The current English calendar is madness. Apart from anything, for many teams and players there are long periods with NO games at all
The final of the 50 over on Thursday, the 100 on Friday and Saturday, but after that next week (still the school holidays) other than 4 Blast QF matches spread over 4 nights, nothing until Monday week when the red ball cricket finally resumes.
That's 8 days of high summer with just 4 Blast matches, and nothing on at all this Sunday or the following Saturday and Sunday
And for those spectators who enjoyed the 100, no more white ball cricket at all for 10 of the 18 counties, including both London grounds.
So, is the problem with the Hundred the fact that there are too few other games?
It has been a very enjoyable watch and the crowds seem to love it.
I know the calendar is crowded, but couldn't it be accommodated so that other tournnaments aren't affected.
How about the comp takes place in April/May when currently, counties start their 4 day matches & the hardiest of supporters wrap themselves in blankets, drink hot bovril & shiver their way through the days' play ?
Even fielding sides wear 2 sweaters and snoods at times !
Then we'd see just how supportive REAL cricket lovers are .....:-)
The Hundred is perfectly suited to the time of year in which it's currently scheduled. The warmest days, with the most likelihood of cricket still being possible into the dark evenings. And, crucially, during the school summer holidays, and outside the times when other world franchise tournaments are played.
That's why the Hundred is well scheduled: the biggest cricket matches outside Tests played when the most people can enjoy watching the best players.
Of course ! Why would I expect your post & the likes of 2 of the Hundred's most ardent fans, regardless of whether they've actually attended a match to be anything less !
Why would it be played at a less suitable time for families & those who love to have one too many beers ?
Let's just play white ball cricket ALL the time & preferably with those "stars" that everyone wants to watch ( even though most attendees will have no idea who they are except their names are up in lights ) if their other Franchise type commitments allow them to play.
Let's see what kind of comments appear on the Ashes thread when we're barely able to field a competitive team.
Red ball cricket ?
Only for the wrinklies of course & those who expect sport to be just that, without gimmicks & door to door advertising for the kind of products children shouldn't be over indulging in ! Couldn't make it up really....
The best players in the England team in the current Test series v India have been those who also played the Hundred, with Sam Curran being (pretty much) the sole exception.
The worst players have generally been those not involved in the Hundred, like Sibley, Burns, etc.
The idea England's Test team will improve if we play fewer of the shortest-format games makes no sense. Do New Zealand cricketers play T20 cricket? Are the IPL and BBL continuing? Why should we imagine that England's players are so exceptionally distracted and fragile that they can't play a few short-format games, like the world's best Test teams? Couldn't make it up really.
As far as the Ashes thread is concerned, I'll make a prediction. At the start of the series, there will be several people bemoaning the amount of white ball cricket England plays. And, by the end, no-one will be mentioning that the Ashes have been won by a country with an abundance of short-format, white ball cricket.
You aren't comparing like against like - Australians do play an abundance of white ball cricket in Australia but they also all regularly play in the Sheffield Shield - the likes of Warner, Smith, Harris (also played here for Leics), Labushagne (also played for Glamorgan), Starc, Green, Paine, Lyon, Head (also played for Sussex), Wade etc etc all did so. Some of our centrally contracted players might have turned out once or twice this season but a lot of them don't see a red ball 'til they meet up for the first time with England. Equally, the Aussie batsmen aren't forced to play in the Sheffield Shield when conditions are a seamers' paradise on pitches where a 45 year old bowling at 69 mph is King.
Thank you for returning my point. The best Test teams will always be the countries with the highest-standard white-ball cricket for their players to play in. The money it generates talks.
There is a chasm in the quality of the respective players in the Indian and England sides - only Root would get into their side as a batsman and we have no spinners whatsoever of the quality of Jadeja or Ashwin.
The ECB are the ones who dictate the fixtures. And they have dictated that just two County Championship matches are played in the middle 12 weeks of the summer. The product of that is the production of no batsmen and no spinners but an abundance of medium pace seamers. Who are the young batsmen and spinners banging on the front door of the Test side?
We didn't need another white ball comp when we already had two that could have been promoted in the same way as the Hundred has been. But that money would not have gone directly into the ECB's pocket.
