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.
And now that they have become engaged, what is the club pathway for an 8 year old to play cricket in the middle of August? What proportion of state schools provide cricket as part of their curriculum?
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.
Again it’s only different in terms of the reduction of the number of balls. Everything else, silly terminology and not having overs aside, is the same. As has been said before this could all have been achieved via the Blast receiving the same input of resources and exposure. The overall issue was removing the game from terrestrial tv all those years ago.
the finals are this weekend .. so we all can stop moaning about it or bigging it up .. we will see if the format is as successful as this time around in just under a year's time
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?
Are they the ones (being paid) to present/commentate on it? As many others have criticised it - some of the quotes have been posted on here
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.
And now that they have become engaged, what is the club pathway for an 8 year old to play cricket in the middle of August? What proportion of state schools provide cricket as part of their curriculum?
"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".
Is not there at the moment - but that's what needs to happen next .
the finals are this weekend .. so we all can stop moaning about it or bigging it up .. we will see if the format is as successful as this time around in just under a year's time
Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate Lincs.
I would argue that it’s been successful and I fear the long term damage on the game.
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?
Lots of reasons! Have you been reading all the reasons people have been posting (for weeks)? I thought you were ignoring them, but now I think you just haven't read them! Or just being obtuse
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.
Our issues with opening batsmen, spinners etc is nothing to do with the Hundred. We’ve had issues producing opening batsman in red ball cricket for years now, long before the Hundred came along.
The county championship in 2019 started at the start of April and finished end of September, as it did in 2018, and 2017, and 2016 and so forth. That again is nothing to do with 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.
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.
Again it’s only different in terms of the reduction of the number of balls. Everything else, silly terminology and not having overs aside, is the same. As has been said before this could all have been achieved via the Blast receiving the same input of resources and exposure. The overall issue was removing the game from terrestrial tv all those years ago.
100% agree with the TV statement, and yes its a rebadged T20.
So why didn't they revamp the Blast a few years ago ? Why go the effort and expense of creating a complete new competition ?
the finals are this weekend .. so we all can stop moaning about it or bigging it up .. we will see if the format is as successful as this time around in just under a year's time
Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate Lincs.
I would argue that it’s been successful and I fear the long term damage on the game.
agreed .. but me, playing Cassandra (but NOT in drag), have been forecasting the demise of test cricket for years .. there will still be tests, but fewer and fewer .. and county cricket ? .. how many 'fans' trundle along to the county grounds nowadays ? .. like it or not the Hundred and 20/20 or a version of both/either is the main future for professional cricket. It brings in THE MONEY AND let's face it, people like me, when younger and fitter, during high summer, when able and when in the country would leave work in the evenings to play 15 or 20 over games. There are, or at least were, scores of different leagues playing this format. A lot more amateur players play I would wager, 15/20 over cricket than any other form. I also played a lot of decent level 'club' cricket which took up a whole day or two over the weekend. That is just not suitable for a lot of young married men with a young family, who don't have the time to either watch or play 'long form' cricket
the finals are this weekend .. so we all can stop moaning about it or bigging it up .. we will see if the format is as successful as this time around in just under a year's time
Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate Lincs.
I would argue that it’s been successful and I fear the long term damage on the game.
agreed .. but me, playing Cassandra (but NOT in drag), have been forecasting the demise of test cricket for years .. there will still be tests, but fewer and fewer .. and county cricket ? .. how many 'fans' trundle along to the county grounds nowadays ? .. like it or not the Hundred and 20/20 or a version of both/either is the main future for professional cricket. It brings in THE MONEY AND let's face it, people like me, when younger and fitter, during high summer, when able and when in the country would leave work in the evenings to play 15 or 20 over games. There are, or at least were, scores of different leagues playing this format. A lot more amateur players play I would wager, 15/20 over cricket than any other form. I also played a lot of decent level 'club' cricket which took up a whole day or two over the weekend. That is just not suitable for a lot of young married men with a young family, who don't have the time to either watch or play 'long form' cricket
Obviously not as big as white ball games, but County Championship games can attract reasonable crowds if they're not shunted to the periphery of the season in May and September, and earn some hospitality income too from the hospitality tents.
