Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ECB’s “The Hundred”
Comments
-
Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.0
-
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?6 -
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)0 -
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)1 -
Lordflashheart said:
This for me as well - my first Kent game was at Hesketh Park late 1970’s - can’t remember who it was against - cycled over with my mate, and got in without payingken_shabby said:I had to backtrack to find @Fanny Fanackapan's post that everyone was talking about, and it resonates hugely. I came to cricket via Kent, and a day at Lords watching England v India (we only got 8 overs thanks to the rain but I fell in love with the sport), and when I talk about Cricket, I'm a Kent fan. I even allowed the T20 to become part of my overall outlook - the daft music for sixes and wickets, those fire belching things that let rip from time to time, did nothing to enhance the spectacle, but it was still Kent, and still cricket, albeit a speed variety. There were drawbacks. I noticed a few work parties scattered around the ground, most of whom had there cacks to the game, which wasn't likely to bring new people into the ground regularly, but I guess the money will be useful.
But there are limits. Kent have quietly hacked away at some of the grounds they used to playa t - Hesketh Park and the old Bat and Ball in Gravesend, and I believe that Maidstone has fallen off the radar too. But if the ECB are expecting me to adopt a 'london' club to support, they can whistle.
Kent til I die
My only gripe with Kent is that they don’t play enough matches in the north of the county - well in fact Beckenham isn’t even in Kent !!I appreciate that modern batsmen would have a field day if they played at Hesketh Park today, as the boundaries are not big enough
But surely there is somewhere they could play at least one game up near my way (Dartford) - Beckenham is a pain to get to, and traipsing all the way to Canterbury puts me off, albeit I normally go to 3 matches a season at Canterbury
Not been there for years, but I think Gravesend has a sufficiently large outfield to accommodate professional cricket - unless someone can advise different ??There is a large population around Dartford / Gravesend, and I am sure a game would be well attended
I never understood why Medway wasn't chosen for a more permanent base than Canterbury. The vast majority of the population of Kent live within ten to fifteen miles of Medway (Dartford, Sittingbourne, Maidstone, Gravesend, plus Medway 'City' being six times the size of Canterbury) mostly accessible by a couple of stops on the train / A2. Plus being half the distance from London than Canterbury,
Not so great for those living in the Sevenoaks / Tonbridge / Tunbridge Wells area but still about the same as trekking down to Canterbury.
I know this will cue a lot of responses about Medway being a shithole and I know Canterbury is a nicer town but from my point of view, all I see of Canterbury when I go to St Lawrence (after sitting on the motorway for best part of an hour) is the park and ride and a fifteen minute walk down the Dover Road.
0 -
The Mote would have been ideal in that respect. It still has a great track but I'm afraid the facilities have been allowed, through a lack of investment to deteriorate to the extent that it cannot hold a First Class fixture.milo said:Lordflashheart said:
This for me as well - my first Kent game was at Hesketh Park late 1970’s - can’t remember who it was against - cycled over with my mate, and got in without payingken_shabby said:I had to backtrack to find @Fanny Fanackapan's post that everyone was talking about, and it resonates hugely. I came to cricket via Kent, and a day at Lords watching England v India (we only got 8 overs thanks to the rain but I fell in love with the sport), and when I talk about Cricket, I'm a Kent fan. I even allowed the T20 to become part of my overall outlook - the daft music for sixes and wickets, those fire belching things that let rip from time to time, did nothing to enhance the spectacle, but it was still Kent, and still cricket, albeit a speed variety. There were drawbacks. I noticed a few work parties scattered around the ground, most of whom had there cacks to the game, which wasn't likely to bring new people into the ground regularly, but I guess the money will be useful.
But there are limits. Kent have quietly hacked away at some of the grounds they used to playa t - Hesketh Park and the old Bat and Ball in Gravesend, and I believe that Maidstone has fallen off the radar too. But if the ECB are expecting me to adopt a 'london' club to support, they can whistle.
Kent til I die
My only gripe with Kent is that they don’t play enough matches in the north of the county - well in fact Beckenham isn’t even in Kent !!I appreciate that modern batsmen would have a field day if they played at Hesketh Park today, as the boundaries are not big enough
But surely there is somewhere they could play at least one game up near my way (Dartford) - Beckenham is a pain to get to, and traipsing all the way to Canterbury puts me off, albeit I normally go to 3 matches a season at Canterbury
Not been there for years, but I think Gravesend has a sufficiently large outfield to accommodate professional cricket - unless someone can advise different ??There is a large population around Dartford / Gravesend, and I am sure a game would be well attended
I never understood why Medway wasn't chosen for a more permanent base than Canterbury. The vast majority of the population of Kent live within ten to fifteen miles of Medway (Dartford, Sittingbourne, Maidstone, Gravesend, plus Medway 'City' being six times the size of Canterbury) mostly accessible by a couple of stops on the train / A2. Plus being half the distance from London than Canterbury,
Not so great for those living in the Sevenoaks / Tonbridge / Tunbridge Wells area but still about the same as trekking down to Canterbury.