I’ve managed to swerve it and Mrs taking two youngest to the final I’m watching the son in our firsts hopefully win the league to avoid going to Charlton and to get pissed
As Derek Pringle wrote this week "The primacy of The Hundred means it has the best billing in the calendar which I'm told means scheduling it entirely during August next year.....It remains an unholy mess and while those at ECB fiddle with their shiny new toy, county cricket slowly burns away on the bonfire of their vanity"
As Derek Pringle wrote this week "The primacy of The Hundred means it has the best billing in the calendar which I'm told means scheduling it entirely during August next year.....It remains an unholy mess and while those at ECB fiddle with their shiny new toy, county cricket slowly burns away on the bonfire of their vanity"
Can't the counties schedule first class games during August? Or is that beyond their collective capability?
Without their best players?
Not sure who agrees the scheduling.
As someone said previously, time will tell with the Hundred which is benefitting from post lockdown and lack of travel opportunities.
Maybe next year, the counties won't be so decimated by the Hundred (many of whom haven't even played much or even at all) as there will be overseas players.
It might attract some new players, but if they weren't attracted by the other forms of the game, will they be interested in playing in any other forms of the game
Can't the counties schedule first class games during August? Or is that beyond their collective capability?
Without their best players?
Not sure who agrees the scheduling.
As someone said previously, time will tell with the Hundred which is benefitting from post lockdown and lack of travel opportunities.
Maybe next year, the counties won't be so decimated by the Hundred (many of whom haven't even played much or even at all) as there will be overseas players.
It might attract some new players, but if they weren't attracted by the other forms of the game, will they be interested in playing in any other forms of the game
With all the best players on their books, that haven't signed to Hundred franchises. Either the counties can, or can't manage to schedule matches for themselves. I would guess they probably can, in exactly the same way that Charlton could set up friendlies, whenever they wanted.
Part of the job of the ECB is to maximise revnue for the ECB, for all levels of make and female cricket (from grassroots to the Test team) and to generate cash for the counties. Can the counties do that better themselves? I think they probably can't. And I think that's part of the reason the counties voted for the Hundred.
You're probably right that the Hundred will encourage new players. And, even if those new players are only ever interested in the Hundred (very unlikely) that would still be a good thing, because of the wider benefit (see cash, above) the Hundred will produce.
Can't the counties schedule first class games during August? Or is that beyond their collective capability?
Without their best players?
Not sure who agrees the scheduling.
As someone said previously, time will tell with the Hundred which is benefitting from post lockdown and lack of travel opportunities.
Maybe next year, the counties won't be so decimated by the Hundred (many of whom haven't even played much or even at all) as there will be overseas players.
It might attract some new players, but if they weren't attracted by the other forms of the game, will they be interested in playing in any other forms of the game
With all the best players on their books, that haven't signed to Hundred franchises. Either the counties can, or can't manage to schedule matches for themselves. I would guess they probably can, in exactly the same way that Charlton could set up friendlies, whenever they wanted.
Part of the job of the ECB is to maximise revnue for the ECB, for all levels of make and female cricket (from grassroots to the Test team) and to generate cash for the counties. Can the counties do that better themselves? I think they probably can't. And I think that's part of the reason the counties voted for the Hundred.
You're probably right that the Hundred will encourage new players. And, even if those new players are only ever interested in the Hundred (very unlikely) that would still be a good thing, because of the wider benefit (see cash, above) the Hundred will produce.
No, not a good thing as detrimental to the overall game as a whole.
Can't the counties schedule first class games during August? Or is that beyond their collective capability?
Without their best players?
Not sure who agrees the scheduling.
As someone said previously, time will tell with the Hundred which is benefitting from post lockdown and lack of travel opportunities.
Maybe next year, the counties won't be so decimated by the Hundred (many of whom haven't even played much or even at all) as there will be overseas players.
It might attract some new players, but if they weren't attracted by the other forms of the game, will they be interested in playing in any other forms of the game
With all the best players on their books, that haven't signed to Hundred franchises. Either the counties can, or can't manage to schedule matches for themselves. I would guess they probably can, in exactly the same way that Charlton could set up friendlies, whenever they wanted.
