BSPCC
3) Given the fact that next year, I will more than likely be playing in division 3, the 45 overs at 9 overs per bowler rule change will significantly affect the games in which I play in 2006. Whilst I understand the theory behind amending the rule change, in particular to the use of 5 bowlers - surely if the game had been left at 50 overs per side, then we could have looked at dropping the maximum number of overs per bowler down from 15 to say 12.
This would have meant that at least 5 bowlers would have to bowl in each completed 50 overs. Realistically, I can't see someone simply bowling 2 overs just to make up the numbers, so I would have thought that that would mean that at least 5 bowlers would get a decent chance every week.
I feel that the drop from 15 overs to 9 each is too big a drop, and I can see it causing problems for some sides. Personally I think it plays into the hands of the "better" teams in the lower divisions even further as they are more likely to have the strength in depth to cope whereas some of the teams with less experienced players and more juniors may well struggle. I pity the captains who will not only have to worry about how best to bowl their bowlers at the right time, but also juggle with the ECB guidelines on under 18's as well! I can see this rule causing more problems than it will actually solve.
With respect to the leg side rule for the top divisions - I think this is a very good rule change indeed that should improve the game as a whole. However as a person responsible for paying the outrageous fines incurred for slow over rates, can the committee confirm the situation with regards to slow over rates caused by leg side wides? Inevitably, however good the bowlers are, there will always be the odd leg side delivery and at £2 per minute as it stands now, this could get rather expensive! If an allowance or amendment to this has been made - I apologise.
On a plus note, it is good to see that the league are welcoming feedback - that can only help us move forward, however will they be willing to take this feedback on board and change the rules if necessary?
Regards
Mark Wilson
Scholes CC
4) For the life in me I don’t understand the rhyme or reason for this ruling. Most teams in the lower divisions struggle to field 4 or 5 bowlers week-in, week-out and usually rely on two or 3 bowlers to do the majotity of the bowling each week. At the beginning and end of the season with overlaps with cricket and rugby (not to mention the holiday season) teams in lower divisions sometimes struggle to play 3 or 4 bowlers, never mind 5 or 6.
Experienced batsmen will simply fill their boots in on the “buffet” bowling that will undoubtedly be on offer after they’ve seen off the better bowlers that would normally have bowled double this allotment of overs. Last year it was a juggling act to fill in the overs after our better bowlers had bowled their allotment of 15 overs never mind 9.
I have always argued that younger bowlers need to bowl longer spells. Quicker bowlers need to gain strength and stamina and the slow bowlers need to be able to gain rhythm and consistency in flight and of line and length. This can only be achieved by bowling longer spells not by bowling 4 or 5 over spells. You wouldn’t be able to bowl your better bowlers in harness because you daren’t let two weeker bowlers bowl in tandem and are you expecting experienced first team bowlers to drop down into the second team at the end of their careers just to bowl 9 overs every week? I think not. So all this valuable experience will not get passed onto these young up-and-coming players and cricket will suffer in the long-term.
I have a young soon shortly to be trying to make his mark in the game and how this will benefit anyone is beyond me and in these times of teams struggling to raise 2
nd teams I am sure it will undoubtedly drive players away either into other leagues or out of the game for good.
Regards
Paul Wilby
Thornhill CC
5) My comments on this new rule change are much the same as before. For someone
only being ablw to bowl a maximum of 9 overs is not enough, the game of
cricket already favours batsmen enough and each new rule brought in keeps
restricting bowlers. How can young bowlers develop and learn from bowling a
mere 9 overs? Spinners and slow bowlers especially need to bowl long spells.
From my point of view i will be travelling back from university on a
saturday morning to play in the cycl although i may play some 1st team games
maybe even the majority i would expect to start the season in the 2nds at
our club, but with this new rule is it worth coming back to bowl a maximum
of 9 overs? this does not justify spending £15 on a train fare...I think
that the principle behind the new rule is good with the cycl wanting to get
more bowlers involved in the game but surely if they kept the overs per game
at 50 and possibly droped the maximum overs to 12 it might be better rather
than this drastic drop in overs. If the cycl stick with this rule then i can
only see a drop in the standard of the league with many bowlers being out
off playing in divisions 3 and 4.
