The Hundred is no different in concept than T20. On the pitch, it's just a shorter game with a few gimmicky twists in order to justify its "raison d'etre" and no different in that respect from the Big Bash amending their rules in recent years.
Off the pitch it is different fundamentally from the perspective of funding and broadcasting. This could have been done with the re-branding of the existing T20 but this is all about control of the game and money. And the ECB really aren't that worried about turning more Counties into Minor ones if that is the knock on effect. In fact, they would welcome it.
the crowds are loving it and that is what counts, this game is designed to be a purely quick fun event and so we should perhaps forget the aesthetics and just live with it .. it's only on for five weeks
the crowds are loving it and that is what counts, this game is designed to be a purely quick fun event and so we should perhaps forget the aesthetics and just live with it .. it's only on for five weeks
Yes, that it was the ECB, Sky and the BBC are telling you and want you to believe.
There were serious crowd issues at Lords on Thursday night when the T20 lads turned up in force.
In the light of those issues, Lords are not allowing any alcohol to be brought into the ground and are restricting sales of alcohol to 2 items per transaction for the rest of the games there, as well designating the Upper Tavern as a family zone where families can move to if they would like to move
away from an area.
the crowds are loving it and that is what counts, this game is designed to be a purely quick fun event and so we should perhaps forget the aesthetics and just live with it .. it's only on for five weeks
Yeah, those 20 less deliveries are a real game changer
The ECB need to decide if they want the T20 beer boys who will spend a lot in the grounds or the more sterile family atmosphere who might spend more in the club shops in the ground
I’m going today with my two youngest (9&11) and a friends 9 year old son i don’t know whether to get pissed and fall asleep or just fall asleep tried to put a card on Apple Pay on 11 year olds phone and that wouldn’t work cos it’s cashless and I’m letting them go feral, so he can have my credit card instead . they’re looking forward to it but they’ll be shattered and have PS4 withdrawal symptoms by the time the men’s game starts. id rather be local and watching my 15 year old play but the Mrs keeps pointing out I spend too much time with the eldest and you do have other kids….. fuck off I took the petrol head crank go karting on Wednesday and that lot make cricket weirdos look normal
the crowds are loving it and that is what counts, this game is designed to be a purely quick fun event and so we should perhaps forget the aesthetics and just live with it .. it's only on for five weeks
I think why a lot of people including myself find it hard to accept is that it seems impossible to find allegiance to any one side. Had the hundred been played between the counties it would have been a lot easier to accept
To be honest, I have been to a Friday night Blast match at the Oval and I would estimate about 50% of the crowd were there for the atmosphere and drink. Feed the snake! Isn't the Oval sold out for the Invincibles' match this weekend? And the purists said the same things about T20. Having the women's match is a great addition if you have enough time to catch them both.
The same people complaining about the Hundred, complained about T20, and complained about Central Contracts, who complained when they got rid of the 60 over one day cup, and complained when the Sunday league wore coloured clothing or Durham being let into the closed shop, and complained when they brought in 4 day County Championships games, and still haven’t forgiven Kerry Packer or the introduction of covered wickets
Not so.
If Charlton were told they had to merge their best players with Palace and Millwall, and call the team the South London Knobs, and then play reserves in the league, and that eventually the SL Knobs would take Charlton’s place in the league etc would you be happy?
To be honest, I have been to a Friday night Blast match at the Oval and I would estimate about 50% of the crowd were there for the atmosphere and drink. Feed the snake! Isn't the Oval sold out for the Invincibles' match this weekend? And the purists said the same things about T20. Having the women's match is a great addition if you have enough time to catch them both.
The same people complaining about the Hundred, complained about T20, and complained about Central Contracts, who complained when they got rid of the 60 over one day cup, and complained when the Sunday league wore coloured clothing or Durham being let into the closed shop, and complained when they brought in 4 day County Championships games, and still haven’t forgiven Kerry Packer or the introduction of covered wickets
Not so.
If Charlton were told they had to merge their best players with Palace and Millwall, and call the team the South London Knobs, and then play reserves in the league, and that eventually the SL Knobs would take Charlton’s place in the league etc would you be happy?
Replace "were told to" with "voted to" and see if your perspective changes.
To be honest, I have been to a Friday night Blast match at the Oval and I would estimate about 50% of the crowd were there for the atmosphere and drink. Feed the snake! Isn't the Oval sold out for the Invincibles' match this weekend? And the purists said the same things about T20. Having the women's match is a great addition if you have enough time to catch them both.
