No, you just don't know, do you, lol!!!!! I never said it was influenced by the Hundred nor that ENG players could be involved. You've missed the point -pretty much as usual!.
Incorrect re the scheduling and the Hundred.
The Asia Cup started after The Hundred. England could have chosen to play ODIs art the same time as the Asia Cup, thereby affording themselves more fifty over warm up games.
I think England should be playing more fifty over games in the lead-up to the World Cup and should have fit them in instead of the T20Is.
Maybe you agree with that, maybe not.
England players could have been playing 50 over games before now and would be better for it. ENG would have played more 50 over games in the lead up, if it weren't for the Hundred - yes, I know; you still don't get it. At all!
If only the BBC showed T20 matches but apparently don't/wont/can't, hence the Hundred. We've watched the T20s on Sky but miraculously, according to my FiL, the T20s have been on the BBC
So, nothing whatsoever to do with the Asia Cup. I'm glad we're agreed.
Let me ask you a question. If it's so important for countries to play low-standard, List A cricket in August, leading up to a World Cup, why haven't any of the participants? Is The Hundred to blame for Australia, India, New Zealand, and so on, not playing List A matches?
We definitely don't agree because you don't get the point! From what I've seen on here, you rarely do!
I thought T20 games weren't shown on terrestrial tv btw
Ok, I'll help you get the point about the Asia Cup. It's an international tournament played after The Hundred finished. Therefore, by definition, The Hundred did not affect whether or how it was played. England, meanwhile, could have played more fifty over ODIs at the same time as the Asia Cup, also without being affected by The Hundred.
I don't know why you've brought up T20 games.
Do you have an answer to my question?
Nope, you still don't get it - shame!
Let me know if you have an answer
I'm still waiting for your's and for you to get it
Remind me what your question was.
Mine was this: If it's so important for countries to play low-standard, List A cricket in August, leading up to a World Cup, why haven't any of the participants?
I know what your question was but am waiting for you to a) get it 2) answer my question that I asked first. \did you know you can look back in the thread?!
Just to point out the “low standard” cricket in August is because the best players are involved with the Hundred. I don’t blame them, they have a living to make, however it’s stretching credulity to suggest that the extra competition doesn’t adversely impact upon a crowded domestic season and inevitably upon the competition it’s directly scheduled against. And of course not playing 50 over cricket will affect the national side. That’s axiomatic! The Hundred did have a direct impact upon the timing of the ashes, and my personal view the very concentrated schedule resultant adversely impacted our performance.
Personally I love the one day game, and have developed an appreciation for T20. I’m not keen upon the Hundred format for probably the same reasons others like it, however all the discussions of how successful & financially sustainable the competition is aside, it is without doubt, highly divisive and generates a strongly negative reaction from most cricket fans, because of the timing, the alien nature of the format and because the impact upon other completions
I question the point of a competition sold as a way to bring more people to cricket if it’s significantly and adversely undermines the game it’s supposed to be promoting.
A final point is that my loyalty is to a very well established and historic club with a long and proud history. I feel absolutely zero affinity to entirely manufactured teams, with frankly silly names playing a format which leaves me absolutely cold.
Unless a way is found to play the format without the destructive impact it is having upon the fundamentals of the game it is supposed to promote, then I’m afraid most cricket fans will continue to oppose it.
Went to Edgbaston for the T20 today. Had a good day out but really won’t bother with that again. Not an ounce of tension or real excitement. England v poor all round. Decided I much prefer the pace and intrigue of test matches.
Just to point out the “low standard” cricket in August is because the best players are involved with the Hundred. I don’t blame them, they have a living to make, however it’s stretching credulity to suggest that the extra competition doesn’t adversely impact upon a crowded domestic season and inevitably upon the competition it’s directly scheduled against. And of course not playing 50 over cricket will affect the national side. That’s axiomatic! The Hundred did have a direct impact upon the timing of the ashes, and my personal view the very concentrated schedule resultant adversely impacted our performance.
Personally I love the one day game, and have developed an appreciation for T20. I’m not keen upon the Hundred format for probably the same reasons others like it, however all the discussions of how successful & financially sustainable the competition is aside, it is without doubt, highly divisive and generates a strongly negative reaction from most cricket fans, because of the timing, the alien nature of the format and because the impact upon other completions
I question the point of a competition sold as a way to bring more people to cricket if it’s significantly and adversely undermines the game it’s supposed to be promoting.
A final point is that my loyalty is to a very well established and historic club with a long and proud history. I feel absolutely zero affinity to entirely manufactured teams, with frankly silly names playing a format which leaves me absolutely cold.
Unless a way is found to play the format without the destructive impact it is having upon the fundamentals of the game it is supposed to promote, then I’m afraid most cricket fans will continue to oppose it.
What a lot of sense you talk - but some people won't/can't get it, it seems!
Went to Edgbaston for the T20 today. Had a good day out but really won’t bother with that again. Not an ounce of tension or real excitement. England v poor all round. Decided I much prefer the pace and intrigue of test matches.
T20's can be great, but like various forms of various sports, the outcome can be decided early on. I have seen T20s that go one way then the other in the last few overs
Just to point out the “low standard” cricket in August is because the best players are involved with the Hundred. I don’t blame them, they have a living to make, however it’s stretching credulity to suggest that the extra competition doesn’t adversely impact upon a crowded domestic season and inevitably upon the competition it’s directly scheduled against. And of course not playing 50 over cricket will affect the national side. That’s axiomatic! The Hundred did have a direct impact upon the timing of the ashes, and my personal view the very concentrated schedule resultant adversely impacted our performance.
