Sorry if already covered but skipped kids of pages.
Anyone bought tickets? Can you see anywhere parts of grounds are classed as Gold and Silver? Or the Family and No alcohol bits at Lords?
wanting to take in an Oval or Lords game with my son but looks like when buying tickets you can only select gold or silver and then randomly get selected seats. The modify seats to elsewhere doesn’t seem to work on my phone
Perhaps it’s a positive move in response to the increased interest in women’s cricket (and sport) putting them on the centre stage in the prime slot.
Or, perhaps it’s a move to increase revenue from those in the ground earlier to watch the men….seeing as the bars close early for the hundred, it’ll get people in earlier.
Fans don’t seem to struggle going to grounds mid week for test or one day matches by taking days off work, so why should this be any different?
either way, the repetitive bashing of a new competition that clearly you don’t agree with is tiresome. I’m surprised, also, as a woman, that you wouldn’t support the promotion of women being placed centre stage to accelerate a change in perception, but each to their own.
Perhaps it’s a positive move in response to the increased interest in women’s cricket (and sport) putting them on the centre stage in the prime slot.
Or, perhaps it’s a move to increase revenue from those in the ground earlier to watch the men….seeing as the bars close early for the hundred, it’ll get people in earlier.
Fans don’t seem to struggle going to grounds mid week for test or one day matches by taking days off work, so why should this be any different?
either way, the repetitive bashing of a new competition that clearly you don’t agree with is tiresome. I’m surprised, also, as a woman, that you wouldn’t support the promotion of women being placed centre stage to accelerate a change in perception, but each to their own.
I presume your post was in response to mine, suzi, so I shall respond accordingly.
As a cricket fan who has supported her county in person whenever possible for over 60 years, I find it a bit rich when my loyalties are questioned. I am first & foremost a supporter of my county, Kent, as was my Dad who introduced me to the sport.
Yes, loyalties is the pertinent word here as to many cricket lovers, that's where their hearts lie & where they are most likely to be able to afford & hence attend matches in person. And we attend matches to watch the cricket on display, not to drink ourselves silly....
I know that you are fortunate to be able to travel overseas to watch England matches & Test Matches in this country too but unless I'm mistaken, that's the extent of your support...We have never been able to travel outside of the UK & do not choose to pay the ticket prices for international games here. We are also in our 70's which somewhat limits our budget as well as our energy levels so choose to attend more locally, supporting Kent CCC, whilst keeping our interest in international matches alive via Sky Sports. As with the question of club or country when football support is discussed, I'll always choose club & county ....
As a result, I do indeed "bash" as you put it, the new competition but "repetitive" criticism is definitely over egging it, IMO and you will find others of a similar opinion if you care to read back over the relevant threads/posts. As for "tiresome", well, I'll leave that for others to comment but this is a forum for opinions & discussion & I hardly think that my views & the number thereof, compare with those of others on the majority of threads. And I question why you feel the need to comment on something which is highly unlikely to change anytime soon, as your enjoyment of this shortened form of the game will be unaffected, whilst my enjoyment of the 50 over county matches is somewhat spoilt.
The Hundred is decimating a perfectly good competition for the counties by drawing in their best players for the month of August, when, in fact, a fair percentage of those "chosen" will not take up either bat or ball in said month. In effect, they are redundant, on the sidelines match after match & hardly maintaining their levels of fitness & expertise in readiness for the upcoming limited over internationals. Jason Roy is a prime example of a player who is hardly flourishing as he's hardly at the crease long enough to hone his skills over a 4 week period.
Finally, I choose to watch men's football & men's cricket. End of. I am not a huge fan of women's team sport in general. And the fact that I am a woman( last time I checked) is irrelevant.
I find your last paragraph Fanny very interesting. You may feel it’s irrelevant, other women may not.
All about opinions as you say.
I can’t wait for the womens hundred to start tonight. I feel the tournament has really missed them this year.
Having watched both county (Kent & Surrey) & international cricket live in the past I really can see both sides to this.
However, I can now only watch on television as I no longer live in Blighty, so I will take anything on offer as I love watching all sports (apart from golf, snooker, darts & wrestling). That includes mens, womens & para.
still waiting for a close finish .. the repeat of last season's final was pretty one sided as Smeed;s ton put the game pretty much out of Southern's reach, allied to Brookes' one man show in the field, five wickets alongside two catches and a terrific all round fielding show from the other Brummie fielders .. good to see two young Englishmen in the spotlight, though both are unlikely to play any 'red ball' games at any level
Has the 100 already lost it's shine? Lots and lots of empty seats at Birmingham last night from what I can see when the weather was perfect, it's bang in the middle of school holidays, little sporting competition yesterday and the game wasn't on free to air TV.