The same people complaining about the Hundred, complained about T20, and complained about Central Contracts, who complained when they got rid of the 60 over one day cup, and complained when the Sunday league wore coloured clothing or Durham being let into the closed shop, and complained when they brought in 4 day County Championships games, and still haven’t forgiven Kerry Packer or the introduction of covered wickets
Not so.
If Charlton were told they had to merge their best players with Palace and Millwall, and call the team the South London Knobs, and then play reserves in the league, and that eventually the SL Knobs would take Charlton’s place in the league etc would you be happy?
Replace "were told to" with "voted to" and see if your perspective changes.
Unfortunately, a lot more players have been taken away from the counties because of the lack of planned overseas players because of covid
To be honest, I have been to a Friday night Blast match at the Oval and I would estimate about 50% of the crowd were there for the atmosphere and drink. Feed the snake! Isn't the Oval sold out for the Invincibles' match this weekend? And the purists said the same things about T20. Having the women's match is a great addition if you have enough time to catch them both.
The same people complaining about the Hundred, complained about T20, and complained about Central Contracts, who complained when they got rid of the 60 over one day cup, and complained when the Sunday league wore coloured clothing or Durham being let into the closed shop, and complained when they brought in 4 day County Championships games, and still haven’t forgiven Kerry Packer or the introduction of covered wickets
Not so.
If Charlton were told they had to merge their best players with Palace and Millwall, and call the team the South London Knobs, and then play reserves in the league, and that eventually the SL Knobs would take Charlton’s place in the league etc would you be happy?
Replace "were told to" with "voted to" and see if your perspective changes.
Yes voted for. No it doesn’t change my perspective. Kent was one of those with Surrey who were going to vote against.
They could’ve just voted to take the reserves rather than splashing that on a suicide tournament, promoted the Blast and renewed the ECB management. That they didn’t does not mean I support them.
The counties, as a whole, voted for The Hundred. The players seem to enjoy it; and the incoming overseas players seem to have embraced it. Sponsors have embraced it. It's making lots of money. There are big crowds and huge tv ratings.
But not only are more people watching it (average audience on the BBC for the first men's match was 1.2m, compared to a paltry 180,000 for T20 Blast matches over two years), more of the right people are watching it. Younger people - who will become cricket fans for decades to come. (One in eight viewers is under 25). And more women are watching it - a hugely under-represented audience for cricket. (It's unarguable that there are fewer women cricket fans than there could be. And the women aren't just watching the women's matches: a higher proportion of the men's TV audience is female than the women's TV audience. And, in both cases, it's more than the female proportion of T20 Blast matches.
I get that some people are - rightly - emotionally and historically connected to 'their' counties. Kent, Surrey and all other counties draw on their support from their catchment areas and from those that have familial ties. But what if that's not enough? Should counties continue to wither? Or, would it be preferable to have a pool of newly-enthused cricket fans among children, families, young adults and a large proportion of women wanting to seek out cricket-supporting opportunities, perhaps at counties like Kent and Surrey? My view: there will be fans at Chester-le-Street, Nottingham, Taunton and Canterbury this month for T20 games that have been introduced to cricket by The Hundred. An unarguably good thing.
It might have been better - as some people argue - to market the current T20 format. But that shines a light onto the obvious conclusion: the current T20 format isn't working as well as it could. Too few people are watching (see above). So, yes, some marketing could have been thrown at it. The counties could have made that happen and, of course, funded it. Would that have worked to bring as much success as well as The Hundred has? Almost certainly not. (That's not my opinion, it's my conclusion, based on the fact that the ROI calculations of the ECB have convinced stakeholders that The Hundred will be more profitable). Counties could have marketed the Blast better, but didn't. The Hundred is filling that space, to the financial benefit of counties.
The Hundred is fun, exciting, entertaining and necessary. It was also democratically endorsed and encouraged. Everyone is winning from The Hundred, not least the counties. There's plenty wrong with domestic cricket in this country; The Hundred isn't among that list.
The counties, as a whole, voted for The Hundred. The players seem to enjoy it; and the incoming overseas players seem to have embraced it. Sponsors have embraced it. It's making lots of money. There are big crowds and huge tv ratings.
