|
|
Post by orrible on Jan 8, 2008 13:49:13 GMT
Ron
I have received the forms for Inter league 2008.
Elite are one of at least four other Cambridge teams who are a little Dis-illusioned by the events of 2007. In particular the withdrawal of 2 teams mid season. To many of us, the league became a little farcical and the general consensus is that those teams who withdrew should be barred from entering this year.
I will not enter a team this year if Huntingdon, St Neots and even P/Boro (for turning up with very few players wasting peoples valued time) are allowed to enter again.
Fines do not do anything to deter this happening again. Feelings are, that in the case of St Neots, they stuck 2 fingers up at the deduction in points they received and withdrew. This should not be tolerated.
Huntingdon flouted the rules and should also receive a ban.
Peterborough have history of not showing up in Yarmouth and have let many of us down again this year with not enough players.
The feeling is, that we want a tighter quicker finishing league that doesn't drag on with to many teams who are deemed un-reliable. Much enjoyment of the league was lost last year and it is becoming apparent that many players are very much in two minds whether to continue playing.
What are your views? Do you think a meeting is in order to discuss these matters further?
Ian Norris
can i get some feedback on this please?
Who agrees dis-agrees?
|
|
|
|
Post by schmack on Jan 8, 2008 13:54:17 GMT
i am with you on this
however if those teams cant enter its just going to be a cambridge +/- ely league
the powers that be wont like that!
|
|
|
|
Post by P.A.U.L on Jan 8, 2008 14:05:50 GMT
Ron I have received the forms for Inter league 2008. Elite are one of at least four other Cambridge teams who are a little Dis-illusioned by the events of 2007. In particular the withdrawal of 2 teams mid season. To many of us, the league became a little farcical and the general consensus is that those teams who withdrew should be barred from entering this year. I will not enter a team this year if Huntingdon, St Neots and even P/Boro (for turning up with very few players wasting peoples valued time) are allowed to enter again. Fines do not do anything to deter this happening again. Feelings are, that in the case of St Neots, they stuck 2 fingers up at the deduction in points they received and withdrew. This should not be tolerated. Huntingdon flouted the rules and should also receive a ban. Peterborough have history of not showing up in Yarmouth and have let many of us down again this year with not enough players. The feeling is, that we want a tighter quicker finishing league that doesn't drag on with to many teams who are deemed un-reliable. Much enjoyment of the league was lost last year and it is becoming apparent that many players are very much in two minds whether to continue playing. What are your views? Do you think a meeting is in order to discuss these matters further? Ian Norris can i get some feedback on this please? Who agrees dis-agrees? I disagree with the tone. I also think that it is the job of the captain to keep his team interested/committed, if they cannot do that, then they should take the wrap alone, not the whole team. There are probably many players who were dissapointed with there teams disbandment/poor turn out. Another captain may have been able to infuse a better sense of loyalty and commitment within the teams. After all, there are plenty of good players out there in these areas. A meeting would be good to discuss these issue's amongst others, (single date format et al.) |
|
|
|
Post by schmack on Jan 8, 2008 14:11:36 GMT
as a captain in the previous season i find this a bit puzzling!!
