Anyone anyone recall a domestic final with so few in attendance? I wonder why? The ECB isn’t fit to oversee the game.
What's the attendance going to be for the final of the Hundred?
Considerably higher due to the venue, timing and promotion of it. If the final of the Hundred was scheduled in Nottingham in a Thursday with the competing teams not known until two days before, I’d expect a similar attendance to today’s.
Because the same people complaining about it being played today, would be DISGUSTED it's been put on against a test.
The 50 over final has always been scheduled outside of test matches and played at Lords. It’s not difficult to do unless you want to destroy the county game of course!
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Have the counties with the larger home grounds ever offered contracts to players from other teams before? Or is this exclusively as a result of The Hundred?
The likes of Surrey have had superior spending power over counties like Kent, Sussex, Leicestershire etc long before The Hundred came along. Not exactly a new thing, the bigger counties going in for the best players in the country.
Division 1 and test ground counties splashing the cash on the best talent is hardly a new thing is it? Surrey have always done it, Hampshire it’s been their MO since moving to the rose bowl, and Lancashire have always been big spenders.
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Have the counties with the larger home grounds ever offered contracts to players from other teams before? Or is this exclusively as a result of The Hundred?
Division 1 and test ground counties splashing the cash on the best talent is hardly a new thing is it? Surrey have always done it, Hampshire it’s been their MO since moving to the rose bowl, and Lancashire have always been big spenders.
Don’t see where and how the Hundred are to blame?
I think you're both missing the point. The money from The Hundred is directly responsible for the poaching of those players and making the gap bigger. The larger counties can do so in the knowledge that next year they will, once again, get money from the ticket sales and hospitality plus the small beer from the Royal London 2nd XI competition whereas the smaller counties only have that small beer. Had there been no Hundred and the ECB supported the Blast in the same way they have financially and through the extensive publicity then the money would have been more evenly distributed.
There's always been a hierarchy in cricket. Allow me to offer you a little insight in this regard. As most of you know, my son is in the current Kent U18 squad. All playing and training kit is paid for by the parents. We have to make a financial contribution towards the cost of coaching prior to the winter. All transport is provided by the parents or boys if they drive. Ordinarily, when we play a match we have two coaches and a physio but we played two games this week with just one coach and no physio. Our opposition had two coaches, a physio, two analysts and a scorer. When we play away and stay at a hotel the boys will have a very limited choice of food. If they want anything in addition to a main course and one soft drink, they have to pay for it themselves. They have been known to go to Tescos straight afterwards! Somehow I doubt the Surrey boys live in a world where they ever have to say "please, sir, I want some more!" This isn't a level playing field but we compete nevertheless in spite of it.
The Hundred will exaggerate this situation. Let's put it another way. Imagine Charlton were in the Premier League and the Super League came off with the 10 biggest clubs in England joining? How happy would you be for the PL to become a second tier competition with us competing against Watford, Norwich, Villa etc etc instead of City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc etc? Will we have sell out crowds in the way that we used to or will young local supporters be more inclined to support those super clubs? But there have always been bigger clubs hasn't there as there has always been bigger counties. But at least we are allowed to compete.
And the is the fundamental difference. Kent, as evidenced by their appearance in the QFs of the Blast, previously had and currently do have a realistic chance of winning a major competition. Prior to Covid, Kent were competing in Division 1 against their much wealthier counterparts. However, the efforts of the ECB will not only serve to undermine this but will also cause us to become non First Class. The £1.3m bribe is not open ended.
Where will the pathway to county cricket then be for the boy who lives say in Canterbury? There isn't another county within 90 minutes of them. Good luck getting to training on a Tuesday evening after school and back again! But, hey, the ECB tells us that cricket should be all inclusive and with equal opportunities. Of course it does.
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Have the counties with the larger home grounds ever offered contracts to players from other teams before? Or is this exclusively as a result of The Hundred?
Division 1 and test ground counties splashing the cash on the best talent is hardly a new thing is it? Surrey have always done it, Hampshire it’s been their MO since moving to the rose bowl, and Lancashire have always been big spenders.
Don’t see where and how the Hundred are to blame?
I think you're both missing the point. The money from The Hundred is directly responsible for the poaching of those players and making the gap bigger. The larger counties can do so in the knowledge that next year they will, once again, get money from the ticket sales and hospitality plus the small beer from the Royal London 2nd XI competition whereas the smaller counties only have that small beer. Had there been no Hundred and the ECB supported the Blast in the same way they have financially and through the extensive publicity then the money would have been more evenly distributed.
There's always been a hierarchy in cricket. Allow me to offer you a little insight in this regard. As most of you know, my son is in the current Kent U18 squad. All playing and training kit is paid for by the parents. We have to make a financial contribution towards the cost of coaching prior to the winter. All transport is provided by the parents or boys if they drive. Ordinarily, when we play a match we have two coaches and a physio but we played two games this week with just one coach and no physio. Our opposition had two coaches, a physio, two analysts and a scorer. When we play away and stay at a hotel the boys will have a very limited choice of food. If they want anything in addition to a main course and one soft drink, they have to pay for it themselves. They have been known to go to Tescos straight afterwards! Somehow I doubt the Surrey boys live in a world where they ever have to say "please, sir, I want some more!" This isn't a level playing field but we compete nevertheless in spite of it.
The Hundred will exaggerate this situation. Let's put it another way. Imagine Charlton were in the Premier League and the Super League came off with the 10 biggest clubs in England joining? How happy would you be for the PL to become a second tier competition with us competing against Watford, Norwich, Villa etc etc instead of City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc etc? Will we have sell out crowds in the way that we used to or will young local supporters be more inclined to support those super clubs? But there have always been bigger clubs hasn't there as there has always been bigger counties. But at least we are allowed to compete.