Part of the job of the ECB is to maximise revnue for the ECB, for all levels of make and female cricket (from grassroots to the Test team) and to generate cash for the counties. Can the counties do that better themselves? I think they probably can't. And I think that's part of the reason the counties voted for the Hundred.
You're probably right that the Hundred will encourage new players. And, even if those new players are only ever interested in the Hundred (very unlikely) that would still be a good thing, because of the wider benefit (see cash, above) the Hundred will produce.
No, not a good thing as detrimental to the overall game as a whole.
Can't the counties schedule first class games during August? Or is that beyond their collective capability?
Without their best players?
Not sure who agrees the scheduling.
As someone said previously, time will tell with the Hundred which is benefitting from post lockdown and lack of travel opportunities.
Maybe next year, the counties won't be so decimated by the Hundred (many of whom haven't even played much or even at all) as there will be overseas players.
It might attract some new players, but if they weren't attracted by the other forms of the game, will they be interested in playing in any other forms of the game
With all the best players on their books, that haven't signed to Hundred franchises. Either the counties can, or can't manage to schedule matches for themselves. I would guess they probably can, in exactly the same way that Charlton could set up friendlies, whenever they wanted.
Part of the job of the ECB is to maximise revnue for the ECB, for all levels of make and female cricket (from grassroots to the Test team) and to generate cash for the counties. Can the counties do that better themselves? I think they probably can't. And I think that's part of the reason the counties voted for the Hundred.
You're probably right that the Hundred will encourage new players. And, even if those new players are only ever interested in the Hundred (very unlikely) that would still be a good thing, because of the wider benefit (see cash, above) the Hundred will produce.
No, not a good thing as detrimental to the overall game as a whole.
Time will tell
I respect your opinion
It's fair to say opinion on here is divided and we are all entitled to our opinions
Anyone anyone recall a domestic final with so few in attendance? I wonder why? The ECB isn’t fit to oversee the game.
A disgrace to have a final like this played on a Thursday with 2 or 3 days notice for the clubs. Especially as being a day/night game, getting home afterwards will be impossible by public transport
And of course it can't be played on Sunday, as I assume that's been set aside as a reserve day for the 100?
So why not the following Saturday, when NO cricket is being played, other than the Test
Seen a few people saying the Blast wouldn't work instead of the hundred because it has too many games. That's only due to the current 2 group format. If there were to be 3 six team groups, then that's 15 games per group, top 2 from each group go through to the QF along with the best two 3rd place teams.
That's a total of 52 games (45 group games + 4 QF + 2 SF + 1 final). IPL has 60 games, BB has 61 and The Hundred has just 34. 52 matches could easily fit in the school summer holidays with the knockout games all played over the bank holiday weekend if need be.
There are an infinite number of ways the Blast could have been made to work. The simple answer is that the ECB wanted franchise cricket and never seriously looked at any repackaging or reformatting of the Blast competition.
The only possible issue I can see (other than the ECB being unable to trouser all the cash) is the double header format. Not all country sides have a competitive women's team, but surely if one of the so-called aims of The Hundred is to increase both female viewership and participation, then a big chunk of the money wasted on The Hundred could have been used to ensure that each county could put out a women's side.
I've watched quite a few of The Hundred matches (makes a nice change to be able to sit down and watch some cricket without paying the Sky Sports tax) and the level of cricket has been good. However, and this is the key point, it doesn't feel any different to T20, and I don't care about the results because I have I'm not invested in any of the teams.
Lastly, it feels like they missed a trick with the new rules. They scrapped overs, but then not only introduced "sets of 5", but also the added complication of bowlers allowed to bowl more than one at a time. They should have been bolder and scrapped the idea of overs/sets completely. A bowler can bowl as many balls as the captain choses (given a sensible minimum) and we change ends each time the bowling changes. Much simpler, and more interesting than the overs that aren't really overs situation we find ourselves in currently.
The ECB don't pocket all the money, £1.3m a year (so £23m of the £40m a year of the TV deal for the Hundred) goes to the counties.