I know this will cue a lot of responses about Medway being a shithole and I know Canterbury is a nicer town but from my point of view, all I see of Canterbury when I go to St Lawrence (after sitting on the motorway for best part of an hour) is the park and ride and a fifteen minute walk down the Dover Road.1 -
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?0 -
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?2 -
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.0 -
NahChizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
Not having it.
It's still shit6 - Sponsored links:
-
Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.2 -
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.0 -
Chizz said:
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
One is an example of the total drivel that is promoted by the ECB - not just Welsh born players but the non existent players who play for Glamorgan, the Royal London champions - surely the idea of using a place/nation in the name of the team is for young fans to have an affinity with those players ("one of our own"). The other is the promotion of snacks that simply aren't good for kids. It's easy to trivialise it if you are happy for your kids to be "force fed" advertising that is junk food.Chizz said:
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
It all comes back to this one thing and perhaps you can provide the answer - why did the ECB not use all the money that they have ploughed into the The Hundred to promote the Blast especially on terrestrial TV?3 -
I imagine there were several reasons. Including bailing out the loss-making counties who'd run up debts; needing a new format in order to attract a new television deal without compromising the deals already in place for domestic cricket. Credit where it's due: you know all these though.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
One is an example of the total drivel that is promoted by the ECB - not just Welsh born players but the non existent players who play for Glamorgan, the Royal London champions - surely the idea of using a place/nation in the name of the team is for young fans to have an affinity with those players ("one of our own"). The other is the promotion of snacks that simply aren't good for kids. It's easy to trivialise it if you are happy for your kids to be "force fed" advertising that is junk food.Chizz said:
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
It all comes back to this one thing and perhaps you can provide the answer - why did the ECB not use all the money that they have ploughed into the The Hundred to promote the Blast especially on terrestrial TV?
County cricket was in a parlous state before the counties agreed to endorse the plan for The Hundred. I guess those of us that like innovation and cricket to be played to big crowds on terrestrial television might be happy that The Hundred continues and continues to improve. And those that prefer the more genteel, soporific, staid, unchanging, unstimulating, archaic structure of lower-talent forms of cricket, played, in the vast majority of time in front of threadbare and almost invisible "crowds" should be happy too, since The Hundred is helping to make that viable too. Everyone wins!0 -
You imagine or you know the reasons?Chizz said:
I imagine there were several reasons. Including bailing out the loss-making counties who'd run up debts; needing a new format in order to attract a new television deal without compromising the deals already in place for domestic cricket. Credit where it's due: you know all these though.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
One is an example of the total drivel that is promoted by the ECB - not just Welsh born players but the non existent players who play for Glamorgan, the Royal London champions - surely the idea of using a place/nation in the name of the team is for young fans to have an affinity with those players ("one of our own"). The other is the promotion of snacks that simply aren't good for kids. It's easy to trivialise it if you are happy for your kids to be "force fed" advertising that is junk food.Chizz said:
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
It all comes back to this one thing and perhaps you can provide the answer - why did the ECB not use all the money that they have ploughed into the The Hundred to promote the Blast especially on terrestrial TV?
County cricket was in a parlous state before the counties agreed to endorse the plan for The Hundred. I guess those of us that like innovation and cricket to be played to big crowds on terrestrial television might be happy that The Hundred continues and continues to improve. And those that prefer the more genteel, soporific, staid, unchanging, unstimulating, archaic structure of lower-talent forms of cricket, played, in the vast majority of time in front of threadbare and almost invisible "crowds" should be happy too, since The Hundred is helping to make that viable too. Everyone wins!