And the is the fundamental difference. Kent, as evidenced by their appearance in the QFs of the Blast, previously had and currently do have a realistic chance of winning a major competition. Prior to Covid, Kent were competing in Division 1 against their much wealthier counterparts. However, the efforts of the ECB will not only serve to undermine this but will also cause us to become non First Class. The £1.3m bribe is not open ended.
Where will the pathway to county cricket then be for the boy who lives say in Canterbury? There isn't another county within 90 minutes of them. Good luck getting to training on a Tuesday evening after school and back again! But, hey, the ECB tells us that cricket should be all inclusive and with equal opportunities. Of course it does.
OK. So now the argument has switched from the best players being poached from, for example, Sussex to play for Surrey, because they've appeared for the Southern Brave and, despite the counties all getting more money, some counties already had lots of money in the first place; to some younger cricketers do (may?) struggle financially if they live a long way from one of the richer counties.
Twas ever thus.
Players have always had their heads turned. And the better players' destination has often been counties with more money. Ian Botham didn't move county twice because of The Hundred.
Youngsters across the country have always suffered from inequality in terms of opportunity. A player growing up around St Johns Wood will have an advantage over a player growing up near Maidstone. But the latter has always had better chances than a player growing up in Truro. That's because of geography, not because of The Hundred.
The Hundred was organised in large part to provide counties with greater income. It's doing that. It was also set up to win more supporters and give opportunities to more players. It's doing both of those things.
There's a finite opportunity to drive additional revenue into cricket. The Hundred is helping to maximise that. That's why the counties voted for it. It won't instantly cure all the short-comings of cricket for all participants at all levels. But it will do some good, in many more places than other revenue sources have managed.
Rich counties have always been richer than other counties. Some have always had more money than others (Surrey, Lancashire, Warwickshire) some have created wealth (Hampshire, Durham). Some still need to do better work. And without that work, Under 18 teams will continue to turn up to games with fewer coaches and support staff than ideal.
But *all* counties earning significant income from The Hundred. It's up to them to put that to good use. Do, as well as being a fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard format of the game, it's lucrative and has provided an enhanced pathway for kids to enter the sport. All in all, I think that makes it a good thing and the whole of cricket in England and Wales will continue to benefit from it.
I’ve said this before but would have heard it hammered at Lord’s from a member so could have stuff wrong *disclaimer alert* There was talk a few years back of Middlesex and MCC falling out and Middlesex (I don’t know if they still are and it’s prolly a small second venue ) building a new ground . Apparently to continue to be a Test Match venue a first class cricket team has to play there . The ECB are based at Lord’s . So MCC were very much behind this because with having a team there(London Spirit) it protects them as a Test venue .
I’ve said this before but would have heard it hammered at Lord’s from a member so could have stuff wrong *disclaimer alert* There was talk a few years back of Middlesex and MCC falling out and Middlesex (I don’t know if they still are and it’s prolly a small second venue ) building a new ground . Apparently to continue to be a Test Match venue a first class cricket team has to play there . The ECB are based at Lord’s . So MCC were very much behind this because with having a team there(London Spirit) it protects them as a Test venue .
London Spirit aren't a First Class team.
The ECB sets the criteria for Test venues, so if they wanted to play at a ground that doesn't also host a First Class club, they could change their rules.
Test matches are First Class. So, de facto, a Test match venue can only be a place in which First Class matches are played.
I think the member from whom you heard this may have had his facts jumbled.
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Have the counties with the larger home grounds ever offered contracts to players from other teams before? Or is this exclusively as a result of The Hundred?
Division 1 and test ground counties splashing the cash on the best talent is hardly a new thing is it? Surrey have always done it, Hampshire it’s been their MO since moving to the rose bowl, and Lancashire have always been big spenders.
Don’t see where and how the Hundred are to blame?
I think you're both missing the point. The money from The Hundred is directly responsible for the poaching of those players and making the gap bigger. The larger counties can do so in the knowledge that next year they will, once again, get money from the ticket sales and hospitality plus the small beer from the Royal London 2nd XI competition whereas the smaller counties only have that small beer. Had there been no Hundred and the ECB supported the Blast in the same way they have financially and through the extensive publicity then the money would have been more evenly distributed.
There's always been a hierarchy in cricket. Allow me to offer you a little insight in this regard. As most of you know, my son is in the current Kent U18 squad. All playing and training kit is paid for by the parents. We have to make a financial contribution towards the cost of coaching prior to the winter. All transport is provided by the parents or boys if they drive. Ordinarily, when we play a match we have two coaches and a physio but we played two games this week with just one coach and no physio. Our opposition had two coaches, a physio, two analysts and a scorer. When we play away and stay at a hotel the boys will have a very limited choice of food. If they want anything in addition to a main course and one soft drink, they have to pay for it themselves. They have been known to go to Tescos straight afterwards! Somehow I doubt the Surrey boys live in a world where they ever have to say "please, sir, I want some more!" This isn't a level playing field but we compete nevertheless in spite of it.
The Hundred will exaggerate this situation. Let's put it another way. Imagine Charlton were in the Premier League and the Super League came off with the 10 biggest clubs in England joining? How happy would you be for the PL to become a second tier competition with us competing against Watford, Norwich, Villa etc etc instead of City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc etc? Will we have sell out crowds in the way that we used to or will young local supporters be more inclined to support those super clubs? But there have always been bigger clubs hasn't there as there has always been bigger counties. But at least we are allowed to compete.
And the is the fundamental difference. Kent, as evidenced by their appearance in the QFs of the Blast, previously had and currently do have a realistic chance of winning a major competition. Prior to Covid, Kent were competing in Division 1 against their much wealthier counterparts. However, the efforts of the ECB will not only serve to undermine this but will also cause us to become non First Class. The £1.3m bribe is not open ended.