I'll say it now about the blast, there is no way the counties will vote for fewer Blast games, when they've got the best of both worlds now, loads of blast games and a shed ton of money from the Hundred.
The ECB don't pocket all the money, £1.3m a year (so £23m of the £40m a year of the TV deal for the Hundred) goes to the counties.
I'll say it now about the blast, there is no way the counties will vote for fewer Blast games, when they've got the best of both worlds now, loads of blast games and a shed ton of money from the Hundred.
Then they are fools. Blast attendances and TV money will drop the longer The Hundred exists. If The Hundred is a success, and the ECB maintain any interest in the longer formats, how long before we get an exhibition 50 over match between 2 franchises? Or even a multi-day game ( a pre-test test if you like).
The ECB props up the majority of the counties and surely see county cricket as an unnecessary drain. The only reason they haven't more aggressively tried to force counties part time is that they need test players. You can guarantee if they can find a way to generate test players without the need for the county championship then that will be the end of professional country cricket. They've made it very clear that country cricket comes a distant third to the national team and The Hundred.
The ECB don't pocket all the money, £1.3m a year (so £23m of the £40m a year of the TV deal for the Hundred) goes to the counties.
I'll say it now about the blast, there is no way the counties will vote for fewer Blast games, when they've got the best of both worlds now, loads of blast games and a shed ton of money from the Hundred.
What do counties make from the Blast? I have absolutely no idea whether £1.3m is much more or much less than - say - Kent CCC would make form the Blast.
Have they? Or the counties know that financially they are fucked without the Hundred and the National Team (whatever format of the game they play)
The ECB financial deals are all driven to keep its members, the counties, in business, and to fund the grassroots of the sport, which from experience Sport England doesn't think it should fund beyond Asian communities and the womens game.
There isn't a debate about whether all 18 are financial going concerns, and what the counties are there for, are they there for their members and members only, are they there to develop players for the England team, or is something else, which seems to be tradition.
The ECB don't pocket all the money, £1.3m a year (so £23m of the £40m a year of the TV deal for the Hundred) goes to the counties.
I'll say it now about the blast, there is no way the counties will vote for fewer Blast games, when they've got the best of both worlds now, loads of blast games and a shed ton of money from the Hundred.
The counties also lost revenue from the devalued 50 over competition. I didn't bother going to see any games, as who wants to see county sides stripped of all their best white ball players?
Kent were in the last 50 over final, a packed Lord's full of spectators paying good money to see 2 excellent teams give battle, This year we have a devalued contest, played on Thursday at a sparsely populated Trent Bridge
who have you been rooting for in the hundred and why?
No one, just been enjoying the quality of the games. Maybe once I've been to the Oval or Lords I might support one of the London teams. Anyway, what's the next bit of whataboutery?
I really enjoyed the Fire v Spirit game last night. Even though it was a dead rubber. Had me enthralled all the way to the last ball.
I have to be honest, I got into cricket much later in life than I did football. Mainly because I only saw it on TV & as a kid I couldn’t watch anything for too long as the great outdoors beckoned.
But as I got older & started going out & about in the Kent countryside I would plan routes to include cricket pitches to watch local sides whilst having a picnic. Wonderful.
Working shifts meant I could often go to one dayers no bother. But anything more than that was tricky. Once I moved to working in Vauxhall and became cricket captain I began to watch everything I could but five days was still out of the question. Annual leave was precious. We kept promising ourselves a tour in India/Sri Lanka/The Caribbean once retired & maybe even buying one of those flats near a ground.
Hopefully we will still get that tour in. But until then, I want to be entertained via my telebox.
Comments
The ECB are the ones who dictate the fixtures. And they have dictated that just two County Championship matches are played in the middle 12 weeks of the summer. The product of that is the production of no batsmen and no spinners but an abundance of medium pace seamers. Who are the young batsmen and spinners banging on the front door of the Test side?
We didn't need another white ball comp when we already had two that could have been promoted in the same way as the Hundred has been. But that money would not have gone directly into the ECB's pocket.
I’m watching the son in our firsts hopefully win the league to avoid going to Charlton and to get pissed
Not sure who agrees the scheduling.