The issue is that the ECB decided to promote their own franchise competition to the detriment of the counties in the guise of making cricket accessible to all. They could have achieved this by negotiating new TV deals with the various channels for the Blast and by utilising the money to promote that competition. Instead they tried to re-invent the game (seriously how many Hundred competitions have evolved from this around the world?) and commentators have ended up pretending that regimental catches are "worldies" and that crowds for a game on a Friday night at the Oval are exceptional. Neither is true in any shape or form.
What the ECB have achieved is creating a rift in the game and in the process reduce to 2nd XI standard one of the counties' three competitions. Some parts of the country have just four days where they can go and watch one day cricket during the school holidays. And the chief man responsible for doing so, Harrison, has sailed off into the distance with his millions having negotiated extensions to 2028 for TV rights with no money (as yet) for the counties beyond 2024. But it is the counties, clubs, coaches and volunteers that provide the pathway for the players that end up playing in the Hundred. Not the ECB. After all, what is the pathway for young franchise cricketers and where are the hubs for the Oval Invincible youngsters to train and play? There isn't one. And there never will be one because if there is and the counties are turned into say 8 or 10 franchises then vast areas of the country will have even less accessibility to top level cricket than they did before.
Has the 100 already lost it's shine? Lots and lots of empty seats at Birmingham last night from what I can see when the weather was perfect, it's bang in the middle of school holidays, little sporting competition yesterday and the game wasn't on free to air TV.
Most of the remaining group games and the final are already sold out. No non-hospitality tickets available now for any London based game until 24th at Lords,
It's fair to ask questions about any new concept and everyone has the right to do so. From new converts to cricket - half of last season's viewers were new to cricket - to dyed-in-the-wool county cricket die-hards, every interested party's views are worth taking heed of.
But, if that's true of The Hundred, isn't it also true of other forms of cricket? For example, if the attendance at the first The Hundred match of the season at Edgbaston this week (just after the ground hosted the Commonwealth Games T20) was disappointing, how many thousands filled the stands - and the coffers - for the first four-day match at the ground when just eighteen wickets fell in a turgid draw? The point being, if you can criticise The Hundred for appearing not to attract huge crowds in every game, shouldn't the same criticism be levelled at the expensive, barely-watched county championship?
Or, if 16.1m people viewed the first season of The Hundred on television, how many watched the biggest, most important white-ball game in decades (in this country) when the 2019 World Cup Final was played at Lord's? The point being that, if it's good to have the Cricket World Cup Final free-to-air on television in England (which it undoubtedly is) so that 4.5m can tune in, why wouldn't it also be good to have The Hundred on free-to-air television (and radio, and on-line, and on Twitter, and on Facebook...)?
The Hundred delivers big domestic crowds, attracts substantial viewing figures, generates significant income (disbursed between England cricket and, yes, the counties), brings in some bigger stars than any other UK format and appears to provide a means of stimulating and encouraging youngsters' interest in the game, in short protecting and enhancing its future.
It's possible for people to like The Hundred (and there's evidence on this thread to suggest that some do) as well as liking other forms of cricket. But, for some people, it seems important to refuse to like it.
The ad nauseam repetition of criticism for The Hundred will continue unabated, I imagine, while it continues to deliver against its targets and bring more, younger, better cricketers into the game. Long may that continue, despite what some people wish for.
Completely agree @Chizz The Hundred is by far my least favourite format of cricket (other than T10) But I would honestly watch 22 dogs trying to play cricket. It's a high standard and very entertaining (the cricket, not the shite graphics, music & presentation). Going down to the Ageas tomorrow and The Oval on Sunday. Nothing compares to red ball cricket but The Hundred is a great way to spend an afternoon/evening.
I hate when people criticise me/others for liking The Hundred. I've been to every England test series this year other than Australia (going to both Lords & The Oval for the SA tests too). Been to 4 County Championship games, a Royal London Cup game and 2 Blast games. I just love watching cricket, i'm not gonna moan about getting to watch more of it.
Completely agree @Chizz The Hundred is by far my least favourite format of cricket (other than T10) But I would honestly watch 22 dogs trying to play cricket. It's a high standard and very entertaining (the cricket, not the shite graphics, music & presentation). Going down to the Ageas tomorrow and The Oval on Sunday. Nothing compares to red ball cricket but The Hundred is a great way to spend an afternoon/evening.