Where will the pathway to county cricket then be for the boy who lives say in Canterbury? There isn't another county within 90 minutes of them. Good luck getting to training on a Tuesday evening after school and back again! But, hey, the ECB tells us that cricket should be all inclusive and with equal opportunities. Of course it does.
OK. So now the argument has switched from the best players being poached from, for example, Sussex to play for Surrey, because they've appeared for the Southern Brave and, despite the counties all getting more money, some counties already had lots of money in the first place; to some younger cricketers do (may?) struggle financially if they live a long way from one of the richer counties.
Twas ever thus.
Players have always had their heads turned. And the better players' destination has often been counties with more money. Ian Botham didn't move county twice because of The Hundred.
Youngsters across the country have always suffered from inequality in terms of opportunity. A player growing up around St Johns Wood will have an advantage over a player growing up near Maidstone. But the latter has always had better chances than a player growing up in Truro. That's because of geography, not because of The Hundred.
The Hundred was organised in large part to provide counties with greater income. It's doing that. It was also set up to win more supporters and give opportunities to more players. It's doing both of those things.
There's a finite opportunity to drive additional revenue into cricket. The Hundred is helping to maximise that. That's why the counties voted for it. It won't instantly cure all the short-comings of cricket for all participants at all levels. But it will do some good, in many more places than other revenue sources have managed.
Rich counties have always been richer than other counties. Some have always had more money than others (Surrey, Lancashire, Warwickshire) some have created wealth (Hampshire, Durham). Some still need to do better work. And without that work, Under 18 teams will continue to turn up to games with fewer coaches and support staff than ideal.
But *all* counties earning significant income from The Hundred. It's up to them to put that to good use. Do, as well as being a fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard format of the game, it's lucrative and has provided an enhanced pathway for kids to enter the sport. All in all, I think that makes it a good thing and the whole of cricket in England and Wales will continue to benefit from it.
The greater income for the counties is only short term. You mention Durham as having "created wealth". They almost went bust! They were relegated from the County Championship First Division and given a 48-point deduction. On top of that there were further sanctions, such as stripping the Riversiders of their Test status, as the ECB punished Durham after they were forced to provide a financial bail-out package. The ECB didn't let them go bust because they were themselves partly to blame and partly because Durham are one of the most prolific counties when it comes to producing England players. Had Durham gone to the wall, there would not have been any county cricket north of Scarborough, which itself only hosts occasional games.
I note that you have also avoided answering the analogy with Charlton and the Super League. There has always been a massive differential between us and a lot of those clubs in the PL but that doesn't mean that we should be excluded from competing should it? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the Super League?
Because that is what county cricket will become with another two franchises becoming involved next year. The half a dozen counties without such links to a franchise will, inevitably, become minor ones. And those counties that have become an irritation to the ECB will be gone once and for all.
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Have the counties with the larger home grounds ever offered contracts to players from other teams before? Or is this exclusively as a result of The Hundred?
Division 1 and test ground counties splashing the cash on the best talent is hardly a new thing is it? Surrey have always done it, Hampshire it’s been their MO since moving to the rose bowl, and Lancashire have always been big spenders.
Don’t see where and how the Hundred are to blame?
I think you're both missing the point. The money from The Hundred is directly responsible for the poaching of those players and making the gap bigger. The larger counties can do so in the knowledge that next year they will, once again, get money from the ticket sales and hospitality plus the small beer from the Royal London 2nd XI competition whereas the smaller counties only have that small beer. Had there been no Hundred and the ECB supported the Blast in the same way they have financially and through the extensive publicity then the money would have been more evenly distributed.
There's always been a hierarchy in cricket. Allow me to offer you a little insight in this regard. As most of you know, my son is in the current Kent U18 squad. All playing and training kit is paid for by the parents. We have to make a financial contribution towards the cost of coaching prior to the winter. All transport is provided by the parents or boys if they drive. Ordinarily, when we play a match we have two coaches and a physio but we played two games this week with just one coach and no physio. Our opposition had two coaches, a physio, two analysts and a scorer. When we play away and stay at a hotel the boys will have a very limited choice of food. If they want anything in addition to a main course and one soft drink, they have to pay for it themselves. They have been known to go to Tescos straight afterwards! Somehow I doubt the Surrey boys live in a world where they ever have to say "please, sir, I want some more!" This isn't a level playing field but we compete nevertheless in spite of it.
The Hundred will exaggerate this situation. Let's put it another way. Imagine Charlton were in the Premier League and the Super League came off with the 10 biggest clubs in England joining? How happy would you be for the PL to become a second tier competition with us competing against Watford, Norwich, Villa etc etc instead of City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc etc? Will we have sell out crowds in the way that we used to or will young local supporters be more inclined to support those super clubs? But there have always been bigger clubs hasn't there as there has always been bigger counties. But at least we are allowed to compete.
And the is the fundamental difference. Kent, as evidenced by their appearance in the QFs of the Blast, previously had and currently do have a realistic chance of winning a major competition. Prior to Covid, Kent were competing in Division 1 against their much wealthier counterparts. However, the efforts of the ECB will not only serve to undermine this but will also cause us to become non First Class. The £1.3m bribe is not open ended.
Where will the pathway to county cricket then be for the boy who lives say in Canterbury? There isn't another county within 90 minutes of them. Good luck getting to training on a Tuesday evening after school and back again! But, hey, the ECB tells us that cricket should be all inclusive and with equal opportunities. Of course it does.
OK. So now the argument has switched from the best players being poached from, for example, Sussex to play for Surrey, because they've appeared for the Southern Brave and, despite the counties all getting more money, some counties already had lots of money in the first place; to some younger cricketers do (may?) struggle financially if they live a long way from one of the richer counties.
Twas ever thus.
