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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
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.
Very simplistic to just say you can put the Blast on terrestrial TV. The fact is terrestrial TV didn’t want the Blast and so the ECB needed to either reformat the blast, or create something different. The counties would never have let the Blast be ripped up and changed so something new was created.
I was not a fan of The Hundred at all when first announced, but I really think it will be looked on as a huge success in years to come.
The ECB need to seriously think about scheduling as currently that is all wrong in regard to the red ball game, but that’s not a fault of The Hundred itself, and hopefully something that is sorted out for next summer.
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.
We are not just talking about the U18s though. We are talking about the U11s, U12s, U13s, U14s, U15s, U16s, U17s and U18s. The Members moan that the County is not producing enough home grown talent. Well the irony is that the County I quoted as having three coaches, a physio and three analysts is Sussex. Now take a look at how many youngsters that they have currently under contract:
Jack Carson 20 Oli Carter 19 Jamie Atkins 19 Tom Clark 20 Henry Crocombe 19 Sean Hunt 19 Dan Ibrahim 17 Archie Lenham 17 Ali Orr 20 Joe Sarro 19 Harrison Ward 21
That's 11 players between the ages of 17 and 21. Who have Kent got under contract in that age range? Tawanda Muyeye (who was at Sussex and there are reasons why he came to us) and Jordan Cox - both 20.
Sussex have a number of millionaire benefactors who have supported financially their age group set up including Blackstone where the games (as well as some 2s matches) are played. Any number of youngsters have left Kent for Sussex for that reason especially those on the Kent/Sussex border and those that go to private schools in the vicinity. One such school is Eastbourne College where, ironically, former Kent players Rob Ferley (who is Director of Cricket) and James Tredwell coach. One lad who lives in Sidcup, plays for Sidcup but goes to Eastbourne College left Kent to go to Sussex for that reason. Sussex have an App that is shared between the coaches at school and county and is utilised to monitor their players. They are so far ahead of our set up it is unreal.
So Kent are being squeezed at both ends - by the wealth of their nearest neighbours, Sussex and Surrey so far as coaching and the development of youngsters is concerned and now by the big counties and their newly acquired income stream.
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
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.
We are not just talking about the U18s though. We are talking about the U11s, U12s, U13s, U14s, U15s, U16s, U17s and U18s. The Members moan that the County is not producing enough home grown talent. Well the irony is that the County I quoted as having three coaches, a physio and three analysts is Sussex. Now take a look at how many youngsters that they have currently under contract:
Jack Carson 20 Oli Carter 19 Jamie Atkins 19 Tom Clark 20 Henry Crocombe 19 Sean Hunt 19 Dan Ibrahim 17 Archie Lenham 17 Ali Orr 20 Joe Sarro 19 Harrison Ward 21
That's 11 players between the ages of 17 and 21. Who have Kent got under contract in that age range? Tawanda Muyeye (who was at Sussex and there are reasons why he came to us) and Jordan Cox - both 20.
Sussex have a number of millionaire benefactors who have supported financially their age group set up including Blackstone where the games (as well as some 2s matches) are played. Any number of youngsters have left Kent for Sussex for that reason especially those on the Kent/Sussex border and those that go to private schools in the vicinity. One such school is Eastbourne College where, ironically, former Kent players Rob Ferley (who is Director of Cricket) and James Tredwell coach. One lad who lives in Sidcup, plays for Sidcup but goes to Eastbourne College left Kent to go to Sussex for that reason. Sussex have an App that is shared between the coaches at school and county and is utilised to monitor their players. They are so far ahead of our set up it is unreal.
So Kent are being squeezed at both ends - by the wealth of their nearest neighbours, Sussex and Surrey so far as coaching and the development of youngsters is concerned and now by the big counties and their newly acquired income stream.
There's some really interesting, enlightening stuff here - especially for someone like me, who doesn't know very much about the youth policies of County cricket clubs or their finances - but I wonder if this really has anything to do with The Hundred. Did Kent have lots of younger players under contract before The Hundred started and decided to cancel them? Or was the paucity of young contracted players in existence before The Hundred started? I don't know, but I suspect the latter.