0 -
Not Chizz being insufferably obtuse on a cricket thread again, is it?4
-
I don't know all the reasons. I imagine there were more than I listed.cafc999 said:
You imagine or you know the reasons?Chizz said:
I imagine there were several reasons. Including bailing out the loss-making counties who'd run up debts; needing a new format in order to attract a new television deal without compromising the deals already in place for domestic cricket. Credit where it's due: you know all these though.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
One is an example of the total drivel that is promoted by the ECB - not just Welsh born players but the non existent players who play for Glamorgan, the Royal London champions - surely the idea of using a place/nation in the name of the team is for young fans to have an affinity with those players ("one of our own"). The other is the promotion of snacks that simply aren't good for kids. It's easy to trivialise it if you are happy for your kids to be "force fed" advertising that is junk food.Chizz said:
Some of them really, really are trivial though. The birthplace of Welsh Fire players? KP Nuts on the shirts?Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
With respect they aren't trivial with the biggest bone of contention being that there is too much cricket - players are saying as much. No nation in the world has four competitions and the only reason we have that many is because the ECB wanted to create one that would feather their own nest rather than improving and promoting the existing ones in the way they have The Hundred.Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.
It all comes back to this one thing and perhaps you can provide the answer - why did the ECB not use all the money that they have ploughed into the The Hundred to promote the Blast especially on terrestrial TV?
County cricket was in a parlous state before the counties agreed to endorse the plan for The Hundred. I guess those of us that like innovation and cricket to be played to big crowds on terrestrial television might be happy that The Hundred continues and continues to improve. And those that prefer the more genteel, soporific, staid, unchanging, unstimulating, archaic structure of lower-talent forms of cricket, played, in the vast majority of time in front of threadbare and almost invisible "crowds" should be happy too, since The Hundred is helping to make that viable too. Everyone wins!0 -
10 -
You may see advantages but others may not agree (no matter how many times they are repeated on this thread)Chizz said:
OK, that's fair enough. And I honestly appreciate the calmer way you're debating this issue now: there's never any need to get antagonised over this great sport. (Unless you're Australian, of course).Addick Addict said:
Not at all. The Hundred permits 3 overseas players per franchise making a maximum of 24. The Blast allows 2 per county making 36 in total. So, unless the 24 that are playing The Hundred are all better than the 36 in The Blast then the quality cannot, be better. And all the best English players will play in both competitions. Klaassen bowling for the Manchester Originals to Morgan batting for the London Spirit is no different to one representing Kent and the other turning out for Middlesex.Chizz said:
Do these players carve out a career in the Blast instead then?Addick Addict said:
You really believe that? So where are all the Indian and Pakistan internationals? Where are the likes of Babar Azam, Lockie Ferguson, Nicholas Pooran and David Warner? What happens when all the England stars are recalled? The vast majority of overseas players are the ones who do every franchise under the sun. I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the ECB! The Hundred is no more full of talent than the Blast is.Chizz said:
That's better. You're now making comments about the format as opposed to the sponsors.Addick Addict said:
Nothing irrational and totally consistent. I mentioned the sponsorship issue last year which is where my original quote is taken from. It offers nothing that a revamped and equally promoted Blast wouldn't have equally been able to do. It has no affinity or relationship with local supporters as evidenced by the fact that the so called "Welsh Fire" have absolutely nothing Welsh about them - not one player born or living in Wales. The Hundred was all about taking money and power from the counties and into the coffers of the ECB specifically for the benefit of Harrison and his cronies.Chizz said:Some people's hated of The Hundred is at risk of appearing irrational, when there's a focus on the shirt sponsors. Just my view, of course.
If it were that revolutionary and better how come the rest of the world hasn't replicated it in the way that T20 is?
No team, as far as I know, in domestic cricket, worldwide has a stipulation that players must "come from" the area after which the team is named. Even Yorkshire dropped that ridiculous requirement. In my view, the fans who turn up to watch Welsh Fire play will largely be happy they have players who are more "good" than "local". In other words, they want to see good players from wherever they are, rather than a team based entirely on less-skilled local players. Of course, if there were lots of Welsh players playing for other teams, that wouldn't be ideal. The MCC has managed pretty well over the decades despite having lots of players born outside Marylebone.
Manynother countries have an elite level T20 completion that doesn't require improving. In India they achieved it through IPL franchises; in Australia they achieved in through traditional clubs. We have too many traditional clubs, spreading the talent pool far too thinly. That's why a smaller pool of talent-full franchises works well in the UK.
When you have a world-leading T20 competition (eg India, Australia) you don't need a new format. When you don't (both of the ECBs*) it's sensible, sustainable and lucrative to adapt, hence The Hundred and T10.
(*England and Wales Cricket Board; Emirates Cricket Board)
I know you don't like The Hundred, but wouldn't you be prepared to accept that a pool of talent spread over fewer teams will mean better quality?
It's clear you don't see any advantages of The Hundred (despite there being many and several, repeated on this thread) and can only see negatives (despite some being - in my opinion - very trivial indeed). That's completely reasonable. No-one should be forced to change their views.