Players have always had their heads turned. And the better players' destination has often been counties with more money. Ian Botham didn't move county twice because of The Hundred.
Youngsters across the country have always suffered from inequality in terms of opportunity. A player growing up around St Johns Wood will have an advantage over a player growing up near Maidstone. But the latter has always had better chances than a player growing up in Truro. That's because of geography, not because of The Hundred.
The Hundred was organised in large part to provide counties with greater income. It's doing that. It was also set up to win more supporters and give opportunities to more players. It's doing both of those things.
There's a finite opportunity to drive additional revenue into cricket. The Hundred is helping to maximise that. That's why the counties voted for it. It won't instantly cure all the short-comings of cricket for all participants at all levels. But it will do some good, in many more places than other revenue sources have managed.
Rich counties have always been richer than other counties. Some have always had more money than others (Surrey, Lancashire, Warwickshire) some have created wealth (Hampshire, Durham). Some still need to do better work. And without that work, Under 18 teams will continue to turn up to games with fewer coaches and support staff than ideal.
But *all* counties earning significant income from The Hundred. It's up to them to put that to good use. Do, as well as being a fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard format of the game, it's lucrative and has provided an enhanced pathway for kids to enter the sport. All in all, I think that makes it a good thing and the whole of cricket in England and Wales will continue to benefit from it.
The greater income for the counties is only short term. You mention Durham as having "created wealth". They almost went bust! They were relegated from the County Championship First Division and given a 48-point deduction. On top of that there were further sanctions, such as stripping the Riversiders of their Test status, as the ECB punished Durham after they were forced to provide a financial bail-out package. The ECB didn't let them go bust because they were themselves partly to blame and partly because Durham are one of the most prolific counties when it comes to producing England players. Had Durham gone to the wall, there would not have been any county cricket north of Scarborough, which itself only hosts occasional games.
I note that you have also avoided answering the analogy with Charlton and the Super League. There has always been a massive differential between us and a lot of those clubs in the PL but that doesn't mean that we should be excluded from competing should it? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the Super League?
Because that is what county cricket will become with another two franchises becoming involved next year. The half a dozen counties without such links to a franchise will, inevitably, become minor ones. And those counties that have become an irritation to the ECB will be gone once and for all.
I ignored the analogy with Charlton, football, the Premier League and the European Super League, because it's confected and convoluted, but mainly because it's irrelevant irrelevant. The Hundred isn't about Charlton, football, the Premier League or the European Super League.
It is about fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard cricket. And that's what is exciting and encouraging. That's what is getting fans interested - by turning up and watching, by tuning in to terrestrial and satellite broadcasts and by listening to ball-by-ball coverage. I note you have avoided addressing these truths.
Is it working? Undoubtedly yes. Is it creating income for counties? Yes. Is it creating income for the ECB who administer, encourage, develop, nurture and, at the elite level, pay for the game? Yes.
Does it paper over every crack in every financial hole in every county? No. But it was never going to do that. Moreover, do the kids, families, sponsors and broadcasters fixate on Kent's inability to compete financially at Under-18 level with their closest rivals? No they don't. That's not to diminish the problems a paucity of income for Kent creates. Kent's lack of resource is real, harmful and continuing. But these are not caused by The Hundred. In a great part, they will be solved by The Hundred.
You may think none of the above makes any sense at all, and that The Hundred should exist only to rectify county cricket's short-comings, or should be done away with altogether. It's all about opinion. And my opinion is that The Hundred is absolutely terrific.
There you have it. Someone who is closer to the harsh reality of life in county cricket than probably any of us tells us how it is.
Yet some will still argue against that day to day reality. ” The counties voted for it “ isn’t much of an argument. They succumbed to the ECB bribe. It’s as simple as that! please don’t keep telling us about the new audience, kids etc when some folk have become disenfranchised (that’s ironic eh!) by games being played so far away from where they live. Yes, some counties have always had more money. Test hosting counties have traditionally received at least 6 times the income of others. However, the point, as very well made more than once now, is that the financial gap is widening. The analogy of the PL and Super League is very apt. Yesterday’s sparsely attended midweek domestic cup final brought into sharp focus how the ECB is totally ruining the game. If you truly love cricket you should be very concerned.
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Have the counties with the larger home grounds ever offered contracts to players from other teams before? Or is this exclusively as a result of The Hundred?
Division 1 and test ground counties splashing the cash on the best talent is hardly a new thing is it? Surrey have always done it, Hampshire it’s been their MO since moving to the rose bowl, and Lancashire have always been big spenders.
Don’t see where and how the Hundred are to blame?
I think you're both missing the point. The money from The Hundred is directly responsible for the poaching of those players and making the gap bigger. The larger counties can do so in the knowledge that next year they will, once again, get money from the ticket sales and hospitality plus the small beer from the Royal London 2nd XI competition whereas the smaller counties only have that small beer. Had there been no Hundred and the ECB supported the Blast in the same way they have financially and through the extensive publicity then the money would have been more evenly distributed.
There's always been a hierarchy in cricket. Allow me to offer you a little insight in this regard. As most of you know, my son is in the current Kent U18 squad. All playing and training kit is paid for by the parents. We have to make a financial contribution towards the cost of coaching prior to the winter. All transport is provided by the parents or boys if they drive. Ordinarily, when we play a match we have two coaches and a physio but we played two games this week with just one coach and no physio. Our opposition had two coaches, a physio, two analysts and a scorer. When we play away and stay at a hotel the boys will have a very limited choice of food. If they want anything in addition to a main course and one soft drink, they have to pay for it themselves. They have been known to go to Tescos straight afterwards! Somehow I doubt the Surrey boys live in a world where they ever have to say "please, sir, I want some more!" This isn't a level playing field but we compete nevertheless in spite of it.
