I loved that ground - had a ball and many fond memories playing Uni 3rds and 4ths there. It was especially beneficially to a cricketer like me who hated the quicks because it never bounced above shin height. You can say what you like about the MUCC but those boys could sledge with panache.
However, What a bunch of numb nut dick puppetry has gone into the thinking around removing turf wickets. In the last thirty years of playing on turf the opposition was more varied in terms of race, orientation location and demographics than the city itself. And that's saying something isnt it?
Local governments, especially, will complain about the ‘cost’ and ‘imposition’ of providing facilities for local sporting clubs, while also complaining about the costs associated with youth crime, vandalism, graffiti etc. Imagine how much worse the latter issues would be without sporting clubs!
Note: our club pays a curator $300 per week during the season to ensure our wicket is top-notch. With no council assistance whatsoever - apart from providing the facilities!
I've a lot of time for Stephen, but he was simply being glib here. As a general point, I agree with your view of the disinhibiting effect of social media. I sometimes think when I'm writing something harsh: would I have the courage to say this to the person's face? If not, I shouldn't put it in print. It's not a bad rule of thumb.
Public golf courses have been under a similar attack in recent years. Cost cutting and hitting back at the users of said places, "ordinary people" golfers as well don't seem to fit into Stephen and Councils' apparent idea of how society should function.
It might have once been a largely waspy game, but into the future it will be Australia's most multicultural sport. Stephen needs to take a drive around both the outer western, northern and south eastern suburbs of Melbourne - the game is flourishing with South Asian players joining clubs or starting new ones.
The response from Stephen Mayne is typical of the X platform where there is a total absence of rigour and genuine debate. Here in Perth, the premier cricket club where my boys play(ed) has four senior male teams, two senior female teams, four male junior teams and two female junior teams. There's also a veteran's team. We have players (and coaches) of a diverse range of ethnicities, including First Nations, South Asian, South African, English and European. To glibly classify such a group as 'entitled white men' is both ignorant and factually incorrect. Our club extends beyond the playing group to include a diversity of volunteers, sponsors, families and partners, that together make our club a community. The enriched lives of the members of this community surely delivers a broader 'social benefit' that far outweighs the annual cost of maintaining a turf square. If Stephen is ever in Perth, he's welcome to join us on a Thursday for selections night (as are you GH), which I'd like to think might go some way to him seeing the alternative view.
The council no doubt couched its decision in the language of inclusion, which ironically doubles as the language of exclusion? Next they'll use spurious evidence to ban climbing on Carlton picnic tables.
Stephen Mayne is very good at highlighting what he sees as problems, funnily enough I've never heard him come up with a solution for anything... I've got very little time for people who don't even attempt to solve problems.
It's a point of view. Cricket shouldn't be afraid of the argument. What's irritating is council using a buzzword - 'inclusivity' - to obscure what's merely a matter of cost.
What a shame. No doubt, it's a decision driven by short term P&L accounting for all the nonsensical rationalisations. As a park cricketer for many years and club administrator for longer, I can only endorse Gideon's comment that "the provision of amenity for community sport is an investment not a cost." I saw Mayne's silliness on the Musk platform, ideating cricket as an elitist sport. In my experience it is the lifeblood of community and fellowship.
Community cricket doesn't have many friends in high places these days.
Councils are reluctant to fund turf wickets and red tape means it is harder for volunteers to chip in and help. I think CA and their rivers of gold have a part to play here in making sure that grassroots get some kind of funding to maintain facilities and take the onus off councils. The price of a ball isn't getting any lower and the elite players aren't on struggle street so could drop a point or two in their cba revenue share.
And while cricket is traditionally a white male pastime it is still a demographic that is prone to isolation and mental health issues that can be alleviated with healthy outdoor interaction with those of a like mind. People love to talk a good game about these things till its time to write a cheque and then its not diverse or cool enough.
The crack about women's cricket seems odd. I dunno about the other capitals but in Perth the majority of all womens long form* cricket is on turf. Only t20 community cricket it on concrete. If anything we need more turf to accommodate womens district cricket ultimately being the same size as the mens competitions**.
*I am grouping 35/40+ over 1 day matches with 4 innings cricket here. I feel entitled to do this as basically 30 years experience tells me, in the top order at least, the 40 over game has more in common with 'proper' cricket than t20.
**Disclosure: I have played one game on turf in my life (run out for 9 at the non-strikers end off the bowlers hand filling in in an under 17s in Albany in 1995. Yes, it still rankles). I now suddenly hypocritically care about it because my daughter made the district under 14s squad next season. A year under age well done kid, but I digress...
Anyway my recollection of SM from when I was a Crikey subscriber years ago was some of his commentary was not always ruminated on before being dispensed.
Never met him, but Stephen Mayne sounds like a bit of a goose.
If he really thinks the ‘white male’ thing is really still relevant in cricket, he needs to get out more.
I do like your alternative suggestion of more turf wickets - yes they need maintenance (all done by the individual clubs here on the Gold Coast, or at least they certainly used to be) but the whole experience is soooooo much better than artificially or matting.
Like most thinks it seems woke trumps common sense. These City Council jokers need to stand back and take a cold hard look at themselves and reassess the attacks they are making on many volunteer supported sports, notably cricket and golf.
Love your Menzies quote describing how cricket enriches the soul, Gids. And turf wickets are something else. No matter the level we played, they somehow bring people together.
I loved that ground - had a ball and many fond memories playing Uni 3rds and 4ths there. It was especially beneficially to a cricketer like me who hated the quicks because it never bounced above shin height. You can say what you like about the MUCC but those boys could sledge with panache.