As someone said previously, time will tell with the Hundred which is benefitting from post lockdown and lack of travel opportunities.
Maybe next year, the counties won't be so decimated by the Hundred (many of whom haven't even played much or even at all) as there will be overseas players.
It might attract some new players, but if they weren't attracted by the other forms of the game, will they be interested in playing in any other forms of the game
Part of the job of the ECB is to maximise revnue for the ECB, for all levels of make and female cricket (from grassroots to the Test team) and to generate cash for the counties. Can the counties do that better themselves? I think they probably can't. And I think that's part of the reason the counties voted for the Hundred.
You're probably right that the Hundred will encourage new players. And, even if those new players are only ever interested in the Hundred (very unlikely) that would still be a good thing, because of the wider benefit (see cash, above) the Hundred will produce.
Time will tell
And of course it can't be played on Sunday, as I assume that's been set aside as a reserve day for the 100?
So why not the following Saturday, when NO cricket is being played, other than the Test
That's a total of 52 games (45 group games + 4 QF + 2 SF + 1 final). IPL has 60 games, BB has 61 and The Hundred has just 34. 52 matches could easily fit in the school summer holidays with the knockout games all played over the bank holiday weekend if need be.
There are an infinite number of ways the Blast could have been made to work. The simple answer is that the ECB wanted franchise cricket and never seriously looked at any repackaging or reformatting of the Blast competition.
The only possible issue I can see (other than the ECB being unable to trouser all the cash) is the double header format. Not all country sides have a competitive women's team, but surely if one of the so-called aims of The Hundred is to increase both female viewership and participation, then a big chunk of the money wasted on The Hundred could have been used to ensure that each county could put out a women's side.
I've watched quite a few of The Hundred matches (makes a nice change to be able to sit down and watch some cricket without paying the Sky Sports tax) and the level of cricket has been good. However, and this is the key point, it doesn't feel any different to T20, and I don't care about the results because I have I'm not invested in any of the teams.
Lastly, it feels like they missed a trick with the new rules. They scrapped overs, but then not only introduced "sets of 5", but also the added complication of bowlers allowed to bowl more than one at a time. They should have been bolder and scrapped the idea of overs/sets completely. A bowler can bowl as many balls as the captain choses (given a sensible minimum) and we change ends each time the bowling changes. Much simpler, and more interesting than the overs that aren't really overs situation we find ourselves in currently.
I'll say it now about the blast, there is no way the counties will vote for fewer Blast games, when they've got the best of both worlds now, loads of blast games and a shed ton of money from the Hundred.
The ECB props up the majority of the counties and surely see county cricket as an unnecessary drain. The only reason they haven't more aggressively tried to force counties part time is that they need test players. You can guarantee if they can find a way to generate test players without the need for the county championship then that will be the end of professional country cricket. They've made it very clear that country cricket comes a distant third to the national team and The Hundred.
The ECB financial deals are all driven to keep its members, the counties, in business, and to fund the grassroots of the sport, which from experience Sport England doesn't think it should fund beyond Asian communities and the womens game.
There isn't a debate about whether all 18 are financial going concerns, and what the counties are there for, are they there for their members and members only, are they there to develop players for the England team, or is something else, which seems to be tradition.
Kent were in the last 50 over final, a packed Lord's full of spectators paying good money to see 2 excellent teams give battle, This year we have a devalued contest, played on Thursday at a sparsely populated Trent Bridge
who have you been rooting for in the hundred and why?
Even though it was a dead rubber.
Had me enthralled all the way to the last ball.
I have to be honest, I got into cricket much later in life than I did football. Mainly because I only saw it on TV & as a kid I couldn’t watch anything for too long as the great outdoors beckoned.
But as I got older & started going out & about in the Kent countryside I would plan routes to include cricket pitches to watch local sides whilst having a picnic. Wonderful.
Working shifts meant I could often go to one dayers no bother. But anything more than that was tricky. Once I moved to working in Vauxhall and became cricket captain I began to watch everything I could but five days was still out of the question. Annual leave was precious. We kept promising ourselves a tour in India/Sri Lanka/The Caribbean once retired & maybe even buying one of those flats near a ground.
Sorry 🤷♀️