The Hundred will exaggerate this situation. Let's put it another way. Imagine Charlton were in the Premier League and the Super League came off with the 10 biggest clubs in England joining? How happy would you be for the PL to become a second tier competition with us competing against Watford, Norwich, Villa etc etc instead of City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc etc? Will we have sell out crowds in the way that we used to or will young local supporters be more inclined to support those super clubs? But there have always been bigger clubs hasn't there as there has always been bigger counties. But at least we are allowed to compete.
And the is the fundamental difference. Kent, as evidenced by their appearance in the QFs of the Blast, previously had and currently do have a realistic chance of winning a major competition. Prior to Covid, Kent were competing in Division 1 against their much wealthier counterparts. However, the efforts of the ECB will not only serve to undermine this but will also cause us to become non First Class. The £1.3m bribe is not open ended.
Where will the pathway to county cricket then be for the boy who lives say in Canterbury? There isn't another county within 90 minutes of them. Good luck getting to training on a Tuesday evening after school and back again! But, hey, the ECB tells us that cricket should be all inclusive and with equal opportunities. Of course it does.
OK. So now the argument has switched from the best players being poached from, for example, Sussex to play for Surrey, because they've appeared for the Southern Brave and, despite the counties all getting more money, some counties already had lots of money in the first place; to some younger cricketers do (may?) struggle financially if they live a long way from one of the richer counties.
Twas ever thus.
Players have always had their heads turned. And the better players' destination has often been counties with more money. Ian Botham didn't move county twice because of The Hundred.
Youngsters across the country have always suffered from inequality in terms of opportunity. A player growing up around St Johns Wood will have an advantage over a player growing up near Maidstone. But the latter has always had better chances than a player growing up in Truro. That's because of geography, not because of The Hundred.
The Hundred was organised in large part to provide counties with greater income. It's doing that. It was also set up to win more supporters and give opportunities to more players. It's doing both of those things.
There's a finite opportunity to drive additional revenue into cricket. The Hundred is helping to maximise that. That's why the counties voted for it. It won't instantly cure all the short-comings of cricket for all participants at all levels. But it will do some good, in many more places than other revenue sources have managed.
Rich counties have always been richer than other counties. Some have always had more money than others (Surrey, Lancashire, Warwickshire) some have created wealth (Hampshire, Durham). Some still need to do better work. And without that work, Under 18 teams will continue to turn up to games with fewer coaches and support staff than ideal.
But *all* counties earning significant income from The Hundred. It's up to them to put that to good use. Do, as well as being a fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard format of the game, it's lucrative and has provided an enhanced pathway for kids to enter the sport. All in all, I think that makes it a good thing and the whole of cricket in England and Wales will continue to benefit from it.
The greater income for the counties is only short term. You mention Durham as having "created wealth". They almost went bust! They were relegated from the County Championship First Division and given a 48-point deduction. On top of that there were further sanctions, such as stripping the Riversiders of their Test status, as the ECB punished Durham after they were forced to provide a financial bail-out package. The ECB didn't let them go bust because they were themselves partly to blame and partly because Durham are one of the most prolific counties when it comes to producing England players. Had Durham gone to the wall, there would not have been any county cricket north of Scarborough, which itself only hosts occasional games.
I note that you have also avoided answering the analogy with Charlton and the Super League. There has always been a massive differential between us and a lot of those clubs in the PL but that doesn't mean that we should be excluded from competing should it? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the Super League?
Because that is what county cricket will become with another two franchises becoming involved next year. The half a dozen counties without such links to a franchise will, inevitably, become minor ones. And those counties that have become an irritation to the ECB will be gone once and for all.
I ignored the analogy with Charlton, football, the Premier League and the European Super League, because it's confected and convoluted, but mainly because it's irrelevant irrelevant. The Hundred isn't about Charlton, football, the Premier League or the European Super League.
It is about fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard cricket. And that's what is exciting and encouraging. That's what is getting fans interested - by turning up and watching, by tuning in to terrestrial and satellite broadcasts and by listening to ball-by-ball coverage. I note you have avoided addressing these truths.
Is it working? Undoubtedly yes. Is it creating income for counties? Yes. Is it creating income for the ECB who administer, encourage, develop, nurture and, at the elite level, pay for the game? Yes.
Does it paper over every crack in every financial hole in every county? No. But it was never going to do that. Moreover, do the kids, families, sponsors and broadcasters fixate on Kent's inability to compete financially at Under-18 level with their closest rivals? No they don't. That's not to diminish the problems a paucity of income for Kent creates. Kent's lack of resource is real, harmful and continuing. But these are not caused by The Hundred. In a great part, they will be solved by The Hundred.
You may think none of the above makes any sense at all, and that The Hundred should exist only to rectify county cricket's short-comings, or should be done away with altogether. It's all about opinion. And my opinion is that The Hundred is absolutely terrific.
How convenient to avoid the analogy with football. And as for "fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard cricket" I'm sorry but it is no way whatsoever better or higher than the Vitality Blast. The very same players are competing in both. The only difference is that the paying public gets 40 balls less for their money.
Concerns about the long-term impact of the Hundred on smaller clubs are likely to rise after it emerged that several players are being courted by hosting counties.
ESPNcricinfo understands that Chris Jordan and Phil Salt (both Sussex) have been targeted by Surrey and Lancashire respectively. Jordan plays for Southern Brave, based at The Ageas Bowl and Salt for Manchester Originals (based at Emirates Old Trafford). There is also understood to be significant interest in Matt Critchley (Derbyshire and Welsh Fire) with Glamorgan believed to be one of those counties involved. In the case of Critichely, who is not out of contract, it is understood there is a buy-out clause - believed to be £30,000 - in the player's contract.