But not only are more people watching it (average audience on the BBC for the first men's match was 1.2m, compared to a paltry 180,000 for T20 Blast matches over two years), more of the right people are watching it. Younger people - who will become cricket fans for decades to come. (One in eight viewers is under 25). And more women are watching it - a hugely under-represented audience for cricket. (It's unarguable that there are fewer women cricket fans than there could be. And the women aren't just watching the women's matches: a higher proportion of the men's TV audience is female than the women's TV audience. And, in both cases, it's more than the female proportion of T20 Blast matches.
I get that some people are - rightly - emotionally and historically connected to 'their' counties. Kent, Surrey and all other counties draw on their support from their catchment areas and from those that have familial ties. But what if that's not enough? Should counties continue to wither? Or, would it be preferable to have a pool of newly-enthused cricket fans among children, families, young adults and a large proportion of women wanting to seek out cricket-supporting opportunities, perhaps at counties like Kent and Surrey? My view: there will be fans at Chester-le-Street, Nottingham, Taunton and Canterbury this month for T20 games that have been introduced to cricket by The Hundred. An unarguably good thing.
It might have been better - as some people argue - to market the current T20 format. But that shines a light onto the obvious conclusion: the current T20 format isn't working as well as it could. Too few people are watching (see above). So, yes, some marketing could have been thrown at it. The counties could have made that happen and, of course, funded it. Would that have worked to bring as much success as well as The Hundred has? Almost certainly not. (That's not my opinion, it's my conclusion, based on the fact that the ROI calculations of the ECB have convinced stakeholders that The Hundred will be more profitable). Counties could have marketed the Blast better, but didn't. The Hundred is filling that space, to the financial benefit of counties.
The Hundred is fun, exciting, entertaining and necessary. It was also democratically endorsed and encouraged. Everyone is winning from The Hundred, not least the counties. There's plenty wrong with domestic cricket in this country; The Hundred isn't among that list.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as those who disagree with are
Of course viewing figures on the BBC are going to be good as they don't show any other cricket.
And there we have it. The BBC shows The Hundred and it gets better ratings than all other domestic cricket. It's a win/win. It's yet another reason why The Hundred has been successful so far and is bringing in a ROI. Create a format that's attractive to free-to-air; sell the format to sponsors who want their brands shown on free-to-air; virtuous circle.
But, of course, it's interesting to note that The Hundred is getting better ratings on Sky than other domestic cricket on Sky.
Of course viewing figures on the BBC are going to be good as they don't show any other cricket.
And there we have it. The BBC shows The Hundred and it gets better ratings than all other domestic cricket. It's a win/win. It's yet another reason why The Hundred has been successful so far and is bringing in a ROI. Create a format that's attractive to free-to-air; sell the format to sponsors who want their brands shown on free-to-air; virtuous circle.
But, of course, it's interesting to note that The Hundred is getting better ratings on Sky than other domestic cricket on Sky.
Put the T20 on BBC and get the same figures? Sky are pushing the 100 as its invested in it. Not rocket science.
Sky are showing the 100 on Sky One, which of course all sky subscribers have (plus Now tv subscribers, some virgin and BT customers too), whilst all other cricket is on the over prices sky sports which has a far lower subscriber-base.
Of course viewing figures on the BBC are going to be good as they don't show any other cricket.
And there we have it. The BBC shows The Hundred and it gets better ratings than all other domestic cricket. It's a win/win. It's yet another reason why The Hundred has been successful so far and is bringing in a ROI. Create a format that's attractive to free-to-air; sell the format to sponsors who want their brands shown on free-to-air; virtuous circle.
But, of course, it's interesting to note that The Hundred is getting better ratings on Sky than other domestic cricket on Sky.
Put the T20 on BBC and get the same figures? Sky are pushing the 100 as its invested in it. Not rocket science.
And yet, despite it not being rocket science, they decided against it.
Perhaps to get even better viewing figures? Or to stimulate more and better overseas ratings (and associated sponsorship and revenue streams)? Or to ensure the greatest possible exposure for both men's and women's cricket? Or to stimulate interest from more younger fans? Or more female fans? Or create greater equality and opportunity? I guess if that's what was behind the plan, it's worked in every respect.
If it was as simple as 'put the T20 on BBC and get the same figures' they'd have done that. First, it assumes that 'the BBC' would be happy to 'put it on'. Or that the BBC would be happy to invest as much to broadcast it as they have The Hundred. The fact they haven't shows it's not as simple as that. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that.
the BBC (or Channel 4) were offered county T20 as part of this TV deal, and weren’t interested at all. City Franchise league they were all over.
