In reply to the e-mail from Wighill Park regarding the proposed League changes Andrew Clews (League Chairman) has made the following reply. Again, if you can find the time please read it. If you wish to change your vote using the poll opposite you are able to do so.
Changes to the Wetherby Cricket League Structure
Last week, Kevin McCarthy of Wighill Park CC wrote to you in order to gain support for a formal Special General Meeting of the Wetherby Cricket League member clubs. Although no specific resolution was put forward at the time, it is self evident that the intention is to overturn the decision to move to separate 1st XI and Reserve XI divisions, either by postponement or more decisively. Given that a week has past since Kevin’s initial communication he will be some way towards knowing the levels of support for this move.
I believe that I understand and respect the position of Wighill Park as an individual club. Clearly as the only club that currently operates a 1st XI in Division 5 the move, on the face of it, would seem to have the largest effect in terms of “promotion”. Likewise I have nothing but respect for Kevin and the enormous amount of work he does on behalf of Wighill Park on the field, on the ground and in administration. I have no desire to see the club disadvantaged. As such Kevin was invited to the WCL Management Board meeting on Tuesday 27th April to discuss this matter. Since the viewpoints were diametrically opposed Kevin sent out his e-mail the following day. Having had chance to read and absorb the document I believe that, in the interests of balance, I should similarly make the points “for” prior to the need for a SGM.
In terms of process I must point out some minor discrepancies. A discussion document was presented prior to the AGM and a number of options were presented, not just on the format. Opinions were sought via questionnaire, but not a formal vote. A further consultation meeting was promised and duly took place on the 31st March. Kevin says that the meeting, because it was not mandatory, was poorly attended and therefore not representative. All clubs were invited and specifically no limit was made on the number of people attending as anyone interested in the future of the WCL was invited. The point was also made that the meeting was to discuss the future format of the WCL. 2 clubs sent apologies, 18 were represented. It is interesting proposition to think that a vote can only be representative if attendance is mandatory as opposed to openly sought and voluntarily given. 18 clubs attended, 14 were in favour and 4 against. Overwhelming is a subjective word, but this is close to 75% of those who attended. I would stress, some of those who said that they were in favour caveat their support based upon the attendant relaxation of the administration of 2nd team cricket. In the document presented at the third meeting I made it clear, not withstanding the font size, that before the change actually took effect there were issues to be resolved. One of these is a working party to review what changes would be positive and desired for 2nd team cricket.
In respect of the arguments made for and against, a couple of other interesting points were raised in Kevin’s document.
“1st XIs have missed out on playing the odd match when the opposition 2nd XI was unable to raise a team”
Let us be 100% clear. “The odd match” comes nowhere near to describing the current situation. In the last two seasons we have had three 2nd XIs withdraw from their respective divisions with the cancellation of circa 50 matches (Kippax and Oulton 2nd XIs did fulfil half of their fixtures). Two of those 2nd XIs were in Division 3 where the majority of teams are 1st XIs. This does not include those clubs where one or two fixtures were forfeited. Neither does it include the many occasions where heavily depleted 2nd XIs (mainly in the Summer Holidays) were forced to play higher division games with no chance of competing.
The reality is that few clubs are overflowing with players and there are increasing numbers of 2nd XIs playing without a full compliment of 11 players. At the WCL Board meeting last week Kevin raised an excellent idea of creating some sort of “Player Pool” where anyone not getting a game for their own club could be freely “loaned” to other clubs on a week to week basis. This provides the ability to promote participation and probably increase the enjoyment of the game. It would also be wholly incompatible with a competitive 1st XI League. Such a system, brought into a changed format of the WCL could lead to a level of de-regulation of 2nd team cricket whilst still maintaining the competitive integrity of the 1st Team game.
“One attendee said another league had tried the split structure a few years ago, but considered the experiment a failure and so reverted to the combined open structure.”
The attendee stated that he thought that the Aire Wharfe League had tried this and it had failed. In fact, the Aire Wharfe League tried it, it worked and they still operate this way now. Realistically, what is right for one league does not make it so for the WCL. However, it is a similarly weak, or weaker, argument to oppose the change on the basis of a comparison with a league where it clearly works.