While none of the deals is currently understood to have been completed, the interest has raised alarm around the counties who fear the "unexpected consequences" (as one county official termed it), of the new competition. Specifically, they are concerned that the hosting clubs are using the income they gain from the competition - they get to keep a portion of ticket sales and the hospitality revenue alongside a staging fee - to make contract offers which the smaller counties cannot match. In the short-term, this suggests a talent drain towards the hosting venues; in the longer-term, it may raise questions about the viability of those smaller counties.
Have the counties with the larger home grounds ever offered contracts to players from other teams before? Or is this exclusively as a result of The Hundred?
Division 1 and test ground counties splashing the cash on the best talent is hardly a new thing is it? Surrey have always done it, Hampshire it’s been their MO since moving to the rose bowl, and Lancashire have always been big spenders.
Don’t see where and how the Hundred are to blame?
I think you're both missing the point. The money from The Hundred is directly responsible for the poaching of those players and making the gap bigger. The larger counties can do so in the knowledge that next year they will, once again, get money from the ticket sales and hospitality plus the small beer from the Royal London 2nd XI competition whereas the smaller counties only have that small beer. Had there been no Hundred and the ECB supported the Blast in the same way they have financially and through the extensive publicity then the money would have been more evenly distributed.
There's always been a hierarchy in cricket. Allow me to offer you a little insight in this regard. As most of you know, my son is in the current Kent U18 squad. All playing and training kit is paid for by the parents. We have to make a financial contribution towards the cost of coaching prior to the winter. All transport is provided by the parents or boys if they drive. Ordinarily, when we play a match we have two coaches and a physio but we played two games this week with just one coach and no physio. Our opposition had two coaches, a physio, two analysts and a scorer. When we play away and stay at a hotel the boys will have a very limited choice of food. If they want anything in addition to a main course and one soft drink, they have to pay for it themselves. They have been known to go to Tescos straight afterwards! Somehow I doubt the Surrey boys live in a world where they ever have to say "please, sir, I want some more!" This isn't a level playing field but we compete nevertheless in spite of it.
The Hundred will exaggerate this situation. Let's put it another way. Imagine Charlton were in the Premier League and the Super League came off with the 10 biggest clubs in England joining? How happy would you be for the PL to become a second tier competition with us competing against Watford, Norwich, Villa etc etc instead of City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc etc? Will we have sell out crowds in the way that we used to or will young local supporters be more inclined to support those super clubs? But there have always been bigger clubs hasn't there as there has always been bigger counties. But at least we are allowed to compete.
And the is the fundamental difference. Kent, as evidenced by their appearance in the QFs of the Blast, previously had and currently do have a realistic chance of winning a major competition. Prior to Covid, Kent were competing in Division 1 against their much wealthier counterparts. However, the efforts of the ECB will not only serve to undermine this but will also cause us to become non First Class. The £1.3m bribe is not open ended.
Where will the pathway to county cricket then be for the boy who lives say in Canterbury? There isn't another county within 90 minutes of them. Good luck getting to training on a Tuesday evening after school and back again! But, hey, the ECB tells us that cricket should be all inclusive and with equal opportunities. Of course it does.
OK. So now the argument has switched from the best players being poached from, for example, Sussex to play for Surrey, because they've appeared for the Southern Brave and, despite the counties all getting more money, some counties already had lots of money in the first place; to some younger cricketers do (may?) struggle financially if they live a long way from one of the richer counties.
Twas ever thus.
Players have always had their heads turned. And the better players' destination has often been counties with more money. Ian Botham didn't move county twice because of The Hundred.
Youngsters across the country have always suffered from inequality in terms of opportunity. A player growing up around St Johns Wood will have an advantage over a player growing up near Maidstone. But the latter has always had better chances than a player growing up in Truro. That's because of geography, not because of The Hundred.
The Hundred was organised in large part to provide counties with greater income. It's doing that. It was also set up to win more supporters and give opportunities to more players. It's doing both of those things.
There's a finite opportunity to drive additional revenue into cricket. The Hundred is helping to maximise that. That's why the counties voted for it. It won't instantly cure all the short-comings of cricket for all participants at all levels. But it will do some good, in many more places than other revenue sources have managed.
Rich counties have always been richer than other counties. Some have always had more money than others (Surrey, Lancashire, Warwickshire) some have created wealth (Hampshire, Durham). Some still need to do better work. And without that work, Under 18 teams will continue to turn up to games with fewer coaches and support staff than ideal.
But *all* counties earning significant income from The Hundred. It's up to them to put that to good use. Do, as well as being a fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard format of the game, it's lucrative and has provided an enhanced pathway for kids to enter the sport. All in all, I think that makes it a good thing and the whole of cricket in England and Wales will continue to benefit from it.
The greater income for the counties is only short term. You mention Durham as having "created wealth". They almost went bust! They were relegated from the County Championship First Division and given a 48-point deduction. On top of that there were further sanctions, such as stripping the Riversiders of their Test status, as the ECB punished Durham after they were forced to provide a financial bail-out package. The ECB didn't let them go bust because they were themselves partly to blame and partly because Durham are one of the most prolific counties when it comes to producing England players. Had Durham gone to the wall, there would not have been any county cricket north of Scarborough, which itself only hosts occasional games.
I note that you have also avoided answering the analogy with Charlton and the Super League. There has always been a massive differential between us and a lot of those clubs in the PL but that doesn't mean that we should be excluded from competing should it? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the Super League?
Because that is what county cricket will become with another two franchises becoming involved next year. The half a dozen counties without such links to a franchise will, inevitably, become minor ones. And those counties that have become an irritation to the ECB will be gone once and for all.
I ignored the analogy with Charlton, football, the Premier League and the European Super League, because it's confected and convoluted, but mainly because it's irrelevant irrelevant. The Hundred isn't about Charlton, football, the Premier League or the European Super League.