Are the women and men’s prize money the same … seriously a spinner just bowled 3 full tosses on the spin I’d batter my 9 year old if he ever did that ffs Utter shit
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?
Are they the ones (being paid) to present/commentate on it? As many others have criticised it - some of the quotes have been posted on here
We commented the other day that when we have dabbled briefly into coverage ( only when a Kent player is involved though) said commentators almost seem to go out of their way NOT to mention the county that particular players play for.
It's as if they've been told not to mention the unmentionable.
Don't want those innocent little ones to have their heads turned by the fact that where they live(or within a short journey) actually has a squad of players that play several forms of the game from April to September.
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?
Are they the ones (being paid) to present/commentate on it? As many others have criticised it - some of the quotes have been posted on here
We commented the other day that when we have dabbled briefly into coverage ( only when a Kent player is involved though) said commentators almost seem to go out of their way NOT to mention the county that particular players play for.
It's as if they've been told not to mention the unmentionable.
Don't want those innocent little ones to have their heads turned by the fact that where they live(or within a short journey) actually has a squad of players that play several forms of the game from April to September.
"What's a county, Dad ?"
Nah, Keysey ain’t stopped going on about the Kent players 🤷♀️
Anyhoo!
What a bloody good game that was girls! Alice Capsey is a wee superstar.
Anybody else having problems with the stream on the BBC sport website? Keep a stuttering and buffering. Did a speed test ans I'm getting over 70mbps down, so the problem isn't at my end
tonight's 'semi' should be a good one (men's) .. the winners play Birmingham tomorrow .. live on BBC for all you fans out there .. the final that is, the semi is on Sky and R5LX
tonight's 'semi' should be a good one (men's) .. the winners play Birmingham tomorrow .. live on BBC for all you fans out there .. the final that is, the semi is on Sky and R5LX
All the cricket commentators at the BBC/Sky have become schills for the ECB.
Like in so many things these days, there is a narrative that must be served, whether it reflects reality or not.
Understandably, said commentators will not bite the hand that feeds them, but it has breached the trust between them and the public, many of whom will not appreciate being treated like idiots. I do have some sympathy for them though; if they do happen to mention the Emperor's new clothes, then they would be frozen out from the game that they love and replaced with another fashionable identikit PR spouting nonentity that seem to infest the media these days.
Most in their situation would do the same. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck, though.
The money taken by the counties will prove to be the 30 pieces of silver that killed county cricket.
All the cricket commentators at the BBC/Sky have become schills for the ECB.
Like in so many things these days, there is a narrative that must be served, whether it reflects reality or not.
Understandably, said commentators will not bite the hand that feeds them, but it has breached the trust between them and the public, many of whom will not appreciate being treated like idiots. I do have some sympathy for them though; if they do happen to mention the Emperor's new clothes, then they would be frozen out from the game that they love and replaced with another fashionable identikit PR spouting nonentity that seem to infest the media these days.
Most in their situation would do the same. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck, though.
The money taken by the counties will prove to be the 30 pieces of silver that killed county cricket.
I truly despise the ECB.
And it's easier for the BBC commentators as they mainly played for counties whose home grounds are being used anyway. Vaughan - Headingley, Anderson - Old Trafford, Tufnell - Lord's. Jimmy, when he doing 100 commentary, would use "We" for the Manchester team, as he saw them as an extension of Lancashire. I assume Broad did the same for the Trent Rockets
It would have been more interesting if a prominent ex Somerset player had been in the commentary box, as they in particular feel aggrieved as a really successful county, producing a number of England players, but with a completely Welsh themed franchise in Cardiff as their "home" one
I do find Somerset annoyance a bit performative, like if they make enough noise the South West franchise which is going to come goes to Taunton and not Bristol
Are the women and men’s prize money the same … seriously a spinner just bowled 3 full tosses on the spin I’d batter my 9 year old if he ever did that ffs Utter shit
I’d never watched a game of women’s cricket before the hundred, apart from brief highlights on sky sports news. The standard is astoundingly bad compared to the men’s game.
