If the aim is to have a big T20 competition in August during the school holidays, I'd split the Blast into 2 sections, one played in June or July, one played in August
The regular Blast would be shortened (say 3 groups of 6 counties) to become a competition to join the "Superblast", where the Top 8 sides would go through to compete in a premium competition with BBC coverage. The big name overseas players would be contracted by the ECB, and allocated to the 8 counties. The remaining 10 teams would compete in the "Juniorblast", so would still have a full fixture list of games, and a chance of some silverware.
Yes, this wouldn't concentrate the players into 8 teams like franchise cricket does, but would keep it within the county structure, and reward county success. It would also mean that a new fan generated by watching the Superblast on TV would actually have a regular team to follow for the rest of the time.
"Why do we have to have all these games in August?" "Why do the ECB have to mess everything up?" "It's not fair having all these foreign players coming in and taking the positions of England players?" "I am glad my team didn't get through to the Superblast, so I can now cheer on my players, not those foreign mercenaries" "It's ruining the Test team" "It's ruining the ODI team" "Why do we have to change everything?" "Why isn't this televised..?"
I've suggested this alternative, to match the ECB desire for this competition in August. This way the ECB gets its flagship T20 competition, but not at the expense of the 18 counties - if they fail to qualify for the last 8, that's on merit, and not because Cardiff has a franchise despite Glamorgan being terrible. I'm not talking about more overseas players, just having a system where the star names who don't want to play the whole Blast can play in just the Superblast section This "Superblast" would be televised in the same way the BBC shows Hundred games As the combined Blast and Superblast sections would be shorter than the combined Blast and Hundred, there would be room for separate 50 over matches elsewhere in the season.
It's an interesting suggestion. And far better than some commentators who choose only to criticise the Hundred. In reality, any changes made to domestic cricket will *always* attract criticism. Your suggestion is a good one, but it doesn't fix some of the problems that The Hundred addresses, including securing significant broadcast fees, domestic television coverage and, consequently, significant revenue disbursements.
Who says the BBC wanted to show the county game? They’ve been offered it and shown no interest, as have Channel 4 who had the T20 Cup back in the day. The county game isn’t something Free to Air broadcasters give a shit about
Do you know why the BBC were against showing the T20 blast?
Was it the tournament was too long ?
What makes the 100 more appealing to the BBC? Is it the inclusion of the women or the fact they only show a few of the games ?
Who says the BBC wanted to show the county game? They’ve been offered it and shown no interest, as have Channel 4 who had the T20 Cup back in the day. The county game isn’t something Free to Air broadcasters give a shit about
Do you know why the BBC were against showing the T20 blast?
Was it the tournament was too long ?
What makes the 100 more appealing to the BBC? Is it the inclusion of the women or the fact they only show a few of the games ?
The exclusive broadcast deal between the Blast and Sky would have prevented the BBC from broadcasting the Blast.
Who says the BBC wanted to show the county game? They’ve been offered it and shown no interest, as have Channel 4 who had the T20 Cup back in the day. The county game isn’t something Free to Air broadcasters give a shit about
Do you know why the BBC were against showing the T20 blast?
Was it the tournament was too long ?
What makes the 100 more appealing to the BBC? Is it the inclusion of the women or the fact they only show a few of the games ?
The exclusive broadcast deal between the Blast and Sky would have prevented the BBC from broadcasting the Blast.
Sky were happy in the previous and the one just signed deals to share the blast in a limited way with the BBC. There is no real value to the BBC of showing a dead rubber Blast game of two second XI, where the Hundred gives them a far better quality of game, the city franchises are an easy sell to a new audience, they get the women’s game, the matches fits easier into the schedule, and they got the ability to show the Finals live, which they weren’t going to get with the Blast.
When I first saw the thread title, I assumed it was to discuss cricket being played in the competition. Little did I realise that I was stumbling into the cricketing equivalent of the 'Brexit' debate with emotions running high on either side.
Not wishing to enter that, I merely asked the question whether others like me were interested in having a separate Match Thread to cover the games being played, so apologies to those who found that an outlandish proposition. I never told anyone where they should and shouldn't post their views, but to those opposed to the idea, you will no doubt be pleased to hear I don't think from the reaction, or rather lack of it, that there is sufficient interest to justify opening up a new one, so I won't.
That's right, I won't be opening one! I hope that satisfies everyone and that we're all good again. I'll get back to watching the 'Padres v Marlins' or whatever the equivalents over here are, 'Brave v Spirit' I think today.
"My team's the Padres man! They ain't worth a shit, but I s'port 'em anyway's'" as some pleasant chap once said to me in a lift in San Diego. He'd have made an excellent Charlton convert!
Sorry, my bad. I thought I’d replied to your original post & hadn’t, d’oh!
I’d be happy to chat about the hundred in a match thread. I’ve been lucky enough to watch nearly all of them (sometimes have to pop out to feed/walk/rescue a four legged critter).
You’re very polite. Not sure I’ve seen anyone ask before.