I hate when people criticise me/others for liking The Hundred. I've been to every England test series this year other than Australia (going to both Lords & The Oval for the SA tests too). Been to 4 County Championship games, a Royal London Cup game and 2 Blast games. I just love watching cricket, i'm not gonna moan about getting to watch more of it.
You could just watch village cricket.
save some money. find one with a bar, pick where you wanna sit, kids if you have any can play cricket past the boundary rope, keeps them entertained and the actual cricket being played in the middle can sometimes be at a decent standard.
Like it or not, I think it's here to stay, although I don't think it's worked as well without the women's matches held on the same day. It also didn't help that the opening game was hardly a thriller, quite possible the worst I'd seen and I watched a lot of it last year, both women's and men's. IIRC there were loads of close games last year, but none really close so far this.
When it was first announced, I was left scratching my head thinking why have another short form in addition to the T20, and if it's harming other forms, that's a real shame. I'm not a follower of the traditional County Cricket 4 day game and I'm not that fussed about the 50 over format to be honest, but I do enjoy test cricket and have seen England a few times now at Lord's, the Oval and, closer to home for me, at Trent Bridge (I was there the day Broad didn't walk... Haha!). Ultimately, money and the market will determine the way forward for cricket, as it has done with football, to it's detriment in my opinion.
My enjoyment of the hundred may now be spoilt listening out for Kevin Pietersen's mispronunciation of 'this everning' thanks to @KBslittlesis pointing it out last night, but I'm sure I'll get over it 😎 I'm backing the Trockets!
Completely agree @Chizz The Hundred is by far my least favourite format of cricket (other than T10) But I would honestly watch 22 dogs trying to play cricket. It's a high standard and very entertaining (the cricket, not the shite graphics, music & presentation). Going down to the Ageas tomorrow and The Oval on Sunday. Nothing compares to red ball cricket but The Hundred is a great way to spend an afternoon/evening.
I hate when people criticise me/others for liking The Hundred. I've been to every England test series this year other than Australia (going to both Lords & The Oval for the SA tests too). Been to 4 County Championship games, a Royal London Cup game and 2 Blast games. I just love watching cricket, i'm not gonna moan about getting to watch more of it.
You could just watch village cricket.
save some money. find one with a bar, pick where you wanna sit, kids if you have any can play cricket past the boundary rope, keeps them entertained and the actual cricket being played in the middle can sometimes be at a decent standard.
Completely agree @Chizz The Hundred is by far my least favourite format of cricket (other than T10) But I would honestly watch 22 dogs trying to play cricket. It's a high standard and very entertaining (the cricket, not the shite graphics, music & presentation). Going down to the Ageas tomorrow and The Oval on Sunday. Nothing compares to red ball cricket but The Hundred is a great way to spend an afternoon/evening.
I hate when people criticise me/others for liking The Hundred. I've been to every England test series this year other than Australia (going to both Lords & The Oval for the SA tests too). Been to 4 County Championship games, a Royal London Cup game and 2 Blast games. I just love watching cricket, i'm not gonna moan about getting to watch more of it.
You could just watch village cricket.
save some money. find one with a bar, pick where you wanna sit, kids if you have any can play cricket past the boundary rope, keeps them entertained and the actual cricket being played in the middle can sometimes be at a decent standard.
I play village cricket every Saturday
see, you're half way there. just replace the bat with a pint. sit down and relax. No need for this hundred nonsense.
It's fair to ask questions about any new concept and everyone has the right to do so. From new converts to cricket - half of last season's viewers were new to cricket - to dyed-in-the-wool county cricket die-hards, every interested party's views are worth taking heed of.
But, if that's true of The Hundred, isn't it also true of other forms of cricket? For example, if the attendance at the first The Hundred match of the season at Edgbaston this week (just after the ground hosted the Commonwealth Games T20) was disappointing, how many thousands filled the stands - and the coffers - for the first four-day match at the ground when just eighteen wickets fell in a turgid draw? The point being, if you can criticise The Hundred for appearing not to attract huge crowds in every game, shouldn't the same criticism be levelled at the expensive, barely-watched county championship?
Or, if 16.1m people viewed the first season of The Hundred on television, how many watched the biggest, most important white-ball game in decades (in this country) when the 2019 World Cup Final was played at Lord's? The point being that, if it's good to have the Cricket World Cup Final free-to-air on television in England (which it undoubtedly is) so that 4.5m can tune in, why wouldn't it also be good to have The Hundred on free-to-air television (and radio, and on-line, and on Twitter, and on Facebook...)?