You could give it to the BBC, but all you’re doing is moving the YouTube feed to the BBC sport website, and the ECB still picking up the production costs
Of course viewing figures on the BBC are going to be good as they don't show any other cricket.
And there we have it. The BBC shows The Hundred and it gets better ratings than all other domestic cricket. It's a win/win. It's yet another reason why The Hundred has been successful so far and is bringing in a ROI. Create a format that's attractive to free-to-air; sell the format to sponsors who want their brands shown on free-to-air; virtuous circle.
But, of course, it's interesting to note that The Hundred is getting better ratings on Sky than other domestic cricket on Sky.
Put the T20 on BBC and get the same figures? Sky are pushing the 100 as its invested in it. Not rocket science.
And yet, despite it not being rocket science, they decided against it.
Perhaps to get even better viewing figures? Or to stimulate more and better overseas ratings (and associated sponsorship and revenue streams)? Or to ensure the greatest possible exposure for both men's and women's cricket? Or to stimulate interest from more younger fans? Or more female fans? Or create greater equality and opportunity? I guess if that's what was behind the plan, it's worked in every respect.
If it was as simple as 'put the T20 on BBC and get the same figures' they'd have done that. First, it assumes that 'the BBC' would be happy to 'put it on'. Or that the BBC would be happy to invest as much to broadcast it as they have The Hundred. The fact they haven't shows it's not as simple as that. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that.
Ask them why? It's all about taking control away from the counties. The counties were always going to vote for it the same way L1 clubs voted in favour of U23's in the EFL trophy - money.
I love my cricket but do not see the value in yet another format which is really the same as a current one we have. Whatever a next 4 and a half day red ball game called Best Match cricket?
If the majority on here were pro The Hundred Chizz would be against it. You're all being Chizzed. It's amazing how many people fall for it, time and time again.
If the majority on here were pro The Hundred Chizz would be against it. You're all being Chizzed. It's amazing how many people fall for it, time and time again.
Of course viewing figures on the BBC are going to be good as they don't show any other cricket.
And there we have it. The BBC shows The Hundred and it gets better ratings than all other domestic cricket. It's a win/win. It's yet another reason why The Hundred has been successful so far and is bringing in a ROI. Create a format that's attractive to free-to-air; sell the format to sponsors who want their brands shown on free-to-air; virtuous circle.
But, of course, it's interesting to note that The Hundred is getting better ratings on Sky than other domestic cricket on Sky.
Put the T20 on BBC and get the same figures? Sky are pushing the 100 as its invested in it. Not rocket science.
And yet, despite it not being rocket science, they decided against it.
Perhaps to get even better viewing figures? Or to stimulate more and better overseas ratings (and associated sponsorship and revenue streams)? Or to ensure the greatest possible exposure for both men's and women's cricket? Or to stimulate interest from more younger fans? Or more female fans? Or create greater equality and opportunity? I guess if that's what was behind the plan, it's worked in every respect.
If it was as simple as 'put the T20 on BBC and get the same figures' they'd have done that. First, it assumes that 'the BBC' would be happy to 'put it on'. Or that the BBC would be happy to invest as much to broadcast it as they have The Hundred. The fact they haven't shows it's not as simple as that. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that.
Ask them why? It's all about taking control away from the counties. The counties were always going to vote for it the same way L1 clubs voted in favour of U23's in the EFL trophy - money.
I love my cricket but do not see the value in yet another format which is really the same as a current one we have. Whatever a next 4 and a half day red ball game called Best Match cricket?
This is a bit self-contradictory. Either the counties don't have control; or the counties have the opportunity to vote for or against it. If the counties didn't want it, they'd have voted it down - at least that is how I understand it.
I love my cricket too. The Hundred is as far removed from my favourite format of cricket - Tests - as it can be. But I support it because of the good it will do, has started to do and is likely to do in the short and medium terms.
If your suggested format was needed, proved to be beneficial, attracted big crowds, good free-to-air ratings and brought much needed money into the game and to players, then that would be a good thing. And I would support it, but probably wouldn't watch.
Very few L1 & L2 clubs want prem U23 teams in the EFL trophy so why do they vote in favour of it? Money of course. Same reason why the counties voted in favour of the hundred
Comments
Off the pitch it is different fundamentally from the perspective of funding and broadcasting. This could have been done with the re-branding of the existing T20 but this is all about control of the game and money. And the ECB really aren't that worried about turning more Counties into Minor ones if that is the knock on effect. In fact, they would welcome it.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/30/pom-bears-popchips-and-hula-hoops-why-the-hundred-is-so-hard-to-digest
Nails it.