I’ve said this before but would have heard it hammered at Lord’s from a member so could have stuff wrong *disclaimer alert* There was talk a few years back of Middlesex and MCC falling out and Middlesex (I don’t know if they still are and it’s prolly a small second venue ) building a new ground . Apparently to continue to be a Test Match venue a first class cricket team has to play there . The ECB are based at Lord’s . So MCC were very much behind this because with having a team there(London Spirit) it protects them as a Test venue .
As probably the only Middlesex supporter on here, I can confirm you heard correct in your hammered state.
The MCC and Middlesex have had a slightly strained relationship for years and many Middlesex members wouldn't be averse to Middlesex moving away from Lords. (Although equally some would be aghast at the move).
The issue of Middlesex having their own ground comes up from time to time but the difficulty is finding anywhere suitable in NW london. Last I heard was a site near Barnet football club's ground was being considered but Covid hit Middlesex particularly hard and the idea seems to have gone quiet again for the moment.
This year Middlesex have played quite a few of their one day games up at Radlett (in Hertfordshire!) and a 4 day game at Merchants Taylor School in Northwood. It will be interesting to see how many games get played at those 2 grounds in future.
I’ve said this before but would have heard it hammered at Lord’s from a member so could have stuff wrong *disclaimer alert* There was talk a few years back of Middlesex and MCC falling out and Middlesex (I don’t know if they still are and it’s prolly a small second venue ) building a new ground . Apparently to continue to be a Test Match venue a first class cricket team has to play there . The ECB are based at Lord’s . So MCC were very much behind this because with having a team there(London Spirit) it protects them as a Test venue .
As probably the only Middlesex supporter on here, I can confirm you heard correct in your hammered state.
The MCC and Middlesex have had a slightly strained relationship for years and many Middlesex members wouldn't be averse to Middlesex moving away from Lords. (Although equally some would be aghast at the move).
The issue of Middlesex having their own ground comes up from time to time but the difficulty is finding anywhere suitable in NW london. Last I heard was a site near Barnet football club's ground was being considered but Covid hit Middlesex particularly hard and the idea seems to have gone quiet again for the moment.
This year Middlesex have played quite a few of their one day games up at Radlett (in Hertfordshire!) and a 4 day game at Merchants Taylor School in Northwood. It will be interesting to see how many games get played at those 2 grounds in future.
You are forgiven for being a Middlesex fan as you have the best name on here bar none
I’ve said this before but would have heard it hammered at Lord’s from a member so could have stuff wrong *disclaimer alert* There was talk a few years back of Middlesex and MCC falling out and Middlesex (I don’t know if they still are and it’s prolly a small second venue ) building a new ground . Apparently to continue to be a Test Match venue a first class cricket team has to play there . The ECB are based at Lord’s . So MCC were very much behind this because with having a team there(London Spirit) it protects them as a Test venue .
As probably the only Middlesex supporter on here, I can confirm you heard correct in your hammered state.
The MCC and Middlesex have had a slightly strained relationship for years and many Middlesex members wouldn't be averse to Middlesex moving away from Lords. (Although equally some would be aghast at the move).
The issue of Middlesex having their own ground comes up from time to time but the difficulty is finding anywhere suitable in NW london. Last I heard was a site near Barnet football club's ground was being considered but Covid hit Middlesex particularly hard and the idea seems to have gone quiet again for the moment.
This year Middlesex have played quite a few of their one day games up at Radlett (in Hertfordshire!) and a 4 day game at Merchants Taylor School in Northwood. It will be interesting to see how many games get played at those 2 grounds in future.
A major issue for Middlesex is their lack of training facilities
When Lord's is free, they have world class facilities there of course, but when they are kicked out for Test matches, 100 etc, they are forced to borrow basic grounds (like Radlett and Merchants Taylor and also Richmond) not just to play in, but also to train in. Basic grounds without an indoor school
The site they were looking at (it's my part of the world) was at Barnet Copthall, next to the Saracens Rugby 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?
Are they the ones (being paid) to present/commentate on it? As many others have criticised it - some of the quotes have been posted on here
We commented the other day that when we have dabbled briefly into coverage ( only when a Kent player is involved though) said commentators almost seem to go out of their way NOT to mention the county that particular players play for.