The Hundred delivers big domestic crowds, attracts substantial viewing figures, generates significant income (disbursed between England cricket and, yes, the counties), brings in some bigger stars than any other UK format and appears to provide a means of stimulating and encouraging youngsters' interest in the game, in short protecting and enhancing its future.
It's possible for people to like The Hundred (and there's evidence on this thread to suggest that some do) as well as liking other forms of cricket. But, for some people, it seems important to refuse to like it.
The ad nauseam repetition of criticism for The Hundred will continue unabated, I imagine, while it continues to deliver against its targets and bring more, younger, better cricketers into the game. Long may that continue, despite what some people wish for.
But this is what I don't get. People like you say that people like me are saying that you and others shouldn't enjoy the Hundred. That isn't the criticism. It's that people like you refuse to recognise what it is doing to the game as a whole and why this could all have been prevented had the ECB chosen to beef up the Vitality Blast. But, hey, as long you're happy that this is happening then perhaps you could do me a favour and reply to this lady saying why you think that kids who have been able to watch game after game in the summer holidays are now limited to four days of cricket in six weeks?
And I'm not surprised by your response. I've asked you to inform this lady where her and other kids can watch cricket during the six weeks of the hols which they have been used to doing for years but you have no answer. So revert to your usual tactic of "playing the man" and yet again exposing your minimal knowledge of what actually goes on at grass root level and how youngsters actually become cricketers. There is no pathway whatsoever for them to become a cricketer via a franchise any more than there are places in the south west where kids can regularly watch a game when they are off school and the sun is shining. But that's growing the game apparently.
I do wonder if you might have a greater understanding if this was happening in football. Where only reserve football was available for a month of the season so players can go and play for London United. But play a type of football where first one to three wins. Because it's different. Rather than the Football League spending that money on promoting club football and making that product better.
Looking forward to seeing your response to this lady. Cut out the bullshit though because she's the type to see straight through it
Comments
Anyone bought tickets? Can you see anywhere parts of grounds are classed as Gold and Silver? Or the Family and No alcohol bits at Lords?
wanting to take in an Oval or Lords game with my son but looks like when buying tickets you can only select gold or silver and then randomly get selected seats. The modify seats to elsewhere doesn’t seem to work on my phone
I know that says more about me but I needed to let it out.
Thank you.
As a cricket fan who has supported her county in person whenever possible for over 60 years, I find it a bit rich when my loyalties are questioned. I am first & foremost a supporter of my county, Kent, as was my Dad who introduced me to the sport.
Yes, loyalties is the pertinent word here as to many cricket lovers, that's where their hearts lie & where they are most likely to be able to afford & hence attend matches in person. And we attend matches to watch the cricket on display, not to drink ourselves silly....
I know that you are fortunate to be able to travel overseas to watch England matches & Test Matches in this country too but unless I'm mistaken, that's the extent of your support...We have never been able to travel outside of the UK & do not choose to pay the ticket prices for international games here. We are also in our 70's which somewhat limits our budget as well as our energy levels so choose to attend more locally, supporting Kent CCC, whilst keeping our interest in international matches alive via Sky Sports. As with the question of club or country when football support is discussed, I'll always choose club & county ....
As a result, I do indeed "bash" as you put it, the new competition but "repetitive" criticism is definitely over egging it, IMO and you will find others of a similar opinion if you care to read back over the relevant threads/posts. As for "tiresome", well, I'll leave that for others to comment but this is a forum for opinions & discussion & I hardly think that my views & the number thereof, compare with those of others on the majority of threads. And I question why you feel the need to comment on something which is highly unlikely to change anytime soon, as your enjoyment of this shortened form of the game will be unaffected, whilst my enjoyment of the 50 over county matches is somewhat spoilt.
The Hundred is decimating a perfectly good competition for the counties by drawing in their best players for the month of August, when, in fact, a fair percentage of those "chosen" will not take up either bat or ball in said month. In effect, they are redundant, on the sidelines match after match & hardly maintaining their levels of fitness & expertise in readiness for the upcoming limited over internationals. Jason Roy is a prime example of a player who is hardly flourishing as he's hardly at the crease long enough to hone his skills over a 4 week period.
Finally, I choose to watch men's football & men's cricket. End of. I am not a huge fan of women's team sport in general. And the fact that I am a woman( last time I checked) is irrelevant.
