VPCCL Committee judgement awaits
Wed 14 Aug 2002 
Club news item

Note from the temp VPCCL Fixture Sec to the committee

Before you guys reach a decision - I have a couple of things to say - purely on my own behalf.

As the temp fixture secretary :- It was a real pain to try to get a firm decision out of Tower Ravens over the date that was - in itself - re-arranged at a late stage because they had not known/let anyone else know that they could not make 6 August. Pacific offered an alternate date as soon as was practical - it was eventually accepted by TR - but then rejected again once the Wray Crescent venue was known to them. So in effect they could get a team together - but did not fancy the trip to Wray Crescent - which was necessary because it was by then far to late to re-organise the teams who were playing cup 1/4 finals in Victoria Park that night. Nigel Richards advised me to give them that alternative as a take-it-or-leave-it option because they were prevaricating so much - and I agreed with him. It was really irritating. I did my best - with consultation with the committee who were around - but it was impossible to sort out to their satisfaction at that notice.

As a Pacific player :- Having won all our games relatively comfortably - other than the thrashing you guys gave us! - we are where we are because we deserve to be. We only lost more than 2 wickets in a run chase once (when we lost 4 successfully chasing against Cally Conqs) and we won all the games we batted first by at least 70 runs - so no one (apart from Grasshoppers!) can feel we do not deserve to be where we are. On paper Molla Jutt certainly had more tight finishes than we did. It would beggar belief if we were to be robbed of a share of top spot because another team could not make two dates for a fixture for their own reasons - and did not get organised enough in time to sort out a date that was playable - particularly when both of the dates they were offered were ones when the weather meant play could have taken place. As far as I know - they have not been in touch with anyone to try to sort it out this week either. I personally have 5 games scheduled in 10 days starting this Saturday - as do a number of our guys - including a tour to Cambridge - so playing an extra evening game (for which we would have to start early - and leave work early - to avoid playing in the dark) is hardly ideal. As a player - I take the view that we have already had two walk-overs against Tower Ravens - and seriously fancy that we would have beaten them had we played on either of those two nights. I would be prepared to play them IF the Committee insists AND IF we can raise a team of the same strength that we had lined up for the other dates AND IF it rains on that night then we get the points because we should already have them for the walk-overs. Having put in a lot of time to get where we are - if any other outcome occurs - I'd feel we'd been shafted and I doubt very much that I'd bother taking part next year.

On a play-off:- This made some sense if it could have been played this week - if the league and cup had all finished by last week as planned. The same problem for Pacific players arises regarding fixture crowding and early starts. With no provision for splitting teams in the rules - and as the window of opportunity for a play-off has in my view now passed - I can see no harm in sharing a league. If we want to split teams next year - let's decide how to do it at the start of the season so everyone knows what's going on from the start. This does seem a lot of hassle just because other people could not get organised in time to honour or re-arrange a fixture properly - and then didn't fancy the re-arranged date/venue - and don't seem to have shown any interest in it since. It's a ompletely unnecessary pain in the backside for everyone else involved.

All the best Jim