If the funding, resources and capability of Kent CCC are in question (it seems all very much are) then maybe there's a thread on which those shortfalls could be addressed, by those with the most knowledge.
I don't think they're anything to do with the success - or otherwise - of The Hundred.
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.
Very simplistic to just say you can put the Blast on terrestrial TV. The fact is terrestrial TV didn’t want the Blast and so the ECB needed to either reformat the blast, or create something different. The counties would never have let the Blast be ripped up and changed so something new was created.
I was not a fan of The Hundred at all when first announced, but I really think it will be looked on as a huge success in years to come.
The ECB need to seriously think about scheduling as currently that is all wrong in regard to the red ball game, but that’s not a fault of The Hundred itself, and hopefully something that is sorted out for next summer.
Very simplistic perhaps but nonetheless true of course and therefore, not an invalid point to makrle. I’m not aware that terrestrial tv didn’t want the Blast. I suspect it wasn’t down to scheduling as it wouldn’t be difficult to accommodate another 40 balls! I would hazard a guess that they were offered the Hundred at a comparatively low cost. Why would the Blast need to be ripped up and changed? With a similar amount of backing it would have been successful. It was anyway and proved to be the lifeblood of many counties. We’ll see if the Hundred proves to be a success however you define that to be. The impact it’s had on depriving counties of their better players is a disgrace and a smack in the mouth to all those who pay for membership and don’t then see the better players. There are many who won’t renew their membership and that is understandable. It’s further evidence of the damage this competition is doing.
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?
Difficult to compare exactly as many Blast games are played as smaller, local grounds and the most recent games were before (aren't we supposed ot be encourage to go local, rather than travel to the big cities too?) and before lockdown eased. And didn't involve giving away thousands of comps
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
Yes. It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
Yes. It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
This is a really good point and worth considering. Even though it clashes with another argument which goes along the lines of "there are too many games and players are burning out".
The Oval and Lord's are full for 100 games, and full for Blast games
So, The Hundred is meeting the demand for more games. Hooray!
And it is shown on terrestrial tv and women's games are played before. These are the good points which don't outweigh the bad ones, which you keep ignoring.
Also, you keep saying the counties voted for it but, as explained by another poster, (not all) the counties did not do so willingly and fairly
As the womens game has been brought up, anyone really going to argue that the Hundred has been bad for the sport? and putting the women's game on a level playing field in terms of coverage (yes yes money, but even the pros admit that they aren't on the level to be paid the same) or would you rather the women game knew it's place behind the Royal London Cup and they played KSL games to 200 at a county out ground?
Honest question as I’m a relative newbie to cricket.
How come all the players that I’ve listened to both past & present, who have played/commentated, have absolutely raved about the Hundred? From the crowds to the women’s game even the music. They’ve been applauding it. Can’t be just because they’re getting paid can it?
As the womens game has been brought up, anyone really going to argue that the Hundred has been bad for the sport? and putting the women's game on a level playing field in terms of coverage (yes yes money, but even the pros admit that they aren't on the level to be paid the same) or would you rather the women game knew it's place behind the Royal London Cup and they played KSL games to 200 at a county out ground?
The women's game has benefited from the 100 I'd agree, but the double headers wasn't part of the plan. The Oval Invicibles women should have played their games at Beckenham, which indeed was part of the "compensation" to the counties like Kent missing out on hosting matches.
Stick a women's match on first, and many people will turn up early to watch both games. After all you've already paid for it, and part of the attraction of cricket is sitting in the sun with a beer or ice cream. You could stick a veterans or U19s game on before the main match and many people would turn up.
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
Yes. It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
This is a really good point and worth considering. Even though it clashes with another argument which goes along the lines of "there are too many games and players are burning out".
