The Midweek Restructure

[dj2012]

Brian re the Midweek Rules post a few thoughts for consideration
The main problem facing the Sub Committee in coming up with an appropriate format for the Midweek League would appear to be knowing exactly how many Non Saturday bowlers each club have that are eligible to play Midweek Bowls. I suspect that in the current 31 Midweek Teams there are many with under 10 players, judging by the number of Seniors playing alongside the 8 or under eligible Juniors. If an 8 man 2x4 Rink is introduced for Midweekers only or with 1or 2 Saturday bowlers and their number is subsequently reduced through Retirement, Injury, Health or Upward progression etc to say 6or7 bowlers they wouldn't be able to raise a team and those remaining players wouldn't get a game. You are in effect creating a more inflexible system than we have at the moment where at least EVERY Non Saturday/Midweek Bowler has the opportunity of a competitive game. The Sub Committees Framework of Principles (supposed rules for this format) accompanying their 8 man team suggested format, are very vague,and ambiguous and easily open to misrepresentation, exploitation and abuse by clubs in the interest of glory, honours, or avoiding relegation. I think it is fair to say that the original purpose of the Midweek League to provide a competitive game for club members who do not play Saturday Senior or Junior bowls is dead, and certainly won't apply next season when the new 1to5 Division structure is introduced. It should then be regarded as a League to give a formal game for
A) Players who do not get a game on a Saturday for whatever reason ie Selection Work, Other Commitments etc and
B) As a trainer and feeder for new bowlers and Saturday League players
The Sub Committee must therfore put forward a proposal that provides for sufficient numbers of players whilst at the same time giving a league that is fair and equitable and also has skill level restrictions to ensure there is a fairly level playing field at the lower end of PGL bowls. To this end the exclusion of Senior 1 or the new Division 1 players completely and or Senior 2 /Division 2 back end players is a must if the league is to survive and would also seem the simplest way to manage it. There are currently no clubs in Senior 1 without a Junior Team but this rule could be ammended appropriately for such a scenario to suit . This will also ensure the league does not spiral into another Sat League but on a Wednesday.( Golf wouldn't have flourished without the Handicap System.)
The responses to the Sub Committees questionnaire appear to show the majority of clubs wish to continue with the 16 man rinks system, which implies they have suffient numbers with or without restrictions to maintain their teams. What we do not know is how many clubs are struggling and would like to adopt the 8 man format. I see no reason why there can't be a compromise by having a League split into approximately5or 6 Divisions with say the first 3or4 devoted to a 16 man rinks format and the remainder to an 8 man format.They would be separate entities in the one League
Clubs would have to nominate their choice of format by 30th December this year so that the divisions could be sorted out for the 2015 season Their positions would be based on their final league position in Divisions 1and 2 of the 2014 season and there should be some 7or 8 teams in each division.
All games to be 18 ends Home and Away with 2 teams up and down each year
The restrictions on player eligibility enumerated above would apply and if they posed problematical to clubs( we will only know when we try) the 16 man rinks could be reduced to 12 the following year.
This set up would cover almost all eventualities and combinations.

[bri]

Thanks for your thoughts.

As well as responding in favour of keeping the 16 man team structure the majority of the 11 clubs who replied have indicated they wish to continue playing opponents once a season in a larger league rather than on a home and away basis.

As for introducing restrictions to stop Div 1 players playing Midweek, in theory I agree, but in reality any restrictions while insisting on a 16 man team will result on teams withdrawing. My own club has already played a Senior 1 team who had a Senior player in their team and still only managed to have 15 (as did we). My view is well done to the guys who are helping their club mates fulfill fixtures.

In advance of our meeting tomorrow night Terry has completed analysis of the Midweek teams so far. Only 2 clubs have fielded teams without players who have played Senior bowls this season.

What sums it up to me was when I played a match to help our midweek out earlier this season. I overheard a conversation on the next rink that basically said it was wrong for Andy Hughes to be playing Midweek for Dunbarton. That remark was made while the rink against us was being skipped by a Senior 1 skip. A lot of clubs want restrictions, but the reality is they may not be able to operate under the same restrictions.

[gazduke]

Whilst the midweek was set up with the genuine interests of non-Sat bowlers at heart it has degenerated into a spin-off from Sat bowls. The midweek no longer contains just players who CANNOT play on a Sat but who CHOSE not to play on a Sat. There are many bowlers in the Midweek league who would walk onto a multitude of Sat teams if available.

Time for the clubs to decide or the PGL for that matter. In my opinion (humble as it is) if the midweek reduced the numbers it would make it difficult to introduce new players into a team for those clubs that have that luxury.

I think that the clubs and selectors who pick the teams are responsible and THEY have decided that they can justify the use of senior and junior players to ensure they keep their midweek team going. The midweek league, as previously stated, is now a spin-off from Sat bowls with some clubs departing from the original ethos in a bid to win silverware or simply to field a team.

