Magazine - Concerns for Cricket
SEARCH
POPULAR ARTICLES
NEWS ALERTS
Want to get news alerts delivered direct to your inbox?
Edit your email preferences.
RECENT COMMENTS
By Laurence Gale MSc in Cricket on 20th Apr 2009 7:00
I recently had the pleasure of being invited to talk at two Groundsmen Associations meetings (Warwickshire and Nottinghamshire) and, initially, I was undecided as what I would talk about. However, the recent test matches in Antigua gave me plenty of food for thought.
I ended up preparing a presentation on "The current state of Cricket". If we cannot get it right at International Level what chance have we got at grass roots or anything in between?
The presentation focused on several areas of cricket :-
· The role of the Sports Governing Body (ECB)
· Funding for Cricket
· Club Status
· Club Resources (people, equipment & materials)
· The role of the Groundsmen
· Equipment ( and condition)
· Pitch Analysis
· Costs
· The Future
With over 40 Groundsmen attending, along with a couple of Pitch Advisors and contractors, we had some interesting debate about the maintenance of pitches.
It was recognised that the ECB was working very hard to support cricket at every level and was continually looking at improving the way clubs received appropriate funding and services. However, many clubs below a certain level (Non focus clubs) generally were finding it hard to get funding.
I was keen to point out that clubs needed to know where they were going in respect of club status. What level of cricket do they want to achieve? However, this could be compromised by geographical location or, indeed, by the physical size of the ground and the condition of their facilities.
However, for me the most concerning issue facing cricket clubs, especially the grass root village cricket clubs, will be in respect of resources available to them, particularly with reference to people and equipment.
For a lot of clubs the grounds are managed and cared for by volunteers, and I know of many who regularly put in excess of 25hrs a week maintaining and preparing the grounds for play. Also, much of the equipment I've seen in the sheds is on its last legs or not good enough for the job or, indeed, in some cases, not safe for use.
Many of these unsung heros have served their clubs for many years (as players, committee members and groundsmen) and are now getting to an age when they are likely to be giving up their roles. My question is - who's going to take up the mantle? Not many of the younger generation of players are remotely interested in becoming involved in groundsmanship.
As for equipment a lot of it is old and worn out and, in some cases, not fit for purpose. We are certainly not going to encourage the next generation of volunteer groundsmen to take up managing the grounds if the equipment they have is poor and inappropriate.
What's the point of spending a lot of money on materials e.g. loams /seed and applying to a poorly scarified square. Or losing a lot of time trying to start/repair machinery on a regular basis or, more importantly, expect someone to use unsafe machinery.
Clubs need to inspect, seek advice and update machinery, or hire contractors to do the specialist works, for example end of season renovations, spraying and seeding operations.
Clubs could also save time and money if they were to share equipment and resources. Why not buy a top spec scarifier and aerator between 2-3 local clubs, and help one another with end of season renovations?
I also emphasised how important it was for groundsmen to measure and record the condition of their turf and soil profiles. Taking soil samples helps understand what's happening beneath the ground. A physical inspection of a soil core can reveal many issues, root depth, thatch levels and root breaks. Understanding your soil is key in the management of pitch facilities.
However, the bottom line on all this - there is a cost for providing and maintaining cricket facilities. Having dedicated people who are prepared to do the work without pay is a bonus and should be recognised.
Talking to a number of suppliers and contractors I have come up with some realistic costings for the annual maintenance of a typical 10-strip square:
Annual maintenance of square/outfield using volunteer workforce and own equipment will be between £1500-£2500 (cost of materials & services such as mower sharpening, seed, fertiliser and loam).
Contractor rates for end of season renovations (scarification, aeration, fertilser, overseed and topdress at a rate of 7-8 bags of loam per strip) £1000-£1500.
Outfield cutting by contractor £1500 (approximately £40-45 per cut).
Total contractor cost for annual square maintenance, outfield cutting and renovations £9000.
We can break down these costs further to get a final per player cost.
Break down of costs
Total cost of annual maintenance, renovations and cutting outfied based on a 10 strip square - £9000
A typical ten strip square club facility would expect to accommodate at least 75 games in any one season
Annual cost divided by 75 games = £120 per game
£120 divided by 11 players = £10.90 per game
A typical weekend game of cricket usually takes 6 hrs to complete, £10.90 divided by 6 = £1.81 per hour
Very cheap by anyone's standards and, obviously, it works out considerably less when a lot of the work is undertaken by volunteers, as is the case with a large number of clubs.
It goes without saying that the presentation, condition and performance of the square and outfield are vital in the role of promoting, attracting and developing cricket at all levels. The future of club cricket depends on the prosperity of the clubs and how they run and function but, in particular, the role of the groundsmen should be better understood, respected and supported - and valued.
The ECB and the County Grounds Associations should be applauded for the support they give to clubs.