Chizz, I’m not aware of anyone arguing about players being burnt out. Please check the fixture schedule and you’ll see how little domestic cricket has been played in August but I suspect you know that. You’re also aware I assume that England players are centrally contracted and know what that means.
yep, and the ECB have learnt that keeping the double headers is a thing now, so the sop to counties to play them in front of 100 people at Beckenham has gone for good. A good outcome it would seem
As the womens game has been brought up, anyone really going to argue that the Hundred has been bad for the sport? and putting the women's game on a level playing field in terms of coverage (yes yes money, but even the pros admit that they aren't on the level to be paid the same) or would you rather the women game knew it's place behind the Royal London Cup and they played KSL games to 200 at a county out ground?
To be fair Sky did a pretty good job in promoting the women’s game. The scheduling of the Hundred games both men’s and women’s has afforded it a higher profile simply by being on terrestrial tv. This could have been achieved by doing the same with the Blast.
As the womens game has been brought up, anyone really going to argue that the Hundred has been bad for the sport? and putting the women's game on a level playing field in terms of coverage (yes yes money, but even the pros admit that they aren't on the level to be paid the same) or would you rather the women game knew it's place behind the Royal London Cup and they played KSL games to 200 at a county out ground?
To be fair Sky did a pretty good job in promoting the women’s game. The scheduling of the Hundred games both men’s and women’s has afforded it a higher profile simply by being on terrestrial tv. This could have been achieved by doing the same with the Blast.
But there isn't an analogue for the women sport in the county set up, and if counties don't give a flying one about their U18s, they care less for their women team.
So the only way would be to move KSL teams around and being at the whim of the hosting county that day to promote it or give a toss about it. OK, if you believe they would, I've got a bridge to sell you
Honest question as I’m a relative newbie to cricket.
How come all the players that I’ve listened to both past & present, who have played/commentated, have absolutely raved about the Hundred? From the crowds to the women’s game even the music. They’ve been applauding it. Can’t be just because they’re getting paid can it?
Can you imagine what sort of reaction there would be to them if they didn't? Both the BBC and Sky pundits have to be seen to be supporting it. Any misgivings publicly aired could be the end of their career as pundits. Imagine Scott Minto coming on and saying "I don't know why anyone bothers watching Charlton, it really is a load of XXXXX". And then expecting to be on next time! Derek Pringle played for England and is a well respected journalist and I have quoted above exactly what he thinks about it. But then he isn't being paid by the BBC or Sky so holds an unbiased viewpoint.
That said, anything that gets the message about cricket will get more people interested. Unfortunately, it's been done to the detriment of the game itself and those that have supported it for decades rather than hand in hand by adding all the extra coverage to the Vitality Blast.
It may have been first class fixture played there … does the hundred count as that
No.
But a Test Match is a First Class fixture.
So is Oxford vs Cambridge
Not any more it isn't. The ECB removed their funding of the six centres of excellence this year thus reducing the status of Oxford and Cambridge. Any matches between the Universities and Counties have also lost First Class status too.
Honest question as I’m a relative newbie to cricket.
How come all the players that I’ve listened to both past & present, who have played/commentated, have absolutely raved about the Hundred? From the crowds to the women’s game even the music. They’ve been applauding it. Can’t be just because they’re getting paid can it?
Can you imagine what sort of reaction there would be to them if they didn't? Both the BBC and Sky pundits have to be seen to be supporting it. Any misgivings publicly aired could be the end of their career as pundits. Imagine Scott Minto coming on and saying "I don't know why anyone bothers watching Charlton, it really is a load of XXXXX". And then expecting to be on next time! Derek Pringle played for England and is a well respected journalist and I have quoted above exactly what he thinks about it. But then he isn't being paid by the BBC or Sky so holds an unbiased viewpoint.
That said, anything that gets the message about cricket will get more people interested. Unfortunately, it's been done to the detriment of the game itself and those that have supported it for decades rather than hand in hand by adding all the extra coverage to the Vitality Blast.