What about removing all restrictions regarding players but stipulating that Senior players cannot play at the back end. Lets see then how many senior skip/thirds would be happy to lead for the midweek.

[Bryan]

Ok - I give up! I apologise for being so vocal about the Midweek, but I was under the genuine belief that Midweek bowlers wanted it back to MIdweek bowlers playing in the Midweek League. That was what I was hearing from several Midweek players... they are obviously in the minority and the CLUBS have a different agenda for Midweek bowls.

Everyone is right, however, as the Midweek is now accepted by Clubs as an extension of Saturday bowls and just an opportunity to give Senior and junior players another game (under the guise of "helping out" genuine Midweek bowlers). Just let whoever wants play Midweek... it's simplest policy... perhaps "banning" the Senior or Junior players from participating in the "back ends" could make a few people think about wanting to play Midweek?

Even with the "loose" rules this year there are MANY teams who have fielded less than 16 players in a match. This is the bit I really don't understand and need explained to me.... why stick with 4 rinks when you KNOW you cant fulfil a fixture without losing shots!? Perhaps someone would explain the logic of this to me please!!??

Anyway.. we will see what the sub committee cme up with tomorrow night.. but be aware.. we are NOT miracle workers!!

Bryan

[thegovner]

Surely it should be purely all about the bowls at the end of the day it's a chance for everyone to get a game be it senior bowlers helping out now and again !
Would be interesting to see if it's the teams competing for the league each year that is doing all the crying !
Maybe some clubs Need to play senior players just to try make it FAIR !!

[dj2012]

Bri.re your post earlier
Terry needs to re check his figures re only 2 Midweek clubs having fielded teams with players who have not played Senior bowls this year. There are 4 Clubs in the Midweek that don't even have Senior teams for a start. If he is able to tell you seniors who have played, presumably he can tell you how many Juniors have played and by that measure work out approximately how many Midweekers only, clubs have.You will then have an idication on the scale of the problem and have a better view on how to deal with it.

Talking stats there are 19 teams out of the overall 31 in the Midweek that have Junior sides. Of the remaining 12, 3 are Parks Teams,3 are Midweek only teams and none of the residual six are in Senior 1.If the restriction on the 8 Junior players is removed at least Senior 1 players could be excluded which will go someway to redress the skill inbalance.
11 replies from 28 Clubs. What a disgrace. Shows the apathy and attitude of some Reps and Secretary's and perhaps explains some of the irrational motion voting at the last few AGMs that have left us in the current mess. Im not surprised though as having spoken to some 30 opposition players during our 5 games so far I can count on one hand the number that had heard of the Questionnaire and the Sub Committees mission.
Whatever proposals the Sub Committee come up with it should be in the interests of non Saturday Bowlers and particularly new bowlers having the opportunity of a competitive game on a moderately level playing field.

[bri]

DJ it was how i said it. Terry's stats are broken down by club. Of clubs with senior and midweek teams only 2 have had no players that have represented both midweek and senior teams. Therefore it's leaving out Downpatrick etc.

The big assumption everyone makes here is if you stop Senior players playing then Junior players will fill the void. I'm not convinced they will.

The sub committee will do their best but we will have to be guided by the responses received and as Bryan said earlier, we can't work miracles. The feedback is for 16 player teams, yet clubs cant field 16 midweek only players. Something somewhere has to give, either the size of teams or the restrictions

[dj2012]

To summarise therefore the effective options with slight variations would seem to be
1) 4 x 4 = 16 Free for all
2) 4 x 4 = 16 No Div 1
3) 3 x 4 = 12 9MWs + 3 somethings
4) 2 x 4 = 8 6MWs + 2 somethings
5) 2 x 4 = 8 8MWs
6) Something completely different

Good luck and roll on the meetings in September and November

[Bryan]

Breaking news!!!!

After prolonged negotiations around the table, taking in the very limited public response by "concerned parties" - there is a possible breakthrough by the sub committee in the Midweek crisis talks. Both sides of the argument may even be appeased... or maybe not! We will see!!

More information to be leaked for public consumption (and no doubt hearty discussion!!) in due course by Brian Leonard. Watch this space for more breaking news!!!!


DJ - it's plan 6 by the way!!!!

[bri]

The league sub-committee met to discuss the feedback received from the midweek consultation process. It was very disappointing that only 12 clubs took this opportunity to have their say in the midweek structure; however we thank the clubs who did respond, especially for their constructive feedback and suggestions.

Below is a summary of the responses that then guided the rest of the discussion on midweek:
• Majority of clubs wish to maintain the current 16 man format
• Everyone wants a merit based league
• Majority want to maintain the current structure of playing opponents only once
• The final question was the most divisive with some clubs very much in favour of restrictions on “Saturday” players while other clubs clearly indicated that with any restrictions they would not be able to field a team.
• Any use of a framework was seen as too lax and would be abused therefore clear rules need to be in place

In addition to the feedback received Terry compiled a summary of every club playing midweek with analysis of how many players are pure midweek, how may have also played junior bowls and how many have represented their senior team. The results of the analysis shows that 8 clubs with only one “Saturday” team have 10 or more players who have played “Saturday” bowls in addition to Midweek bowls.