superleague can be a slog - especially if your team is not doing well
at the end of the season i was getting sick of phoning around trying to get players to make the 9 on the day of the match, sometimes we didnt have 9 despite me trying everyone and trying to get people in that hadnt played at the last minute
people need to start things and commit to them, they turned up for the trials and the first couple of games and then didnt bother for the rest of the season
if it wasnt for 4 or 5 consistently regular players and people like yourself who came in late and then regularly afterwards, the CSC team would also have folded
having 7 players in yarmouth for example was a complete joke - something i am not going to take responsibility for
|
|
|
|
Post by juls on Jan 8, 2008 15:33:10 GMT
as a captain in the previous season i find this a bit puzzling!! superleague can be a slog - especially if your team is not doing well at the end of the season i was getting sick of phoning around trying to get players to make the 9 on the day of the match, sometimes we didnt have 9 despite me trying everyone and trying to get people in that hadnt played at the last minute people need to start things and commit to them, they turned up for the trials and the first couple of games and then didnt bother for the rest of the season if it wasnt for 4 or 5 consistently regular players and people like yourself who came in late and then regularly afterwards, the CSC team would also have folded having 7 players in yarmouth for example was a complete joke - something i am not going to take responsibility for Nor should you. I for one wont be playing interleague unless we can put together a team with A: The same sorts of personalities and B: Players that are going to turn up to matches. |
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Jan 8, 2008 17:19:49 GMT
as a captain in the previous season i find this a bit puzzling!! superleague can be a slog - especially if your team is not doing well at the end of the season i was getting sick of phoning around trying to get players to make the 9 on the day of the match, sometimes we didnt have 9 despite me trying everyone and trying to get people in that hadnt played at the last minute people need to start things and commit to them, they turned up for the trials and the first couple of games and then didnt bother for the rest of the season if it wasnt for 4 or 5 consistently regular players and people like yourself who came in late and then regularly afterwards, the CSC team would also have folded having 7 players in yarmouth for example was a complete joke - something i am not going to take responsibility for Why should captains chase players. I sent one text to all players. Very rarely did a player let me down. The text was purely a reminder, not a chase as Steve had to do. I think you are totally off the mark Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by P.A.U.L on Jan 8, 2008 17:54:10 GMT
as a captain in the previous season i find this a bit puzzling!! superleague can be a slog - especially if your team is not doing well at the end of the season i was getting sick of phoning around trying to get players to make the 9 on the day of the match, sometimes we didnt have 9 despite me trying everyone and trying to get people in that hadnt played at the last minute people need to start things and commit to them, they turned up for the trials and the first couple of games and then didnt bother for the rest of the season if it wasnt for 4 or 5 consistently regular players and people like yourself who came in late and then regularly afterwards, the CSC team would also have folded having 7 players in yarmouth for example was a complete joke - something i am not going to take responsibility for You don't like the tone. I'm sure Matt Bradford did not like the tone of the phone being slammed down on him!!! Why should captains chase players. I sent one text to all players. Very rarely did a player let me down. The text was purely a reminder, not a chase as Steve had to do. I think you are totally off the mark Paul. re Tone: Now if its in retaliation, then thats a different story. I just thought it was a little hostile to threaten not playing your teams if other teams where allowed to join, regardless of any commitment that they might make to stay the distance this time. Absolutely, Captains should not need to chase. Captains should lead and inspire. I was in no way having any form of a pop at Steve, he did the best he could with the resources he had. However, if at any point the team failed to show, or showed with half a team. Then really, it would have been his responsibility to have sorted it out well in advance. That is my point. For teams that failed to sort it out, sack the captain, get a better captain and possibly achieve a better team spirit, commaradary(?) and commitment to the matches next time.  |
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 8, 2008 18:30:53 GMT
Paul As you were so fond of pointing out joff's spelling mistakes i think i must tell you it is camaraderie not commaradary(?). ha ha.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by P.A.U.L on Jan 8, 2008 23:26:32 GMT
Paul As you were so fond of pointing out joff's spelling mistakes i think i must tell you it is camaraderie not commaradary(?). ha ha. ;D toochez - I did apologies to joff personally though. |
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Jan 9, 2008 10:10:44 GMT
I wasn't threatening to not put in a team as a form of blackmail.
The tone was that I (and many others) are not taking part in a competition as farcical as last years.
If there is the possibility of teams repeating what they did last year because of lack of proper punishment, thenthere are many of us who do not wish to waste our time in those circumstances.
St Neots (alledgedly) withdrew because their deduction meant they stood no chance of qualifying for Yarmouth.
Huntingdon blatently threw their toys out of the pram (imo) cos one of their players was ineligable. If those situations do not deserve a ban, I don't know what does?
I will not put in the effort of running a side when the rest of the league do not adhere the the principles and rules of the league.
|
|
;D