It's noticeable that the BBC commentators have also been saying how it's been great to be back with Test cricket, the ultimate form of the game etc. And the TMS discussions about the 100 in the last week have been quite balanced, noting that the women's game has really benefited, but that the benefits for the men are less clear cut.
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
Yes. It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
This is a really good point and worth considering. Even though it clashes with another argument which goes along the lines of "there are too many games and players are burning out".
Chizz, I’m not aware of anyone arguing about players being burnt out. Please check the fixture schedule and you’ll see how little domestic cricket has been played in August but I suspect you know that. You’re also aware I assume that England players are centrally contracted and know what that means.
But the problem @blackpool72 highlighted is that it clashes with domestic cricket. So, either there are too many games, in which case there's an argument that there's a clash; or there's little domestic cricket bring played, in which case, there isn't.
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
Yes. It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
This is a really good point and worth considering. Even though it clashes with another argument which goes along the lines of "there are too many games and players are burning out".
Chizz, I’m not aware of anyone arguing about players being burnt out. Please check the fixture schedule and you’ll see how little domestic cricket has been played in August but I suspect you know that. You’re also aware I assume that England players are centrally contracted and know what that means.
But the problem @blackpool72 highlighted is that it clashes with domestic cricket. So, either there are too many games, in which case there's an argument that there's a clash; or there's little domestic cricket bring played, in which case, there isn't.
It's the introduction of the hundred that is the cause of having too many games. Scrap it and the problem is solved.
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
Yes. It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
This is a really good point and worth considering. Even though it clashes with another argument which goes along the lines of "there are too many games and players are burning out".
Chizz, I’m not aware of anyone arguing about players being burnt out. Please check the fixture schedule and you’ll see how little domestic cricket has been played in August but I suspect you know that. You’re also aware I assume that England players are centrally contracted and know what that means.
But the problem @blackpool72 highlighted is that it clashes with domestic cricket. So, either there are too many games, in which case there's an argument that there's a clash; or there's little domestic cricket bring played, in which case, there isn't.
It's the introduction of the hundred that is the cause of having too many games. Scrap it and the problem is solved.
Yet @Phil says there's little domestic cricket bring played
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
Yes. It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
This is a really good point and worth considering. Even though it clashes with another argument which goes along the lines of "there are too many games and players are burning out".
Chizz, I’m not aware of anyone arguing about players being burnt out. Please check the fixture schedule and you’ll see how little domestic cricket has been played in August but I suspect you know that. You’re also aware I assume that England players are centrally contracted and know what that means.
But the problem @blackpool72 highlighted is that it clashes with domestic cricket. So, either there are too many games, in which case there's an argument that there's a clash; or there's little domestic cricket bring played, in which case, there isn't.
It's the introduction of the hundred that is the cause of having too many games. Scrap it and the problem is solved.
Yet @Phil says there's little domestic cricket bring played
🤷🏻♂️
What he said was that there was little domestic cricket being played in August. This is largely due to rescheduling to accommodate the 100
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.
Ignore the analogy with football but on another thread you try and draw an analogy between taking the knee and Red nose day Unbelievable wumming.
Let's try and stick to the topic of this thread. I don't believe there's a close analogy between The Hundred and The European Super League, that's why I didn't bother responding to it.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
Yes. It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
This is a really good point and worth considering. Even though it clashes with another argument which goes along the lines of "there are too many games and players are burning out".
Chizz, I’m not aware of anyone arguing about players being burnt out. Please check the fixture schedule and you’ll see how little domestic cricket has been played in August but I suspect you know that. You’re also aware I assume that England players are centrally contracted and know what that means.
But the problem @blackpool72 highlighted is that it clashes with domestic cricket. So, either there are too many games, in which case there's an argument that there's a clash; or there's little domestic cricket bring played, in which case, there isn't.
It's the introduction of the hundred that is the cause of having too many games. Scrap it and the problem is solved.