Michael Trevethan
Altofts c.c
6) With regards to the new rules
Is that 45 overs per innings with no overs carried over? like in the cup?
For example if the team batting first is bowled out in 20 overs, does the team batting second get 70 overs to get the runs? or still 45?
Does the same 9 overs per bowler still apply?
If it does, that means using 8 bowlers?
What if you do not have 8 fit bowlers? Is it the end of the game?
Ian Smith
Morley
Answer
This is a very fair point, which has been missed by the Management Committee and all the Clubs, to whom the information was circulated before the AGM, where the opportunity was given for questions to be raised. The matter will be discussed at the next Management Committee meeting in January 2006; following this meeting, clarification will be circulated to the Clubs in the Minutes.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.'
John Tomlinson
7) Why such a steep drop in the amount of overs to be bowled?
The answer would have been to reduce the overs to 45 per innings and limit bowlers to 12 overs each.
The twelve overs should be increased pro rata for bowling the opposition out earlier ( an extra three overs per bowler per 10 overs)
The idea of trying to get more younger bowlers bowling is correct but most clubs are struggling for young players.
With outside interests as they are it is hard enough getting young lads to play the game without destroying their confidence by getting mauled every week in the undoubted run feast in these two divisions.
What then happens when they make the firsts, assuming they haven't been poached by the premier league.
They will only have experience and stamina to bowl in 4/5 over bursts and the young batters that have gorged themselves on second rate bowling, scoring heavily most weeks suddenly find they are facing 4/5 good bowlers every week instead of 1 or 2 in the seconds
Principle great,
Reality won't work.
John Gahan
East Leeds CC
8) With the new rule re leg side wides in division Premier to Division 2 is any allowance being made on the 3 hours to bowl 50 overs. There could be allowance made as all games now start at 1:00 pm.
I am not suggesting open ended time but certainly clubs with A teams in division 2 trying to develop young bowlers could be reluctant to do so due to the punitive penalty of £2 per minute over the 3 hours
Having played a game with such rules, the Barry winstanley, with allegedely the top 2 sides in the Premiership at that time, there were in excess of 40 wides, which is 7 overs, circa 15 minutes per side?
Management comments please
Paul Heaton
MPCCC
Although I think that limiting bowlers to 9 overs each (I would suggest 12
would be more suitable) I do agree in principle to the rule change.
Having been involved with CYL cricket for more than 25 years (playing and
watching) I would suggest one of the major reasons why younger players have
become disenchanted with local cricket is the lack of opportunity. Too many
teams use young players as fielding stop-gaps - batting at 9, 10 or 11 and
not bowling - while they rely far too heavily on their more senior, and in
many cases, more highly paid players to do the bulk of the batting and
bowling.
Yes, in the short-term, the stronger teams may benefit, but the only way
many of the smaller clubs are going to survive is to attract local
youngsters. This rule may also encourage more variety in the type of bowling
we see and captains will need to persevere more with budding spinners. As
much as I've enjoyed watching some of the quality seamers over the years, I
do find it incredibly dull watching 2 senior pro's bowling 50 overs of 'line
and length' and I'm sure, given the chance, this new rule will create rather
than stifle opportunities. I realise it is going to make it much more
challenging for captains with limited resources, but I think we should back
the league committee for trying to look to the future rather than standing
still.
Mick Kaye
Birstall CC
1. Can I ask why the restrictions in overs is limited to Divisions 3 & 4 and not Premier, 1 and 2 ?
There are young talented cricketers in the top 3 Divisions who regularly end up making the numbers up (as previously mentioned) therefore doesn't the same thing apply. Although I agree that this rule change would strongly favour batsmen it would mean that more players are involved in a game and we would not see the same bowlers bowling unchanged throughout an innings.
2. What are the league trying to achieve reducing matches to 45 overs per side ?
Would the Heavy Woollen Cup restriction of 10 overs in a 50 over game be more sensible or even making it 11 overs per bowler in a 50 over game - meaning the fifth bowler doesn't just have to fill in with 2 overs.