It is about fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard cricket. And that's what is exciting and encouraging. That's what is getting fans interested - by turning up and watching, by tuning in to terrestrial and satellite broadcasts and by listening to ball-by-ball coverage. I note you have avoided addressing these truths.
Is it working? Undoubtedly yes. Is it creating income for counties? Yes. Is it creating income for the ECB who administer, encourage, develop, nurture and, at the elite level, pay for the game? Yes.
Does it paper over every crack in every financial hole in every county? No. But it was never going to do that. Moreover, do the kids, families, sponsors and broadcasters fixate on Kent's inability to compete financially at Under-18 level with their closest rivals? No they don't. That's not to diminish the problems a paucity of income for Kent creates. Kent's lack of resource is real, harmful and continuing. But these are not caused by The Hundred. In a great part, they will be solved by The Hundred.
You may think none of the above makes any sense at all, and that The Hundred should exist only to rectify county cricket's short-comings, or should be done away with altogether. It's all about opinion. And my opinion is that The Hundred is absolutely terrific.
How convenient to avoid the analogy with football. And as for "fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard cricket" I'm sorry but it is no way whatsoever better or higher than the Vitality Blast. The very same players are competing in both. The only difference is that the paying public gets 40 balls less for their money.
As I say, it's all about opinions. I respect yours.
The Blast isn't going to change radically, there is no financial incentive for the counties to change it and the volume of game, and there is no incentive for Sky or the BBC to commit £40m a year on a TV deal for it. The Blast is already baked into the Sky/ECB deal, and it's worth a few million.
No other country has decided to tweak its existing domestic T20 competition and then see if the broadcasters would bite, as they know they've got little or no interest in taking that, the Big Bash is a new competition, whatever you think of the IPL it's a new competition, but some wanted the offer from England to be, a slightly remodelled Blast with games from Grace Road being the big thing.
The ECB have an obligation to the sport as a whole, I don't think the counties do, and the example from Kent is a good example, I suspect the members still get what the members want and no matter the cost, but the U18s can suck it up.
The simple fact remains that if all these resources and games put on terrestrial tv, the same and in fact more, could have been achieved with the blast. It’s somewhat naive to suggest there’s no connect between counties finances and the knock on effect of the Hundred.
Simply taking the better players away from those counties who depend on them in domestic competition (the don’t run in isolation remember) is clear evidence of that. Again drawing a football analogy, how would we feel if we had to play games without Stockley because an EFL franchised competition was running in parallel with it? Who are these people turning up to watch the games? Only those who are fortunate enough to live close to one of the venues.
In respect of the Blast, there are at least 18 venues (it’s more than that of course) and that offer greater access to the public.
The simple fact remains that if all these resources and games put on terrestrial tv, the same and in fact more, could have been achieved with the blast. It’s somewhat naive to suggest there’s no connect between counties finances and the knock on effect of the Hundred.
Simply taking the better players away from those counties who depend on them in domestic competition (the don’t run in isolation remember) is clear evidence of that. Again drawing a football analogy, how would we feel if we had to play games without Stockley because an EFL franchised competition was running in parallel with it? Who are these people turning up to watch the games? Only those who are fortunate enough to live close to one of the venues.
In respect of the Blast, there are at least 18 venues (it’s more than that of course) and that offer greater access to the public.
Asking purely because I don't know: how do the attendances between the Blast and The Hundred compare? Are there any published numbers?
Terrestrial broadcasters aren't interested in the county game, they don't give a monkey about it, so as I said earlier, you could have handed it to the BBC on a plate, but they would have shoved it on the red button, or more likely a single camera stream on the iPlayer, with the ECB picking up the production costs.
The Blast was perfect in the early years, then the counties decided to make it the bloated competition it is, with far too many games
Chizz, I don’t know. However, pre-COVID Blast games were seemingly always well attended.
The Hundred has given a lot of tickets away in order to promote it to boost attendance. For me, the fact is that the ECB only had to back the Blast to the same extent and they would have reaped greater reward. Franchise sport doesn’t appeal to the majority of the British public especially when it so clearly damages the game.
Chizz, I don’t know. However, pre-COVID Blast games were seemingly always well attended.
The Hundred has given a lot of tickets away in order to promote it to boost attendance. For me, the fact is that the ECB only had to back the Blast to the same extent and they would have reaped greater reward. Franchise sport doesn’t appeal to the majority of the British public especially when it so clearly damages the game.
Cricket doesn't appeal to the majority of the British public. I think The Hundred takes a small step to counter that.
Comments
If the final of the Hundred was scheduled in Nottingham in a Thursday with the competing teams not known until two days before, I’d expect a similar attendance to today’s.
Don’t see where and how the Hundred are to blame?
There's always been a hierarchy in cricket. Allow me to offer you a little insight in this regard. As most of you know, my son is in the current Kent U18 squad. All playing and training kit is paid for by the parents. We have to make a financial contribution towards the cost of coaching prior to the winter. All transport is provided by the parents or boys if they drive. Ordinarily, when we play a match we have two coaches and a physio but we played two games this week with just one coach and no physio. Our opposition had two coaches, a physio, two analysts and a scorer. When we play away and stay at a hotel the boys will have a very limited choice of food. If they want anything in addition to a main course and one soft drink, they have to pay for it themselves. They have been known to go to Tescos straight afterwards! Somehow I doubt the Surrey boys live in a world where they ever have to say "please, sir, I want some more!" This isn't a level playing field but we compete nevertheless in spite of it.
The Hundred will exaggerate this situation. Let's put it another way. Imagine Charlton were in the Premier League and the Super League came off with the 10 biggest clubs in England joining? How happy would you be for the PL to become a second tier competition with us competing against Watford, Norwich, Villa etc etc instead of City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc etc? Will we have sell out crowds in the way that we used to or will young local supporters be more inclined to support those super clubs? But there have always been bigger clubs hasn't there as there has always been bigger counties. But at least we are allowed to compete.