A competition which pitches teams comprising the best England-qualified players, plus up to three overseas players is likely to have a generally higher quality than a team where the same England-qualified players are spread over considerably more teams, and backfilled with just two overseas players. That's just counting, but you're perfectly at liberty to see it differently.1 -
Now that Harrison has ridden off in to the sunset with his bonus, the real question now is "Is The Hundred here to stay?" This is the view of Michael Atherton who knows a bit about cricket:
It has been a tumultuous period and whoever takes over has some healing to do. Time will tell how the evangelical optimism around the Hundred plays out. My own view is that it adds a headache-inducing layer of complexity to the fixture list and the advantages it has been given (ticket prices, timing, marketing budget etc) will have negative consequences for the existing structure of the game, and other formats, rather than positive.
4 - Sponsored links:
-
It's shit.
End of6 -
I like it0
-
The Welsh Fire kit ain't very subtle. All I can see are Hula bloody hoops.
0 -
Leaving aside my general disdain for the format, tonight's game has so far hardly been a great advert for short form cricket to a "non watcher".
Another turgid pitch, with the batters struggling to get it away, when the whole appeal of short form cricket is seeing loads of runs and big shots.4 -
Whilst it wasn't one necessarily to get the pulse racing, I agree, there's a bit of an element of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" about this. SB bowled quite well, restricting WF to a very moderate total. They then set about doing their job with a bat pretty efficiently too.killerandflash said:Leaving aside my general disdain for the format, tonight's game has so far hardly been a great advert for short form cricket to a "non watcher".
Another turgid pitch, with the batters struggling to get it away, when the whole appeal of short form cricket is seeing loads of runs and big shots.
Had both sides gone out and got 170+ then they get accused of being all crash, bang wallop with no technique on show.0 -
Tonight was a pretty poor start. Welsh Fire looked terrible without Bairstow, Southern Brave with the form James Vince is in are probably favourites to win the whole thing.
I just treat watching it like any franchise tournament, as a Sussex fan I have no real interest in the whole " Southern Brave " thing.0 -
If both sides had scored 170, then the "pundits" would have drooling over the shots, and the crowd would probably be happier too. It's not like Test cricket where a over of brilliant bowling testing the batsman's defences is gripping viewing, in white ball cricket it's the 4s and 6s that people want to see, just as in baseball it's the home runs which get people most excited.Bournemouth Addick said:
Whilst it wasn't one necessarily to get the pulse racing, I agree, there's a bit of an element of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" about this. SB bowled quite well, restricting WF to a very moderate total. They then set about doing their job with a bat pretty efficiently too.killerandflash said:Leaving aside my general disdain for the format, tonight's game has so far hardly been a great advert for short form cricket to a "non watcher".
Another turgid pitch, with the batters struggling to get it away, when the whole appeal of short form cricket is seeing loads of runs and big shots.
Had both sides gone out and got 170+ then they get accused of being all crash, bang wallop with no technique on show.
WF looked rubbish, and of all the franchises were always the one with the least justification when you consider how weak Glamorgan are, and how many players Somerset have produced for example.0 -
damp squib start, however the Brave will still be the team to catch .. the fire ? .. they need some fuel to combust a lot more and that fielding ? .. say no more1
-
I flicked between the cricket & The Commonwealth Games, but after about half an hour of smoke & boring cricket played by 2 made up teams, I pretty much kept with the athletics.
NB the TV screen scorecard is ridiculous.2 -
/killerandflash said:
The Welsh Fire - what a misnomer. Not a single Welsh player and they fire nothing but blanks!!!
If both sides had scored 170, then the "pundits" would have drooling over the shots, and the crowd would probably be happier too. It's not like Test cricket where a over of brilliant bowling testing the batsman's defences is gripping viewing, in white ball cricket it's the 4s and 6s that people want to see, just as in baseball it's the home runs which get people most excited.Bournemouth Addick said:
Whilst it wasn't one necessarily to get the pulse racing, I agree, there's a bit of an element of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" about this. SB bowled quite well, restricting WF to a very moderate total. They then set about doing their job with a bat pretty efficiently too.killerandflash said:Leaving aside my general disdain for the format, tonight's game has so far hardly been a great advert for short form cricket to a "non watcher".
Another turgid pitch, with the batters struggling to get it away, when the whole appeal of short form cricket is seeing loads of runs and big shots.
Had both sides gone out and got 170+ then they get accused of being all crash, bang wallop with no technique on show.
WF looked rubbish, and of all the franchises were always the one with the least justification when you consider how weak Glamorgan are, and how many players Somerset have produced for example.
0