Who says the BBC wanted to show the county game? They’ve been offered it and shown no interest, as have Channel 4 who had the T20 Cup back in the day. The county game isn’t something Free to Air broadcasters give a shit about
Do you know why the BBC were against showing the T20 blast?
Was it the tournament was too long ?
What makes the 100 more appealing to the BBC? Is it the inclusion of the women or the fact they only show a few of the games ?
The exclusive broadcast deal between the Blast and Sky would have prevented the BBC from broadcasting the Blast.
Sky were happy in the previous and the one just signed deals to share the blast in a limited way with the BBC. There is no real value to the BBC of showing a dead rubber Blast game of two second XI, where the Hundred gives them a far better quality of game, the city franchises are an easy sell to a new audience, they get the women’s game, the matches fits easier into the schedule, and they got the ability to show the Finals live, which they weren’t going to get with the Blast.
Sorry - I'm not following you here. Most of the Hundred teams are wholly made up of players that played in the Blast. In fact, all XI of one team this week had nothing but players that did so. The Royal is the competition that has been decimated by the Hundred.
The joke is that the Hundred was sold on the basis of all the internationals that would have been playing. So where are the current top internationals (and I'm not talking about franchise journeymen) - apart from a very limited few like Maxwell and de Koch I'm struggling to find many top internationals from Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies etc etc. In fact, even top English internationals like Bairstow and Stokes are refusing to do so.
When I first saw the thread title, I assumed it was to discuss cricket being played in the competition. Little did I realise that I was stumbling into the cricketing equivalent of the 'Brexit' debate with emotions running high on either side.
Not wishing to enter that, I merely asked the question whether others like me were interested in having a separate Match Thread to cover the games being played, so apologies to those who found that an outlandish proposition. I never told anyone where they should and shouldn't post their views, but to those opposed to the idea, you will no doubt be pleased to hear I don't think from the reaction, or rather lack of it, that there is sufficient interest to justify opening up a new one, so I won't.
That's right, I won't be opening one! I hope that satisfies everyone and that we're all good again. I'll get back to watching the 'Padres v Marlins' or whatever the equivalents over here are, 'Brave v Spirit' I think today.
"My team's the Padres man! They ain't worth a shit, but I s'port 'em anyway's'" as some pleasant chap once said to me in a lift in San Diego. He'd have made an excellent Charlton convert!
Sorry, my bad. I thought I’d replied to your original post & hadn’t, d’oh!
I’d be happy to chat about the hundred in a match thread. I’ve been lucky enough to watch nearly all of them (sometimes have to pop out to feed/walk/rescue a four legged critter).
You’re very polite. Not sure I’ve seen anyone ask before.
👍🏼
Thanks I'm making a right pigs ear of this and wish I'd never asked as it annoys those opposed to the hundred.
Having said I won't set one up because I thought I'd end up talking to myself, I'll look a prize plum now and be accused of making a 'U' turn if I go back on my word, so I'm going to continue posting match comments on here for now if that's alright. I don't want to become as unpopular as Kerry Packer by setting up a rival thread 😎
Observations on last night. My 'looky likey' award goes to James Vince of the Brave. I thought he didn't look too dissimilar to Glen Murray in a certain light with his hat on!
As my preferred club is Surrey, I hope the Oval Invincibles win it. But I am not that bothered, I just pick a team for each game and enjoy the cricket. I think it has been disapointing this year as we have not had the tension in games. I think it was better last year and I expected the format would produce more close games.
As my preferred club is Surrey, I hope the Oval Invincibles win it. But I am not that bothered, I just pick a team for each game and enjoy the cricket. I think it has been disapointing this year as we have not had the tension in games. I think it was better last year and I expected the format would produce more close games.
But don’t they just use Surreys ground ? nothing to do with Surrey.
Like in rugby league I didn’t start watching and cheering on the London Broncos because they played a season or two at The Valley.
As my preferred club is Surrey, I hope the Oval Invincibles win it. But I am not that bothered, I just pick a team for each game and enjoy the cricket. I think it has been disapointing this year as we have not had the tension in games. I think it was better last year and I expected the format would produce more close games.
But don’t they just use Surreys ground ? nothing to do with Surrey.
Like in rugby league I didn’t start watching and cheering on the London Broncos because they played a season or two at The Valley.
They play in Surrey's one day colours which will do for me.
As my preferred club is Surrey, I hope the Oval Invincibles win it. But I am not that bothered, I just pick a team for each game and enjoy the cricket. I think it has been disapointing this year as we have not had the tension in games. I think it was better last year and I expected the format would produce more close games.
But don’t they just use Surreys ground ? nothing to do with Surrey.
Like in rugby league I didn’t start watching and cheering on the London Broncos because they played a season or two at The Valley.
There are some Surrey players in both Oval Invincible teams.
Only chance to see Tom and Sam Curran in the same team (and win the match).
The women’s games are pretty poor. England’s performances against India in the Commonwealth Games semi final and against NZ for the bronze medal were appalling. They seem unable to hit the ball off the square, cannot judge a run and don’t look athletic in the field. Commentators can talk it up as much as they like (as they do with women’s football) but it doesn’t mean it’s any good.