And the is the fundamental difference. Kent, as evidenced by their appearance in the QFs of the Blast, previously had and currently do have a realistic chance of winning a major competition. Prior to Covid, Kent were competing in Division 1 against their much wealthier counterparts. However, the efforts of the ECB will not only serve to undermine this but will also cause us to become non First Class. The £1.3m bribe is not open ended.
Where will the pathway to county cricket then be for the boy who lives say in Canterbury? There isn't another county within 90 minutes of them. Good luck getting to training on a Tuesday evening after school and back again! But, hey, the ECB tells us that cricket should be all inclusive and with equal opportunities. Of course it does.
Twas ever thus.
Players have always had their heads turned. And the better players' destination has often been counties with more money. Ian Botham didn't move county twice because of The Hundred.
Youngsters across the country have always suffered from inequality in terms of opportunity. A player growing up around St Johns Wood will have an advantage over a player growing up near Maidstone. But the latter has always had better chances than a player growing up in Truro. That's because of geography, not because of The Hundred.
The Hundred was organised in large part to provide counties with greater income. It's doing that. It was also set up to win more supporters and give opportunities to more players. It's doing both of those things.
There's a finite opportunity to drive additional revenue into cricket. The Hundred is helping to maximise that. That's why the counties voted for it. It won't instantly cure all the short-comings of cricket for all participants at all levels. But it will do some good, in many more places than other revenue sources have managed.
Rich counties have always been richer than other counties. Some have always had more money than others (Surrey, Lancashire, Warwickshire) some have created wealth (Hampshire, Durham). Some still need to do better work. And without that work, Under 18 teams will continue to turn up to games with fewer coaches and support staff than ideal.
But *all* counties earning significant income from The Hundred. It's up to them to put that to good use. Do, as well as being a fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard format of the game, it's lucrative and has provided an enhanced pathway for kids to enter the sport. All in all, I think that makes it a good thing and the whole of cricket in England and Wales will continue to benefit from it.
There was talk a few years back of Middlesex and MCC falling out and Middlesex (I don’t know if they still are and it’s prolly a small second venue ) building a new ground .
Apparently to continue to be a Test Match venue a first class cricket team has to play there .
The ECB are based at Lord’s .
So MCC were very much behind this because with having a team there(London Spirit) it protects them as a Test venue .
The ECB sets the criteria for Test venues, so if they wanted to play at a ground that doesn't also host a First Class club, they could change their rules.
Test matches are First Class. So, de facto, a Test match venue can only be a place in which First Class matches are played.
I think the member from whom you heard this may have had his facts jumbled.
But a Test Match is a First Class fixture.
I note that you have also avoided answering the analogy with Charlton and the Super League. There has always been a massive differential between us and a lot of those clubs in the PL but that doesn't mean that we should be excluded from competing should it? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the Super League?
Because that is what county cricket will become with another two franchises becoming involved next year. The half a dozen counties without such links to a franchise will, inevitably, become minor ones. And those counties that have become an irritation to the ECB will be gone once and for all.
It is about fascinating, entertaining, popular and high standard cricket. And that's what is exciting and encouraging. That's what is getting fans interested - by turning up and watching, by tuning in to terrestrial and satellite broadcasts and by listening to ball-by-ball coverage. I note you have avoided addressing these truths.
Is it working? Undoubtedly yes. Is it creating income for counties? Yes. Is it creating income for the ECB who administer, encourage, develop, nurture and, at the elite level, pay for the game? Yes.
Does it paper over every crack in every financial hole in every county? No. But it was never going to do that. Moreover, do the kids, families, sponsors and broadcasters fixate on Kent's inability to compete financially at Under-18 level with their closest rivals? No they don't. That's not to diminish the problems a paucity of income for Kent creates. Kent's lack of resource is real, harmful and continuing. But these are not caused by The Hundred. In a great part, they will be solved by The Hundred.
You may think none of the above makes any sense at all, and that The Hundred should exist only to rectify county cricket's short-comings, or should be done away with altogether. It's all about opinion. And my opinion is that The Hundred is absolutely terrific.
” The counties voted for it “ isn’t much of an argument. They succumbed to the ECB bribe. It’s as simple as that!
please don’t keep telling us about the new audience, kids etc when some folk have become disenfranchised (that’s ironic eh!) by games being played so far away from where they live.
Yes, some counties have always had more money. Test hosting counties have traditionally received at least 6 times the income of others. However, the point, as very well made more than once now, is that the financial gap is widening.
The analogy of the PL and Super League is very apt.
Yesterday’s sparsely attended midweek domestic cup final brought into sharp focus how the ECB is totally ruining the game.
If you truly love cricket you should be very concerned.
No other country has decided to tweak its existing domestic T20 competition and then see if the broadcasters would bite, as they know they've got little or no interest in taking that, the Big Bash is a new competition, whatever you think of the IPL it's a new competition, but some wanted the offer from England to be, a slightly remodelled Blast with games from Grace Road being the big thing.
The ECB have an obligation to the sport as a whole, I don't think the counties do, and the example from Kent is a good example, I suspect the members still get what the members want and no matter the cost, but the U18s can suck it up.
It’s somewhat naive to suggest there’s no connect between counties finances and the knock on effect of the Hundred.
Again drawing a football analogy, how would we feel if we had to play games without Stockley because an EFL franchised competition was running in parallel with it?
Who are these people turning up to watch the games? Only those who are fortunate enough to live close to one of the venues.
The Blast was perfect in the early years, then the counties decided to make it the bloated competition it is, with far too many games
For me, the fact is that the ECB only had to back the Blast to the same extent and they would have reaped greater reward.
Franchise sport doesn’t appeal to the majority of the British public especially when it so clearly damages the game.