There were serious crowd issues at Lords on Thursday night when the T20 lads turned up in force.
In the light of those issues, Lords are not allowing any alcohol to be brought into the ground and are restricting sales of alcohol to 2 items per transaction for the rest of the games there, as well designating the Upper Tavern as a family zone where families can move to if they would like to move away from an area.
i don’t know whether to get pissed and fall asleep or just fall asleep
tried to put a card on Apple Pay on 11 year olds phone and that wouldn’t work cos it’s cashless and I’m letting them go feral, so he can have my credit card instead .
they’re looking forward to it but they’ll be shattered and have PS4 withdrawal symptoms by the time the men’s game starts.
id rather be local and watching my 15 year old play but the Mrs keeps pointing out I spend too much time with the eldest and you do have other kids….. fuck off I took the petrol head crank go karting on Wednesday and that lot make cricket weirdos look normal
Had the hundred been played between the counties it would have been a lot easier to accept
But not only are more people watching it (average audience on the BBC for the first men's match was 1.2m, compared to a paltry 180,000 for T20 Blast matches over two years), more of the right people are watching it. Younger people - who will become cricket fans for decades to come. (One in eight viewers is under 25). And more women are watching it - a hugely under-represented audience for cricket. (It's unarguable that there are fewer women cricket fans than there could be. And the women aren't just watching the women's matches: a higher proportion of the men's TV audience is female than the women's TV audience. And, in both cases, it's more than the female proportion of T20 Blast matches.
I get that some people are - rightly - emotionally and historically connected to 'their' counties. Kent, Surrey and all other counties draw on their support from their catchment areas and from those that have familial ties. But what if that's not enough? Should counties continue to wither? Or, would it be preferable to have a pool of newly-enthused cricket fans among children, families, young adults and a large proportion of women wanting to seek out cricket-supporting opportunities, perhaps at counties like Kent and Surrey? My view: there will be fans at Chester-le-Street, Nottingham, Taunton and Canterbury this month for T20 games that have been introduced to cricket by The Hundred. An unarguably good thing.
It might have been better - as some people argue - to market the current T20 format. But that shines a light onto the obvious conclusion: the current T20 format isn't working as well as it could. Too few people are watching (see above). So, yes, some marketing could have been thrown at it. The counties could have made that happen and, of course, funded it. Would that have worked to bring as much success as well as The Hundred has? Almost certainly not. (That's not my opinion, it's my conclusion, based on the fact that the ROI calculations of the ECB have convinced stakeholders that The Hundred will be more profitable). Counties could have marketed the Blast better, but didn't. The Hundred is filling that space, to the financial benefit of counties.
The Hundred is fun, exciting, entertaining and necessary. It was also democratically endorsed and encouraged. Everyone is winning from The Hundred, not least the counties. There's plenty wrong with domestic cricket in this country; The Hundred isn't among that list.
But, of course, it's interesting to note that The Hundred is getting better ratings on Sky than other domestic cricket on Sky.
Perhaps to get even better viewing figures? Or to stimulate more and better overseas ratings (and associated sponsorship and revenue streams)? Or to ensure the greatest possible exposure for both men's and women's cricket? Or to stimulate interest from more younger fans? Or more female fans? Or create greater equality and opportunity? I guess if that's what was behind the plan, it's worked in every respect.
If it was as simple as 'put the T20 on BBC and get the same figures' they'd have done that. First, it assumes that 'the BBC' would be happy to 'put it on'. Or that the BBC would be happy to invest as much to broadcast it as they have The Hundred. The fact they haven't shows it's not as simple as that. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that.
You could give it to the BBC, but all you’re doing is moving the YouTube feed to the BBC sport website, and the ECB still picking up the production costs
I love my cricket but do not see the value in yet another format which is really the same as a current one we have. Whatever a next 4 and a half day red ball game called Best Match cricket?
You're all being Chizzed.
It's amazing how many people fall for it, time and time again.
I love my cricket too. The Hundred is as far removed from my favourite format of cricket - Tests - as it can be. But I support it because of the good it will do, has started to do and is likely to do in the short and medium terms.
If your suggested format was needed, proved to be beneficial, attracted big crowds, good free-to-air ratings and brought much needed money into the game and to players, then that would be a good thing. And I would support it, but probably wouldn't watch.