rent pal.

Yeah sorry Goochy, I didnt mean you specifically, I was just making a joke about imports in general.

Elpresadente · Status: Offline

Goochy wrote:

Elpresadente wrote:

2 OLD 2 SLOW wrote:

Stocky is taking the urine.

1 dayers are more of a lucky dip. The best cricket sides are disadvantaged, this is maybe why Parkfield are pushing for this format.

You just summed up my two posts in 12 words and 1 numeral Bobby.................

Very short sighted view gentlemen. In that case we should just play 1 20 innings match a season.

Over the course of 20 plus games the best teams will still come out on top. I can explain why if you want me to.

And while you are at it, get rid of your grand final setup. Over 22 games, the team on top wins. And thats it.
And play more cup competitions - these are where your 'sense of occasion' games are meant to come from.

That first sentence makes no sense Gooch.....

I would agree over the season the best teams would come out on top, but I guarantee you, the struggling teams would win more games than they would have over a season of 80 over games.

Goochy · Status: Offline

It was used to highlight how silly the idea was that everything would be a lucky dip.

Why not just play one 20 innings match against one team over the season. Then next year play a different side. Do this for another 10 years and around 2022 we will have the best side for sure.

Elpresadente · Status: Offline

ha ha ha. I don't agree with lucky dip, but a lesser advantage to the better side anyway.

Gypsy · Status: Offline

2 OLD 2 SLOW wrote:

Stocky is taking the urine.

1 dayers are more of a lucky dip. The best cricket sides are disadvantaged, this is maybe why Parkfield are pushing for this format.

Parkfield are no good at the short form and ever worse at the 20/20 so i dont think this sounds true you flog

Rocky Burdett · Status: Offline

Bards wrote:

Rocky, you've got the rules meeting a little bit the wrong way around. This is how it works.

1. DDCA call for clubs to submit possible rule changes.

2. DDCA distribute all proposed rule changes to all clubs, along with the DDCA Executives recomendations.

3. At the Rules & Affiliation meeting each Proposed rule change is Discussed and then can be moved and seconded then put to a vote of all club representatives (2 per club). In order for a new rule to be passed it has to get a 2/3 or 3/4 majority (can't remember which). Vote also includes DDCA Exec and Umpire reps.

I'm sure Nico can probably correct me on something ( he normally does correct someone on the night!), but my point is, if there is enough support for a change then it can get up, regardless of the DDCA Executives position on it.

Cheers Bards.