The women’s games are pretty poor. England’s performances against India in the Commonwealth Games semi final and against NZ for the bronze medal were appalling. They seem unable to hit the ball off the square, cannot judge a run and don’t look athletic in the field. Commentators can talk it up as much as they like (as they do with women’s football) but it doesn’t mean it’s any good.
The women’s games are pretty poor. England’s performances against India in the Commonwealth Games semi final and against NZ for the bronze medal were appalling. They seem unable to hit the ball off the square, cannot judge a run and don’t look athletic in the field. Commentators can talk it up as much as they like (as they do with women’s football) but it doesn’t mean it’s any good.
Agree with you about the commonwealth games, England were not up to their usual standards. Totally disagree about the two games of the hundred I’ve seen so far (missed today as it’s changeover day in our holiday cottage). Especially the Invincibles, thought they were great & that’s without Kapp. Looking forward to watching her again, she’s brilliant 😎
SUperb batting from Malan but another one-sided game. No tension or excitement after the first few overs of the chase as it became clear they were going to coast it
SUperb batting from Malan but another one-sided game. No tension or excitement after the first few overs of the chase as it became clear they were going to coast it
The Sports Desk asks if there's too much cricket? (35 minute show - it was originally 40 minutes but they didn't think anyone would listen ). https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0csk24b
The problem I have is trying to work out what's in it for whoever is speaking at the time. I understand professional cricketers loving the choice of all the franchise options around the world. I understand broadcasters wanting to max out on revenue. I understand cricket commentators knowing which side their bread is buttered on and senior pros with an eye on future TV work bigging up future prospects. I understand the women's game loving the 100 for the platform it provides established players.
It seems to me there is a high concentration on the short term gain, but not so much focus on the grass roots and where we are going to produce players products to supply the franchises.
Sitting here in my dotage I feel rather quaint when I read the enthusiasm on here for made up teams of random players. The feeling in my bones is something bad is happening. Sure there should be change and modernisation, but surely there has to be a nod to tradition and the values that has stood the test of time.
If there ever was a fire, and I doubt it, it was extinquished pretty early.
As I've said before. It's not just the "fire" that's a misnomer. They don't have (or certainly didn't last year - I haven't bothered to check this season) have a single Welsh player. And yet, guess who won the Royal London - Glamorgan. And they were full of Welsh players that the local kids could identify with.
London Spirit men are mincing the Nonsuperchargers
And half the country is watching the Premier League, traditional cricket fans are watching the RL50s that are going on at the moment and a handful of people are interested in the fact the London Spirt Men are winning.
Comments
I thought I’d replied to your original post & hadn’t, d’oh!
I’d be happy to chat about the hundred in a match thread. I’ve been lucky enough to watch nearly all of them (sometimes have to pop out to feed/walk/rescue a four legged critter).
You’re very polite. Not sure I’ve seen anyone ask before.
The joke is that the Hundred was sold on the basis of all the internationals that would have been playing. So where are the current top internationals (and I'm not talking about franchise journeymen) - apart from a very limited few like Maxwell and de Koch I'm struggling to find many top internationals from Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies etc etc. In fact, even top English internationals like Bairstow and Stokes are refusing to do so.
Having said I won't set one up because I thought I'd end up talking to myself, I'll look a prize plum now and be accused of making a 'U' turn if I go back on my word, so I'm going to continue posting match comments on here for now if that's alright. I don't want to become as unpopular as Kerry Packer by setting up a rival thread 😎
Observations on last night. My 'looky likey' award goes to James Vince of the Brave. I thought he didn't look too dissimilar to Glen Murray in a certain light with his hat on!
nothing to do with Surrey.
Only chance to see Tom and Sam Curran in the same team (and win the match).
Totally disagree about the two games of the hundred I’ve seen so far (missed today as it’s changeover day in our holiday cottage). Especially the Invincibles, thought they were great & that’s without Kapp. Looking forward to watching her again, she’s brilliant 😎
The problem I have is trying to work out what's in it for whoever is speaking at the time. I understand professional cricketers loving the choice of all the franchise options around the world. I understand broadcasters wanting to max out on revenue. I understand cricket commentators knowing which side their bread is buttered on and senior pros with an eye on future TV work bigging up future prospects. I understand the women's game loving the 100 for the platform it provides established players.
It seems to me there is a high concentration on the short term gain, but not so much focus on the grass roots and where we are going to produce players products to supply the franchises.
Sitting here in my dotage I feel rather quaint when I read the enthusiasm on here for made up teams of random players. The feeling in my bones is something bad is happening. Sure there should be change and modernisation, but surely there has to be a nod to tradition and the values that has stood the test of time.
As I've said before. It's not just the "fire" that's a misnomer. They don't have (or certainly didn't last year - I haven't bothered to check this season) have a single Welsh player. And yet, guess who won the Royal London - Glamorgan. And they were full of Welsh players that the local kids could identify with.