3. Does 5 overs really make a difference ? and if so will it help players who have to play 50 over matches when promoted to the first team who play in a higher division ?
I would appreciate a bit more explanation as to the Management Committees reasoning behind the changes to fully understand whether this may benefit the CYCL going forward.
Regards
Paul Pearson
Good Morning,
Just read the other replies regarding the reduction of overs to be bowled in division 3 and 4 and I must say that I think the league has made a big mistake and this may cost some clubs some of their players.
The problem seems to be that we have reduced the number of overs to be bowled and the length of each innings to 45 overs to make cricket more appealing to younger players. Does this mean that we believe the reason young players don't progress to Saturday cricket is because it's too long, if so, will reducing an innings by 5 overs achieve the goal? Probably not!!!
Let's look at this objectively shall we?
Most clubs have a junior set up, players come and go and we all remember turning out in the under 13's, 15's and 17's all in the same week just to make up the numbers - in fact, if you look at most Bradford League under 17 teams they will usually only have 4 or 5 players who are actually 17, the rest are younger players who'll be there next season to fill the void.
If young players don't stop playing when they are too old for under 13 or under 15 cricket, there is one common denominator, MOST young players stop playing when their under 17 career finishes - beer, girls, not wanting to play if they aren't surrounded by their mates, work commitments, university, whatever the reason, it mainly happens at 17.
I admire the league for trying to get them to stay, but there is no guarantee that any young player will get any more of a game of cricket under the new system, in fact, as already stated by others they are less likely to get a bat than if better bowlers were bowling at their team mates.
Two questions then:
1. Is it too late for the league to further amend the recent change? For example, the general consensus seams to be that a reduction to 12 overs will still result in 5 bowlers being used and should go some way to appease the existing bowlers who will feel aggrieved at being limited to 9 overs whilst a good batter can still bat for the full 45 overs.
2. Would the introduction of an under 21's league allow young lads to carry playing with their mates whilst allowing them to develop their skill and strength? If the answer to this is no, then why do we persist with the White Rose competition?
I do hope for the sake of players in divisions 3 and 4 that common sense will prevail - at least ask the clubs for their opinion, because I am unaware of any player who was aware of these potential changes prior to the meeting - ask the players in these divisions what they want, after all, there the ones who have to play to the new rules.
Regards,
DC
With regards to the new bowling changes for division 3/4 all that I can say is since the MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE were voted to have full control on running the league, we have only ourselves to blame.
1: We allowed them to come up with this daft idea that restricting the bowlers to 9 overs each to encourage fairer competition for bowlers to get involved in the game.HOW!!
2: All this has done is to make the better batters in the team know that they can see off the opening bowlers and wait for the donkey droppers to come on, what a feast they shall have.
3: So how does this incourage fairer competetion to attract and keep younger bowlers, i dont think so, everyone will suddenly want to be a batsman, after all who wants to bowl a maximum of 9 overs then probably bat in the 9,10,11 position. 12 overs would be more realistic.
4:Pay match subs for part involvment!! i dont think so!
5: Maybe we should adopt that when a batter reaches 35 runs he retires! and is unable to resume innings thus giving oppurtunity for other players to get involved.
6 Maybe the MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE reconsiders this rule change and allow the clubs who are in these divisions vote wether they want this unfair rule.Thers is still plenty of time to implement this.
7 As for the extra overs that maybe come available if a side batting first only uses say 20 overs, as the MANAGEMENT says oops nobody thought of this, how strange.
8 I hope this gets displayed on the noticeboard as big brother is watching and would not welcome the criticism that clearly is being voiced re this new and unfair rule.
Regards
P Williamson
Cricket being a game consisting largely of statistics and the fact that there are 11 or so replies against the rule change with not one single reply in favour of it, this must tell you something about the “swell” of feeling around the league.
I would like to add one point: “any half decent young player will not be playing Div 3 or 4 cricket, they will be in Div 1 or premier league where the rule change doesn’t apply, so how is this going to help them? The only people that are likely to benefit are the unfit, pot-bellied middle-aged beer swillers that can barely last for 50 overs in the field even from the luxury of 1st slip.
Paul Wilby