Yet @Phil says there's little domestic cricket bring played
🤷🏻♂️
Kent and other counties had days of matches in 20 days during August. The domestic cricket mainly occupying that time is The Hundred and that has no relation whatsoever with county games. As a result of The Hundred, the CC starts on 8th April and finishes at the end of September. And why we have no opening batsmen (along with too much white ball cricket) or spinners coming through. Counties don't need the latter when conditions are optimum for 70mph seamers.
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.
We are not just talking about the U18s though. We are talking about the U11s, U12s, U13s, U14s, U15s, U16s, U17s and U18s. The Members moan that the County is not producing enough home grown talent. Well the irony is that the County I quoted as having three coaches, a physio and three analysts is Sussex. Now take a look at how many youngsters that they have currently under contract:
Jack Carson 20 Oli Carter 19 Jamie Atkins 19 Tom Clark 20 Henry Crocombe 19 Sean Hunt 19 Dan Ibrahim 17 Archie Lenham 17 Ali Orr 20 Joe Sarro 19 Harrison Ward 21
That's 11 players between the ages of 17 and 21. Who have Kent got under contract in that age range? Tawanda Muyeye (who was at Sussex and there are reasons why he came to us) and Jordan Cox - both 20.
Sussex have a number of millionaire benefactors who have supported financially their age group set up including Blackstone where the games (as well as some 2s matches) are played. Any number of youngsters have left Kent for Sussex for that reason especially those on the Kent/Sussex border and those that go to private schools in the vicinity. One such school is Eastbourne College where, ironically, former Kent players Rob Ferley (who is Director of Cricket) and James Tredwell coach. One lad who lives in Sidcup, plays for Sidcup but goes to Eastbourne College left Kent to go to Sussex for that reason. Sussex have an App that is shared between the coaches at school and county and is utilised to monitor their players. They are so far ahead of our set up it is unreal.
So Kent are being squeezed at both ends - by the wealth of their nearest neighbours, Sussex and Surrey so far as coaching and the development of youngsters is concerned and now by the big counties and their newly acquired income stream.
There's some really interesting, enlightening stuff here - especially for someone like me, who doesn't know very much about the youth policies of County cricket clubs or their finances - but I wonder if this really has anything to do with The Hundred. Did Kent have lots of younger players under contract before The Hundred started and decided to cancel them? Or was the paucity of young contracted players in existence before The Hundred started? I don't know, but I suspect the latter.
If the funding, resources and capability of Kent CCC are in question (it seems all very much are) then maybe there's a thread on which those shortfalls could be addressed, by those with the most knowledge.
I don't think they're anything to do with the success - or otherwise - of The Hundred.
Agree with this comment. Financial inequality is everywhere in sport. Sussex are a similar county to Kent and should be able to attract similar benefactors.
I read a couple of years ago that Sussex employed the guy that developed the app to head up their youth program , and instead of using the old way of concentrating on only a few kids in each year group, and cutting a load of kids each year ( like football and cricket academies up and down the country ) they had bigger pools of players they worked with, as kids develop at different ages. Perhaps their success has been a reflection of this.
Any other non test ground county could have done the same ?
If the hundred allows more kids easy exposure to the game , and then encourages them to take up the game, or become paying spectators then it has been a massive success. The crucial bit now is whether this can be followed up with easy access to programs to enable the kids to play, whether it is at school or Cricket Clubs. Once they love the game they will start going more regularly and you will probably see the numbers attending county matches increase.
The hundred is something slightly different and has got more spectators through the gate which can only be a good thing for cricket as a whole.
Comments
Unbelievable wumming.
If that is addressed, then I am sure more people will come on board
Jack Carson 20
Oli Carter 19
Jamie Atkins 19
Tom Clark 20
Henry Crocombe 19
Sean Hunt 19
Dan Ibrahim 17
Archie Lenham 17
Ali Orr 20
Joe Sarro 19
Harrison Ward 21
That's 11 players between the ages of 17 and 21. Who have Kent got under contract in that age range? Tawanda Muyeye (who was at Sussex and there are reasons why he came to us) and Jordan Cox - both 20.