The opportunity to meet up with fellow groundsmen and industry professionals and advisors is essential for the development of groundsmen. So, I would like to thank all the Groundsmen who made the effort to come and hear me speak, it was a pleasure to share experiences and information.
Read more articles in Cricket,
by Laurence Gale MSc
or from April 2009.
There are 13 comments on this article
20 Apr 2009 by Willard Last edited 20 Apr 2009
The main problem with maintaining cricket squares / blocks in England lies with the cost being covered by the clubs.
Since I started working in New Zealand in 2007, and having visited Australia often, I realised that local councils maintain all the sports fields except some stadium trusts (eg. Eden park, MCG, SCG etc). The clubs just pay the council to use the facilities, without having to cover all the costs.
The standard of the pitches is inspected by the local governing cricket body (eg. Auckland Cricket) to ensure everything is kept in order.
In England clubs want to use / maintain their own ground as some sort of status symbol, not wishing to use council facilities. The councils are happy to keep this status quo, because they get to save money & waste it elsewhere.
The standard of the pitches, maintenance & machinery used in Aus & NZ is much higher, with little cost to the clubs. They simply demand high standards from their councils.
Until the mentality changes, nothing else will...
Always Looking For New Ideas
20 Apr 2009 by Vic Demain
In the dark past, we all looked after our own grounds with whatever kit we could get hold of, often depending on the make up of membership. Now every club regardless of size expects to play on a facility like Lord's and that the governing body should supply the finance.
Learning to play on fields that had been pastures all week did a lot of players no harm. Also when members had to tend the grounds they had more appreciation of the task and the work of a dedicated few.
20 Apr 2009 by zoid
"Now every club regardless of size expects to play on a facility like Lord's..."
Oh if only Ascott.
I find that far too many clubs and individual cricketers just aren't that bothered. Oh yes they'll pay lip service to their surfaces and analyse them in their own sweet, simplistic way but when it comes to putting their hands in their pockets, it's all too often a case of "That much? Well we've got on alright up to now".
21 Apr 2009 by Willard
Zoid: very much so! And if they are winning: even more so!
Always Looking For New Ideas
21 Apr 2009 by jontaylor
Laurence,
Whilst I agree with you on many points I have to strongly disagree with you on two points.
75 games on a 10 strip square is, I contend, very much at the high end and unless we reduce the number of grounds in operation this is in no way a typical figure. In our local leagues even a club with 2 Sat and 2 Sun teams would play only 36 home league fixtures and we'll add a few cup games - say total 45 games. Midweek leagues and juniors will now add to the fixutures, but these games are shorter and fewer due to the reduced season for evening and junior cricket. You should only count these fixtures as half fixtures for the purpose of your costings. To get to 75 full fiixtures is by no means representative of typical club cricket.
You then break down the cost by the hour. This is also unrealistic. Players pay by the GAME, not by the hour. Can you imagine Billy Batsman leaving the field half way through because he could only afford £5 this week?
£10.90 a game might be very cheap by some standards, but I can assure you that I can not afford £65.40 a week for myself and my two sons to play two games (if we only play one, where do all the other players come from for the other matches that we need to get through to hit our 75 games a season?). I know several players who are currently unemployed - where do they find that much money?
Recreational cricket as a whole cannot afford paid groundsmen if it is to continue with the numbers of players and clubs we have today. Those of us willing to subsidise our colleagues through the provision of our voluntary labour will keep the game alive. If we are not replaced then when we leave, the game will whither.
The ciderman rolls
21 Apr 2009 by jlawrence
I'd suggest that 75 games on a 10 track square is probably about the number that many clubs have to play.
£10.90 is cheap for a days sport regardless of what sport that is. Cricket is no different than any other sport in that if you can't afford to play then it's simple - you don't play that sport.
Yes, junior games are shorter. Does this mean that you need need to take less time to prepare the track - not in my opinion. Thus they still cost the same to produce.
The track might sustain less damage but you will still struggle to fetch it back within less than 4 weeks. With many clubs putting out U11, U13, U15, U17 and most clubs around here have 2 teams at most levels, that's another 4 games a week.
I think most clubs with an active junior section will rack up 75 games a season quite easily.
Cricket has historically been under funded (in terms of what players pay) and that is the primary reason why most of the equipment is ancient and often next to useless. Why should the ECB et al be expected to cough up to provide equipment whilst the players pay way less than it actually costs to provide the surfaces they play on.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
21 Apr 2009 by jontaylor
Jon,
Perhaps you misunderstand my points.
Many clubs will play 75 games, but the article says that a "typical" club will play "at least" 75 games. Look at all the clubs in your area, and if 50% play more than 75 games then I will admit I'm wrong (for your area) - but look at all the clubs, not just the big boys. Around here I doubt that more than 20% of grounds play 75 games on grass. Most of those that run junior sections use the same track all season, or an artificial, so Yes, it does take less work to prepare their junior tracks. Having hosted junior fixtures, the U11 and U13 boys cause immensely less damage than men, so returning them to play is much cheaper and quicker.
