Following on from yesterdays entry where I was talking about the chance of not being able to make the cricket match this Sunday it's worked out that I'm not going to be there. A part of this 60th birthday celebration is that we've been invited round to my In laws house for a big Sunday dinner so I can't really not turn up and slope off to cricket. Additionally my thumb is still bruised and I've got a wretched cold so could well do with a bit of a restful period to get better, so on that front - not going may turn out to be a good thing?
Watching the news today there was an article about the fact that there's a trend currently of people taking up second jobs in order to keep financially afloat - sounds ominous to me. I'm skint but I don't think we need to do that quite yet. These things though must impact on cricket teams - as I said yesterday Michelle made the point that I'd driven to Loughton on my own and that 2-3 others did the same thing going to the same venue when we could have easily shared a car? Our club probably like many seems to be in a situation where it needs to earn revenue and one of the ways that it does this is through alcohol sales at the clubhouse and social events. I for one didn't make it back to the clubhouse last Sunday - not because I didn't want to, but because of a whole raft of reasons one of them being cash. Normally I'm skint what with being a lecturer, but in the current situation with diesel being £5.00 + a gallon, the cost of basic foods going up by ridiculous amounts in the last year on top of electricity and gas I'm even more skint. So to spend £10 on a cricket game and the diesel getting there and then spend money in the bar back at the clubhouse and not get back to see your kids before they go to bed all adds up to potential aggro at home? This is where Cricket is kind of stuck back in the 1950's when men were men and women were more or less slaves with no control over their own lives. Family these days thankfully is recognised as being important and absent fathers a potential problem with regards wider social problems.
Back in the day - even as recently as my Dads time in the 1960's when I was a kid he'd have gone out (if he'd been able to drive) done the cricket and not come home till he'd been kicked out of the clubhouse and crawled into bed drunk having been absent for over half the day on a Sunday. In fact my Dad would have done Saturday as well and the sense I get looking back is that the incentive would have been to "get away from her indoors and the kids" which sort begs the question - why get married and have kids if you want to live the life of a single man. So you have to strike a balance these days and this in itself doesn't work for cricket clubs and causes a financial flow problem.
I've asked the question before is cricket a middle class game - the amount of money required to kit yourself out and your kids, drive all over the county (In some cases) and then hang out at the clubhouse for 4 hours getting legless at great expense sounds as though it's a game for those that relatively wealthy or very single. For the likes of me with the ever increasing financial burdens coming from all sides it's a problem.
I have 2 young sons myself and while I love playing, I wish the games were shorter so I could get home in better time.
ReplyDeleteMy league would never do it, but I have no problem playing shorter formats on a weekend. A 20-40 over match would suit me better.
Yeah I know what you mean, but I really love the longer games, the idea of just playing 20/20 doesn't appeal to me at all, might be my aspirations of being a bowler, I like the idea of being there for long spells and working away at the batsman. 20/20 just seems a bit fast and less of a chess game more your draughts!
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world I think it would be more acceptable if you could play every other week or something, although I'd love to play both Saturday and Sunday, but with wife and kids that's obvioulsy not possible unless by a freak of nature they were happy to be sitting in the outfield every weekenf watching cricket games! But if you could rotate your game with another Dad maybe so that the team wasn't let down - that might be a way to work it? I can see why the clubs want the commitment because of the money but even that aspect I find surprising. You yourself having read this blog now for more than 2 years possibly recall that the original MPA blokes used to pay £10 for net sessions and we even had the commitment from people to pay to play out on a playing field once we started practicing outside, but dropped the fee because we had enough money and didn't need to charge? We had so much money at one point and it was with so little effort and it was between just 8 regular players. Yet these blokes were lecturers so no-one was on big money? I can't believe that people moan and gripe about having to pay £2.00 for nets and £10.00 to play a game?
But yes the family conflict potential lurks there in the background and is an issue. But the longer game is such a good game, it'd be horrible to see 20/20 played everywhere.
The cost of playing can really add up and I think it's a killer for some.
ReplyDeletePlus the time factor and it's no wonder that you see a massive drop off of players around the 25-35 mark - what I would say are typical ages for getting matched and hatched.
It's driven me insane over the years that people won't plan and share lifts, instead you often see 9 cars turn up at the same ground - when they've all come from the same place and they're all going back to the same place. Maybe the fuel hikes will make people think about these things a bit more.
Great read as always Dave, keep it up!