With the above information as the starting point the sub-committee tried to make a start though with such opposing views on players restrictions in particular it was likened to trying to square a circle.

The first recommendation of the sub-committee is that the current junior restrictions are removed. It is a matter that needs clarified with the GP committee however the current rule on page 90, rule 1(ii), refers to restrictions on Junior players who have played in the Junior league. As you all know from the March Management meeting the 2015 season will not consist of a Junior league so is the rule automatically removed or does it require a vote?

The second recommendation is splitting the Midweek league into 2.
• One league operating without any restrictions, primarily made up of clubs with only one “Saturday” team.
• The second league would have restrictions on Senior players playing and would be made up of clubs with 2 “Saturday” teams.

Should clubs decide not to adopt recommendation 2 then the status quo would remain.

The sub-committee cannot see another solution at this time and if your club disagrees with our proposals I suggest you draft your own Notices to restructure the league and present it at the AGM.

Apologies to our PG Vice-President for the use of the term “Saturday” player, I of course mean players competing in the League Championships. That is a little wordy for all the references so hopefully he forgives the use for the sake of convenience.

[Bryan]

Everyone stunned into silence, Brian! This IS a first!!

[djlavo]

most mid week teams seem to now have players that play on saturdays aswell as wednesdays, maybe they think its there only chance of silverware , i dont know. i dont have a problem with teams having jnr players in there team but when they start loading it with snr players i get annoyed. so i think the pgl commitee should look at that , maybe no snr bowlers in mid wk team but all jnr players allowed.

[gazduke]

When the midweek league was formed it was basically for players who could not play on a Saturday. This in no way reflected on the ability of a player but over the years the midweek league became viewed as a poor relation of the Sat leagues even though it was apparant that it contained players more than capable of holding their own in a Sat team. As social demographics changed working hours became more flexible and as time has moved on the midweek league has become an extension of the Sat League. The all too common cry is that clubs load their teams with "senior" players. It raises a moral issue - If a team hasn't enough players to field a team without using Sat bowlers do they 1. Pull out of the league rendering non Sat players without any competitive bowls, or, 2. use Sat bowlers to ensure the aforementioned non Sat bowlers are in a position to get a game. The reality is that if clubs are using Sat bowlers at the expense of midweek only players then ultimately they run the risk of losing those members. In my humble opinion Silverware should not be the goal of the midweek league but to retain the club membership by ensuring club participation in a league for those not available on a Sat. I would rather play against a midweek rink containing Sat players than a triple or would gladly ratify the use of any club player rather than see a team pull out of the league.

[dj2012]

To be honest Bryan and Brian it is a little difficult to respond to because on the one hand it appears to cover the current problems but on the other it doesn't. Its certainly No 6 though and if the first recommendation and the second part of the second recommendation applied to ALL clubs or those with one Sat team or who wished restrictions to apply, it would be a big step in the right direction. It would of course be dependent on the restrictions.

Clearly Saturday bowlers are a necessity in the Midweek if clubs are to maintain the 4 x4 = 16 player teams and I suspect most Midweekers appreciate this. Its the top class players, skips, internationals and association players from Sen 1 that effectively influence the results of games and cause upset. It only takes a minimum of 2 or 3, that can affect the whole of the league structure as regards results. and thereby the promotion and relegation issues.
I think therefore its a question of let us wait and see what the restrictions will be.

On another matter Brian M, I hope you had a good sleep last night after the frustrations of the Association results.I felt the same when learning there were only 12 out of 28 clubs replied to the MW Questionnaire on such an important issue. What I can say which I hope will help comfort you at the moment is that you are a star to us lesser bowlers outside the top divisions. You are the PGL, the face of it ,the voice, the news and the information base, so a very big Thank You for all your commitment ,enthusiasm, and hard work which believe me is much appreciated.

[gazduke]

Bryan this is undoubtably a quandry and then some. I see the problem as the gulf that exists even between Senior players. Would I even be aware if Malone (no disrespect) for instance sent their Senior team in midweek guise to play us - probably not but the same could not be said for Dunbarton, Belmont and the like. To me the problem lies with the clubs who COULD field a team with non-Sat bowlers but WON'T. In my book they are different from those teams whose membership is low and they HAVE to use Sat bowlers to keep the team going. I realise that there cannot be a rule for one and a rule for another but this is where the problem lies.
Just a thought but if a club registers a certain number of bowlers for a season could a restriction in proportion to the membership be implemented
eg - under 50 registered = 8 sen or junior players
between 50 - 55 = 6 sen or jun players
between 55 - 60 = 5 sen or jun players etc etc
A system like this may or may not bring the midweek league back onto a level playing field - so to speak.