I disagree with your "cheap" evalualtion. Laurence included no cost of balls, no umpires fees and no teas - just £10.90 for the ground prep. I'm sorry for you professionals, but none of you will get a job in Lincolnshire if you expect all players to fork out over £15 a game, including juniors for 20 over matches. Clubs with paid groundsmen have to subsidise the cricket with a bar or other source of income.
It's hard enough to get players to play grass roots cricket - please don't kill it with the "if you're not rich enough you can't play our game" attitude. If there's no grass roots cricket, how long until there's no "big club" cricket and then no first class cricket?
Economics is economics. I don't expect ECB or anyone else to pay me. I do it for free because I enjoy it and if no-one else does then our club, for one, would die.
The ciderman rolls
22 Apr 2009 by jlawrence
I see what you mean now.
It's not necessarily a case of players having to fork out £15 a game, but they need to understand that it costs iro that per player to provide the surfaces they want/need. The actual money comes from many sources (bar, sponsorship etc etc) but players need to realise that these other sources are the reason why their subs are so low - and in the current financial climate are the other sources going to be as forthcoming as they were ?
From my experience, it actually costs more per player to provide junior cricket. Why ? simply look at the bar takings on a junior match night compared to a senior night. Having said that, I've always been at clubs where seniors effectively subsidise junior cricket - the cost of junior cricket is kept artificially low.
As for using an artificial, they're what 6K and last what, say 10 years. That's 600 quid a year it's costing for those clubs to provide those junior games.
I agree that without us volunteers most clubs would die a death - and for many it wouldn't be a lingering one.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
22 Apr 2009 by Charles Johnson
75 games on a 10 track square does seem too high. My plans restrict things to the equivalent of 4-5 full matches or 8-10 colts/limited matches per strip - I guess it makes a big difference whether you use covers or not ? We also factor in the work and impact of preparing for cancelled matches.
Hours average 670 per year, 75 matches from the 12-track square and outfield strips for the youngest colts. The hours include a burden of 40-50 every year to repair damage caused by our football club, a similar amount to maintain curtilage - extensive hedges etc - and includes the work involved in renovations, winter maintenance. So in Summer the direct cost is probably 20 hours to produce 3 or 4 pitches each week.
24 Apr 2009 by pgrant
Don't frighten everyone with the costs!
10 track square - 40 games
Assumptions -Colts get the same pitch all year (up to u11's)
midweek pitches are always the best looking track from the weekend- therefore.......
Loam 100 bags per season - 6 per track end of season - 4 bags per track repairs ( Tight but Ok) -£600?
75Kg grass seed and 6 bags various fertilisers - £400
Servicing and repairs - £500
Outfield cutting 20 weeks x £45 -£900
Petrol and misc -£300
Spraying -£200
and i'm being generous with costs
Volunteer groundsman -priceless
Total £2,900
p.s pic is track in september after rennovations at 6 bags per track
25 Apr 2009 by Grassman2011
Everybody's costs will vary, but what servicing and repair bills are you covering for £500 pa ?
Do you only cut your outfield 20 times a year or does yor club only have to fund 20 cuts ? Most outfields will be cut far more times than 20 a year.
Your costs are still approx £72.50p per match. How much more would it cost if you had to pay someone to do it ?
27 Apr 2009 by Minormorris64
Our outfield has had 5 cuts in the last 8 days alone, its growing like mad.
What goes around, comes around
28 Apr 2009 by pgrant
20 Contractor cuts at £45 assumed - We can only afford 1 outfield cut per week. The football club keeps the outfield cut all winter so we don't have a massive catch up in April -
£500 servicing costs covers a regrind and general service of 2 wicket mowers and a 24 inch matador -
Repairs!!! yes we should budget!
I guess the point i'm making is that a good surface can be achieved with a smaller budget and we should not be encouraging people to walk away because of massive costs- It can be done!
Want to post a comment in response to this article?
Login now, or register if you are not a Pitchcare member.
I recently had the pleasure of being invited to talk at two Groundsmen Associations meetings (Warwickshire and Nottinghamshire) and, initially, I was undecided as what I would talk about. However, the recent test matches in Antigua gave me plenty of food for thought.
With over 40 Groundsmen attending, along with a couple of Pitch Advisors and contractors, we had some interesting debate about the maintenance of pitches.
For a lot of clubs the grounds are managed and cared for by volunteers, and I know of many who regularly put in excess of 25hrs a week maintaining and preparing the grounds for play. Also, much of the equipment I've seen in the sheds is on its last legs or not good enough for the job or, indeed, in some cases, not safe for use.
As for equipment a lot of it is old and worn out and, in some cases, not fit for purpose. We are certainly not going to encourage the next generation of volunteer groundsmen to take up managing the grounds if the equipment they have is poor and inappropriate.