However, What a bunch of numb nut dick puppetry has gone into the thinking around removing turf wickets. In the last thirty years of playing on turf the opposition was more varied in terms of race, orientation location and demographics than the city itself. And that's saying something isnt it?
Never bounced much when I played there, and it certainly won't bounce much now.
Very well said, Gideon.
Local governments, especially, will complain about the ‘cost’ and ‘imposition’ of providing facilities for local sporting clubs, while also complaining about the costs associated with youth crime, vandalism, graffiti etc. Imagine how much worse the latter issues would be without sporting clubs!
Note: our club pays a curator $300 per week during the season to ensure our wicket is top-notch. With no council assistance whatsoever - apart from providing the facilities!
Do you think he would walk up to you to say all that in person Gid? The X really does embolden folk, and not in a positive way
I've a lot of time for Stephen, but he was simply being glib here. As a general point, I agree with your view of the disinhibiting effect of social media. I sometimes think when I'm writing something harsh: would I have the courage to say this to the person's face? If not, I shouldn't put it in print. It's not a bad rule of thumb.
Public golf courses have been under a similar attack in recent years. Cost cutting and hitting back at the users of said places, "ordinary people" golfers as well don't seem to fit into Stephen and Councils' apparent idea of how society should function.
It might have once been a largely waspy game, but into the future it will be Australia's most multicultural sport. Stephen needs to take a drive around both the outer western, northern and south eastern suburbs of Melbourne - the game is flourishing with South Asian players joining clubs or starting new ones.
Quite so: cricket's never been more 'inclusive'.
The response from Stephen Mayne is typical of the X platform where there is a total absence of rigour and genuine debate. Here in Perth, the premier cricket club where my boys play(ed) has four senior male teams, two senior female teams, four male junior teams and two female junior teams. There's also a veteran's team. We have players (and coaches) of a diverse range of ethnicities, including First Nations, South Asian, South African, English and European. To glibly classify such a group as 'entitled white men' is both ignorant and factually incorrect. Our club extends beyond the playing group to include a diversity of volunteers, sponsors, families and partners, that together make our club a community. The enriched lives of the members of this community surely delivers a broader 'social benefit' that far outweighs the annual cost of maintaining a turf square. If Stephen is ever in Perth, he's welcome to join us on a Thursday for selections night (as are you GH), which I'd like to think might go some way to him seeing the alternative view.
The council no doubt couched its decision in the language of inclusion, which ironically doubles as the language of exclusion? Next they'll use spurious evidence to ban climbing on Carlton picnic tables.
MCC undermined trust in government!!! Responsible government requires reasons for decisions about public assets and transparency. What a goose!
Stephen Mayne is very good at highlighting what he sees as problems, funnily enough I've never heard him come up with a solution for anything... I've got very little time for people who don't even attempt to solve problems.
It's a point of view. Cricket shouldn't be afraid of the argument. What's irritating is council using a buzzword - 'inclusivity' - to obscure what's merely a matter of cost.
What a shame. No doubt, it's a decision driven by short term P&L accounting for all the nonsensical rationalisations. As a park cricketer for many years and club administrator for longer, I can only endorse Gideon's comment that "the provision of amenity for community sport is an investment not a cost." I saw Mayne's silliness on the Musk platform, ideating cricket as an elitist sport. In my experience it is the lifeblood of community and fellowship.
Community cricket doesn't have many friends in high places these days.
Councils are reluctant to fund turf wickets and red tape means it is harder for volunteers to chip in and help. I think CA and their rivers of gold have a part to play here in making sure that grassroots get some kind of funding to maintain facilities and take the onus off councils. The price of a ball isn't getting any lower and the elite players aren't on struggle street so could drop a point or two in their cba revenue share.
And while cricket is traditionally a white male pastime it is still a demographic that is prone to isolation and mental health issues that can be alleviated with healthy outdoor interaction with those of a like mind. People love to talk a good game about these things till its time to write a cheque and then its not diverse or cool enough.
Good on you for contiuing to fly the flag.
The crack about women's cricket seems odd. I dunno about the other capitals but in Perth the majority of all womens long form* cricket is on turf. Only t20 community cricket it on concrete. If anything we need more turf to accommodate womens district cricket ultimately being the same size as the mens competitions**.
*I am grouping 35/40+ over 1 day matches with 4 innings cricket here. I feel entitled to do this as basically 30 years experience tells me, in the top order at least, the 40 over game has more in common with 'proper' cricket than t20.
**Disclosure: I have played one game on turf in my life (run out for 9 at the non-strikers end off the bowlers hand filling in in an under 17s in Albany in 1995. Yes, it still rankles). I now suddenly hypocritically care about it because my daughter made the district under 14s squad next season. A year under age well done kid, but I digress...
Anyway my recollection of SM from when I was a Crikey subscriber years ago was some of his commentary was not always ruminated on before being dispensed.
Never met him, but Stephen Mayne sounds like a bit of a goose.
If he really thinks the ‘white male’ thing is really still relevant in cricket, he needs to get out more.
I do like your alternative suggestion of more turf wickets - yes they need maintenance (all done by the individual clubs here on the Gold Coast, or at least they certainly used to be) but the whole experience is soooooo much better than artificially or matting.
Bloody well said Gid !
Like most thinks it seems woke trumps common sense. These City Council jokers need to stand back and take a cold hard look at themselves and reassess the attacks they are making on many volunteer supported sports, notably cricket and golf.
Love your Menzies quote describing how cricket enriches the soul, Gids. And turf wickets are something else. No matter the level we played, they somehow bring people together.