Taking a view on the structured elements of the document I would make the following comments.
Effect of the Changes
1. Divisions 3 and 4 will suffer and Competition will be reduced.
Divisions 3 and 4 will change the most in terms of composition, true enough. If recent history is a guide, “Division 3” will benefit from being all 1st Teams with the best 11 players that each club has to offer competing. “Division 4” will benefit from having the strongest 2nd XIs. It is possible, indeed likely, that some players/ teams in “4” will be better than those in “3”, but then that is often the case anyway as players come and go and clubs strengthen and weaken. The positive is that players should be able to play in the type of cricket that they want to and that we as a League do something about catering for the great disparity in standard and expectation that exists within the current structure.
2. Different Rules for Each Structure.
In terms of playing conditions and administration, quite possibly so depending upon the findings of the working party. Of the comments received from the second consultation meeting this seemed not only to be attractive to clubs but in some cases the main driver for their agreement
3. Significantly More Lost Games.
Points 3 and 4 are clearly linked. They both relate to an ideally short term situation where the WCL is below the ideal 72 team level. This is the situation that needs to be addressed rather than structure. As everyone is well aware, having less or more than this number leads to difficulties. What is worse – blank Saturdays or Sunday fixtures? Everyone will have a different opinion. Regardless of anything else, we need to return the WCL to full membership numbers.
4. Inflexible Structures will prevent sound Fixture Lists.
Sides temporarily or permanently folding prevents sound Fixture Lists. We can either seek to minimise the impact or ignore the issue. Anything else will be resolved by full membership.
5. Lower Morale leading to Apathy and Undesirable Practices.
Ability gaps happen in all divisions every year. Sometime they occur in mid season as players come and go. The undesirable practice of buoying the 2nd XI with 1st XI players happens now and probably always will as long as there is a trophy or promotion/ relegation, as there still would be in each section. As much as one can make the argument for “ringers” coming from Division 3 because they cannot be relegated you can also see that, for player development for those clubs at the bottom, there is less incentive to bolster the 1st XI with “old soaks” who should be in the 2nd XI helping to develop the skills, behaviour and cricketing understanding of Junior players. “Playing ringers” are the actions of self interest and short-termism. We are seeking to make a long term change for the better and cannot give too much weight to what may or may not happen in the short term. Apathy may be defined as only 18 clubs attending a meeting to discuss the immediate future of the League. If nothing else, announcing the change has caused debate and interest.
6. Death of Village Cricket.
I genuinely would not be presumptuous enough to tell another club what was best for them. Wighill is, in Kevin’s words, near the bottom of the pile and I cannot imagine that anyone would want anything other than their continuation and the success of their rebuilding. Had this structure been in place a number of years ago then none of the clubs that have had the misfortune to reach the same League position could have fallen so far. We all have difficulty recruiting players. For every player that does not want to play at the heights of Division 3, that is at least another one who would not join a club that wasn’t in at least as high a standard. One of the other view points that came out loud and clear from the consultation exercise is that the majority of clubs do not think that we can regularly have umpires and scorers in the lower divisions. There are plenty of players who would not play in a standard without them.
Conclusion
Kevin made the point that much of what is or may be claimed about a change of structure is unproven. In reality much would remain so until it were tried. Change is not to be undertaken for its own sake, but we clearly have structural issues and, for me, doing nothing is not an option.
The general sentiment from Kevin seems to be that there should have been more consultation before decisions were made. So far we have had a lengthy discussion document put forward, a meeting to air and collect views, a further open meeting and then a decision. In the middle of that I stood for re-election based upon the direction the WCL was taking and the sort of changes proposed in the discussion document. 34 of the 37 member clubs voted in favour. Of the other 3, one had already resigned and another has subsequently. Both clubs are a great loss to the WCL and it is our priority to grow back to 72 teams, not loose any more. Since the e-mail from Kevin the debate is, de facto, re-opened. All I ask is that clubs look at the facts, the conjecture and the opportunities and make a swift decision on whether to support the original decision, or support the alternative resolution that I am sure will soon come from Wighill. I see the biggest issue we face is how we provide the right environment for clubs/ players throughout what is a very wide spectrum within the Wetherby League. I see this as a big step in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment