Winter League
The deadline for new teams to join the Winter League has passed with no further additions to the 13 new teams previously reported on this website giving a total of 40 teams in the competition for the 2022-23 season. Whilst we are all delighted at the continuing popularity of the League such changes in numbers does bring its own problems. They are good problems to have.
The Management Committee will now meet on the morning of Thursday 14 July to start the process of establishing the format of the League for the coming season. A number of things have to be resolved, it isn't straight-forward with several difficult decisions to be taken. Let me share with you the dilemma now facing the League in setting the format for the coming season.
The 2021-22 format was 3 Divisions with 9 teams in each. That worked well for the 27 teams in the competition. This season we have 40 teams in what will probably and sensibly be 5 Divisions of 8 teams in each. This is a model worth preserving in all the thinking and decisions taken thereafter.
The League Rules say that the top two teams in each division will be promoted and the bottom two teams will be relegated. That is a fair and expected outcome that is worth adhering to. However, that process does nothing to resolve the need to reduce the 3 current Divisions to 8 teams in each, it just maintains the status quo as regards numbers in each Division.
The obvious solution then is to relegate additional teams from each Division until the 5 Divisions of 8 has been achieved. That would mean relegating one additional team from Division 1, 2 more from Division 2 and 3 from Division 3 to end up with the 3 top Divisions having 8 teams in each. The obvious ones to be relegated would be the teams that finished last season immediately above the two relegation positions in each Division, highlighted in RED in the table below.
That solution would be unpopular with the affected teams but would seem a logical approach to achieving the 5 Divisions of 8 teams. Happy to learn of any alternatives that anyone can suggest. However there are two more important constraints to factor in before any solution can be finalised.
We have 13 new teams to place in the League for the new season. Which Divisions should they start in?
The solution outlined above would see teams from our host clubs affected. This is important as a number of the bowlers in these teams are also part of the host clubs teams that support the catering, raffle and admin functions provided on matchdays by the host clubs. Changing their division status may introduce a clash of fixture days and locations and hence introducing the ability of some clubs to man a full support team on days their club is hosting league matches.
I told you it wasn't easy and straight-forward! Only by consulting and involving the host clubs can we resolve the Number 2 point above. All the host clubs are represented on the Management Committee and we would hope to reach agreement with each on which of their teams needs to be available on certain days of the week. In addition any change to current days that each Division plays on would be unpopular and cause avoidable disruption for a number of teams, not just host clubs.
So let us just concentrate on sorting out the Number 1 point from above first. We have 13 new teams to place in the League. There is an argument that all new teams should start in the bottom division and work their way upwards as their performances justify. There is a counter-argument that says you should place new teams at a level where they will be competitive and where their playing strength is best suited.
Last season we placed teams in Divisions where we believed their playing strengths deserved to take them. That resulted in the new teams from Lower Hopton and New Millers being placed in the top Division. That proved to be a good decision as they finished the season in first and third positions in that Division.
Some of the new teams entering the League this season will include bowlers of a standard way beyond the lower divisions of most leagues. If you take Lockwood Cons as an example, but they are not alone, of a team of high quality bowlers and the Veterans League Champions for the last 7 seasons. To follow the idea that all teams should start in the bottom division would inevitably lead to Lockwood Con winning Division 4 or 5 next season and then the division above that the following season until 3 or 4 years later they appear in the top division.
Although they may say differently I believe that this would be frustrating to those bowlers, winning easily every week against less talented opponents. For the other teams in that Division it would mean that they would only be fighting for the runners-up position as the title winners would be a foregone conclusion. In my opinion this does nothing at all for the reputation of the League or the enthusiasm of bowlers in those Divisions of all levels of ability. Any decision to start new teams in the bottom division could jeopardise attracting new teams in the future.
Continuing the example of Lockwood Con and if the decision is taken to place them in Division 1, which is the level that their record would point them towards, then that would mean a further team would have to be relegated to continue the model of 5 Divisions of 8 teams. It also means that a further team in Divisions 2 and 3 also be relegated to preserve that model for next season.
If the next lowest team in each of the three Divisions is then relegated to accommodate that then that means that Thorpe Green 'A', Denby Dale and Rastrick 'B' would also drop a level. Is that fair? Clearly it is not but what are the alternatives?
They say that sharing a problem can improve the situation and we could certainly do with some help in getting an agreement on the best way forward. It is clear that any solution will not satisfy everyone. Some teams are going to be disappointed in the eventual outcome, that is inevitable. It would be good to minimise the repercussions of any decision.
Please feel free in adding your Comments below to give your views and opinions on how this situation can be handled. You can Comment as a Member of the HuddWeb website or as an anonymous Guest. Just complete the Comments field below and submit any points you would like to make. What we don't need is people saying afterwards that certain options hadn't been taken into account in the decision-making. Help us now to become aware of all the things that you think should be influencing those decisions.
If there was 10 teams per division = 5 matches per day it would mean the matchday playing hours would have to be extended unless 2 byes are incorporated. Also the overall season would have to be .extended. As regards matchday, the upcoming season will be starting 1/2hr earlier to accommodate the players with school runs in the afternoon thereby making a longer session not possible. As regards extending the season I don't think some of the greenkeepers will be supportive. The summer season in some leagues begins early April and finishes late Sept/early Oct thereby not leaving much time for any renovation works to be carried out.
4 divisions of 10 would work this would give you some wiggle room to accommodate new strong teams. Obviously one green would have to be dropped but maybe with the promise they will be included next year at the expense of a existing green, rotation. Not ideal for the one that misses out but simplifies the issues you have highlighted.