It's as if they've been told not to mention the unmentionable.
Don't want those innocent little ones to have their heads turned by the fact that where they live(or within a short journey) actually has a squad of players that play several forms of the game from April to September.
"What's a county, Dad ?"
Nah, Keysey ain’t stopped going on about the Kent players 🤷♀️
Anyhoo!
What a bloody good game that was girls! Alice Capsey is a wee superstar.
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?
Are they the ones (being paid) to present/commentate on it? As many others have criticised it - some of the quotes have been posted on here
We commented the other day that when we have dabbled briefly into coverage ( only when a Kent player is involved though) said commentators almost seem to go out of their way NOT to mention the county that particular players play for.
It's as if they've been told not to mention the unmentionable.
Don't want those innocent little ones to have their heads turned by the fact that where they live(or within a short journey) actually has a squad of players that play several forms of the game from April to September.
"What's a county, Dad ?"
Nah, Keysey ain’t stopped going on about the Kent players 🤷♀️
Anyhoo!
What a bloody good game that was girls! Alice Capsey is a wee superstar.
Comments
As has been said before this could all have been achieved via the Blast receiving the same input of resources and exposure.
The overall issue was removing the game from terrestrial tv all those years ago.
Is not there at the moment - but that's what needs to happen next .
So why didn't they revamp the Blast a few years ago ? Why go the effort and expense of creating a complete new competition ?
AND let's face it, people like me, when younger and fitter, during high summer, when able and when in the country would leave work in the evenings to play 15 or 20 over games. There are, or at least were, scores of different leagues playing this format. A lot more amateur players play I would wager, 15/20 over cricket than any other form. I also played a lot of decent level 'club' cricket which took up a whole day or two over the weekend. That is just not suitable for a lot of young married men with a young family, who don't have the time to either watch or play 'long form' cricket
seriously a spinner just bowled 3 full tosses on the spin I’d batter my 9 year old if he ever did that ffs
Utter shit
It's as if they've been told not to mention the unmentionable.
Don't want those innocent little ones to have their heads turned by the fact that where they live(or within a short journey) actually has a squad of players that play several forms of the game from April to September.
"What's a county, Dad ?"
What a bloody good game that was girls! Alice Capsey is a wee superstar.
Laaaaaaaaaaandan in the final 🏏🏏🏏🏏🏏
Like in so many things these days, there is a narrative that must be served, whether it reflects reality or not.
Understandably, said commentators will not bite the hand that feeds them, but it has breached the trust between them and the public, many of whom will not appreciate being treated like idiots. I do have some sympathy for them though; if they do happen to mention the Emperor's new clothes, then they would be frozen out from the game that they love and replaced with another fashionable identikit PR spouting nonentity that seem to infest the media these days.
Most in their situation would do the same. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck, though.
The money taken by the counties will prove to be the 30 pieces of silver that killed county cricket.
I truly despise the ECB.
It would have been more interesting if a prominent ex Somerset player had been in the commentary box, as they in particular feel aggrieved as a really successful county, producing a number of England players, but with a completely Welsh themed franchise in Cardiff as their "home" one
The MCC and Middlesex have had a slightly strained relationship for years and many Middlesex members wouldn't be averse to Middlesex moving away from Lords. (Although equally some would be aghast at the move).
The issue of Middlesex having their own ground comes up from time to time but the difficulty is finding anywhere suitable in NW london. Last I heard was a site near Barnet football club's ground was being considered but Covid hit Middlesex particularly hard and the idea seems to have gone quiet again for the moment.
This year Middlesex have played quite a few of their one day games up at Radlett (in Hertfordshire!) and a 4 day game at Merchants Taylor School in Northwood. It will be interesting to see how many games get played at those 2 grounds in future.
When Lord's is free, they have world class facilities there of course, but when they are kicked out for Test matches, 100 etc, they are forced to borrow basic grounds (like Radlett and Merchants Taylor and also Richmond) not just to play in, but also to train in. Basic grounds without an indoor school
The site they were looking at (it's my part of the world) was at Barnet Copthall, next to the Saracens Rugby ground
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47787729
Oval are in the final.
Do you feel better now?