Sussex have a number of millionaire benefactors who have supported financially their age group set up including Blackstone where the games (as well as some 2s matches) are played. Any number of youngsters have left Kent for Sussex for that reason especially those on the Kent/Sussex border and those that go to private schools in the vicinity. One such school is Eastbourne College where, ironically, former Kent players Rob Ferley (who is Director of Cricket) and James Tredwell coach. One lad who lives in Sidcup, plays for Sidcup but goes to Eastbourne College left Kent to go to Sussex for that reason. Sussex have an App that is shared between the coaches at school and county and is utilised to monitor their players. They are so far ahead of our set up it is unreal.
So Kent are being squeezed at both ends - by the wealth of their nearest neighbours, Sussex and Surrey so far as coaching and the development of youngsters is concerned and now by the big counties and their newly acquired income stream.
For what it's worth I didn't draw an analogy between Red Nose Day and Taking the Knee - I exposed a logical fallacy, by showing there isn't an analogy.
But, back on track. Are there any cricket reasons you don't like The Hundred?
If the funding, resources and capability of Kent CCC are in question (it seems all very much are) then maybe there's a thread on which those shortfalls could be addressed, by those with the most knowledge.
I don't think they're anything to do with the success - or otherwise - of The Hundred.
I’m not aware that terrestrial tv didn’t want the Blast. I suspect it wasn’t down to scheduling as it wouldn’t be difficult to accommodate another 40 balls!
I would hazard a guess that they were offered the Hundred at a comparatively low cost.
Why would the Blast need to be ripped up and changed? With a similar amount of backing it would have been successful. It was anyway and proved to be the lifeblood of many counties.
We’ll see if the Hundred proves to be a success however you define that to be.
The impact it’s had on depriving counties of their better players is a disgrace and a smack in the mouth to all those who pay for membership and don’t then see the better players.
There are many who won’t renew their membership and that is understandable. It’s further evidence of the damage this competition is doing.
It clashes with domestic cricket leaving counties having to play with weaker sides.
Also, you keep saying the counties voted for it but, as explained by another poster, (not all) the counties did not do so willingly and fairly
How come all the players that I’ve listened to both past & present, who have played/commentated, have absolutely raved about the Hundred? From the crowds to the women’s game even the music. They’ve been applauding it. Can’t be just because they’re getting paid can it?
Stick a women's match on first, and many people will turn up early to watch both games. After all you've already paid for it, and part of the attraction of cricket is sitting in the sun with a beer or ice cream. You could stick a veterans or U19s game on before the main match and many people would turn up.
You’re also aware I assume that England players are centrally contracted and know what that means.
This could have been achieved by doing the same with the Blast.
So the only way would be to move KSL teams around and being at the whim of the hosting county that day to promote it or give a toss about it. OK, if you believe they would, I've got a bridge to sell you
That said, anything that gets the message about cricket will get more people interested. Unfortunately, it's been done to the detriment of the game itself and those that have supported it for decades rather than hand in hand by adding all the extra coverage to the Vitality Blast.
Scrap it and the problem is solved.
🤷🏻♂️
This is largely due to rescheduling to accommodate the 100
Agree with this comment. Financial inequality is everywhere in sport. Sussex are a similar county to Kent and should be able to attract similar benefactors.
I read a couple of years ago that Sussex employed the guy that developed the app to head up their youth program , and instead of using the old way of concentrating on only a few kids in each year group, and cutting a load of kids each year ( like football and cricket academies up and down the country ) they had bigger pools of players they worked with, as kids develop at different ages. Perhaps their success has been a reflection of this.
Any other non test ground county could have done the same ?
If the hundred allows more kids easy exposure to the game , and then encourages them to take up the game, or become paying spectators then it has been a massive success. The crucial bit now is whether this can be followed up with easy access to programs to enable the kids to play, whether it is at school or Cricket Clubs. Once they love the game they will start going more regularly and you will probably see the numbers attending county matches increase.
The hundred is something slightly different and has got more spectators through the gate which can only be a good thing for cricket as a whole.