You may feel it’s irrelevant, other women may not.
All about opinions as you say.
I can’t wait for the womens hundred to start tonight. I feel the tournament has really missed them this year.
Having watched both county (Kent & Surrey) & international cricket live in the past I really can see both sides to this.
However, I can now only watch on television as I no longer live in Blighty, so I will take anything on offer as I love watching all sports (apart from golf, snooker, darts & wrestling). That includes mens, womens & para.
I’m aware that might not sit well with some 🤷♀️
What the ECB have achieved is creating a rift in the game and in the process reduce to 2nd XI standard one of the counties' three competitions. Some parts of the country have just four days where they can go and watch one day cricket during the school holidays. And the chief man responsible for doing so, Harrison, has sailed off into the distance with his millions having negotiated extensions to 2028 for TV rights with no money (as yet) for the counties beyond 2024. But it is the counties, clubs, coaches and volunteers that provide the pathway for the players that end up playing in the Hundred. Not the ECB. After all, what is the pathway for young franchise cricketers and where are the hubs for the Oval Invincible youngsters to train and play? There isn't one. And there never will be one because if there is and the counties are turned into say 8 or 10 franchises then vast areas of the country will have even less accessibility to top level cricket than they did before.
But, if that's true of The Hundred, isn't it also true of other forms of cricket? For example, if the attendance at the first The Hundred match of the season at Edgbaston this week (just after the ground hosted the Commonwealth Games T20) was disappointing, how many thousands filled the stands - and the coffers - for the first four-day match at the ground when just eighteen wickets fell in a turgid draw? The point being, if you can criticise The Hundred for appearing not to attract huge crowds in every game, shouldn't the same criticism be levelled at the expensive, barely-watched county championship?
Or, if 16.1m people viewed the first season of The Hundred on television, how many watched the biggest, most important white-ball game in decades (in this country) when the 2019 World Cup Final was played at Lord's? The point being that, if it's good to have the Cricket World Cup Final free-to-air on television in England (which it undoubtedly is) so that 4.5m can tune in, why wouldn't it also be good to have The Hundred on free-to-air television (and radio, and on-line, and on Twitter, and on Facebook...)?
The Hundred delivers big domestic crowds, attracts substantial viewing figures, generates significant income (disbursed between England cricket and, yes, the counties), brings in some bigger stars than any other UK format and appears to provide a means of stimulating and encouraging youngsters' interest in the game, in short protecting and enhancing its future.
It's possible for people to like The Hundred (and there's evidence on this thread to suggest that some do) as well as liking other forms of cricket. But, for some people, it seems important to refuse to like it.
The ad nauseam repetition of criticism for The Hundred will continue unabated, I imagine, while it continues to deliver against its targets and bring more, younger, better cricketers into the game. Long may that continue, despite what some people wish for.
I hate when people criticise me/others for liking The Hundred. I've been to every England test series this year other than Australia (going to both Lords & The Oval for the SA tests too). Been to 4 County Championship games, a Royal London Cup game and 2 Blast games. I just love watching cricket, i'm not gonna moan about getting to watch more of it.
save some money. find one with a bar, pick where you wanna sit, kids if you have any can play cricket past the boundary rope, keeps them entertained and the actual cricket being played in the middle can sometimes be at a decent standard.
When it was first announced, I was left scratching my head thinking why have another short form in addition to the T20, and if it's harming other forms, that's a real shame. I'm not a follower of the traditional County Cricket 4 day game and I'm not that fussed about the 50 over format to be honest, but I do enjoy test cricket and have seen England a few times now at Lord's, the Oval and, closer to home for me, at Trent Bridge (I was there the day Broad didn't walk... Haha!). Ultimately, money and the market will determine the way forward for cricket, as it has done with football, to it's detriment in my opinion.
My enjoyment of the hundred may now be spoilt listening out for Kevin Pietersen's mispronunciation of 'this everning' thanks to @KBslittlesis pointing it out last night, but I'm sure I'll get over it 😎 I'm backing the Trockets!
Ad nauseum repetition from those who think The Hundred shouldn't be criticised.
I do wonder if you might have a greater understanding if this was happening in football. Where only reserve football was available for a month of the season so players can go and play for London United. But play a type of football where first one to three wins. Because it's different. Rather than the Football League spending that money on promoting club football and making that product better.
Looking forward to seeing your response to this lady. Cut out the bullshit though because she's the type to see straight through it