Personally I love the one day game, and have developed an appreciation for T20. I’m not keen upon the Hundred format for probably the same reasons others like it, however all the discussions of how successful & financially sustainable the competition is aside, it is without doubt, highly divisive and generates a strongly negative reaction from most cricket fans, because of the timing, the alien nature of the format and because the impact upon other completions
I question the point of a competition sold as a way to bring more people to cricket if it’s significantly and adversely undermines the game it’s supposed to be promoting.
A final point is that my loyalty is to a very well established and historic club with a long and proud history. I feel absolutely zero affinity to entirely manufactured teams, with frankly silly names playing a format which leaves me absolutely cold.
Unless a way is found to play the format without the destructive impact it is having upon the fundamentals of the game it is supposed to promote, then I’m afraid most cricket fans will continue to oppose it.
What a lot of sense you talk - but some people won't/can't get it, it seems!
I think they can. It's just that some get a kick out of arguing for arguments sake.
Just to point out the “low standard” cricket in August is because the best players are involved with the Hundred. I don’t blame them, they have a living to make, however it’s stretching credulity to suggest that the extra competition doesn’t adversely impact upon a crowded domestic season and inevitably upon the competition it’s directly scheduled against. And of course not playing 50 over cricket will affect the national side. That’s axiomatic! The Hundred did have a direct impact upon the timing of the ashes, and my personal view the very concentrated schedule resultant adversely impacted our performance.
Personally I love the one day game, and have developed an appreciation for T20. I’m not keen upon the Hundred format for probably the same reasons others like it, however all the discussions of how successful & financially sustainable the competition is aside, it is without doubt, highly divisive and generates a strongly negative reaction from most cricket fans, because of the timing, the alien nature of the format and because the impact upon other completions
I question the point of a competition sold as a way to bring more people to cricket if it’s significantly and adversely undermines the game it’s supposed to be promoting.
A final point is that my loyalty is to a very well established and historic club with a long and proud history. I feel absolutely zero affinity to entirely manufactured teams, with frankly silly names playing a format which leaves me absolutely cold.
Unless a way is found to play the format without the destructive impact it is having upon the fundamentals of the game it is supposed to promote, then I’m afraid most cricket fans will continue to oppose it.
The point about it being "low standard" List A cricket is that, by definition, a List A game is likely to be of lower standard than a ODI. It's irrespective of whether the better players are involved in The Hundred or not. That's self-evident.
My view is that talent spread thinly over eighteen counties will be less effective in finessing the talents and skills of elite-level cricketers than a series of ODIs.
With the concentration of England players coming from a small number of Counties, (for example, the current World Cup provisional squad comprises players from one-third of the Counties), a one-day competition would have a proliferation of players not considered good enough to get in the England squad. Most games wouldn't involve a single England player. This is what I regard as dilution. Kent v Sussex, Leicestershire v Worcestershire, Somerset v Glamorgan, Derbyshire v Hampshire - and many more - would involve two teams with no current ODI squad members. Purely as an exercise to prepare England for a World Cup tournament, a domestic (synonymous with "lower standard", in my view) tournament would be an expensive, pointless waste of time.
By definition, England's ODI team is always made up exclusively of international players. Elite players need significant, purposeful, concentrated, competitive conditions in which to test, refine and hone their abilities. England should have packed more ODIs in the days and weeks after The Hundred - at home and away - than they have been able to do. Driving from Canterbury to Taunton to miss a straight one is terrible preparation for a world class tournament; playing a ODI for England is a very good preparation for playing ODIs for England.
I am not saying there's no room for List A matches in county cricket. I am questioning why some people think it's crucial for English players to play domestic fifty over games, but can't explain why the same appears not to be true for most (or any?) of the other World Cup nations.
Just to point out the “low standard” cricket in August is because the best players are involved with the Hundred. I don’t blame them, they have a living to make, however it’s stretching credulity to suggest that the extra competition doesn’t adversely impact upon a crowded domestic season and inevitably upon the competition it’s directly scheduled against. And of course not playing 50 over cricket will affect the national side. That’s axiomatic! The Hundred did have a direct impact upon the timing of the ashes, and my personal view the very concentrated schedule resultant adversely impacted our performance.
Personally I love the one day game, and have developed an appreciation for T20. I’m not keen upon the Hundred format for probably the same reasons others like it, however all the discussions of how successful & financially sustainable the competition is aside, it is without doubt, highly divisive and generates a strongly negative reaction from most cricket fans, because of the timing, the alien nature of the format and because the impact upon other completions
I question the point of a competition sold as a way to bring more people to cricket if it’s significantly and adversely undermines the game it’s supposed to be promoting.
A final point is that my loyalty is to a very well established and historic club with a long and proud history. I feel absolutely zero affinity to entirely manufactured teams, with frankly silly names playing a format which leaves me absolutely cold.
Unless a way is found to play the format without the destructive impact it is having upon the fundamentals of the game it is supposed to promote, then I’m afraid most cricket fans will continue to oppose it.
What a lot of sense you talk - but some people won't/can't get it, it seems!
I think they can. It's just that some get a kick out of arguing for arguments sake.
Agreed, it must be that because they don't actually make logical sense!
Just to point out the “low standard” cricket in August is because the best players are involved with the Hundred. I don’t blame them, they have a living to make, however it’s stretching credulity to suggest that the extra competition doesn’t adversely impact upon a crowded domestic season and inevitably upon the competition it’s directly scheduled against. And of course not playing 50 over cricket will affect the national side. That’s axiomatic! The Hundred did have a direct impact upon the timing of the ashes, and my personal view the very concentrated schedule resultant adversely impacted our performance.
Personally I love the one day game, and have developed an appreciation for T20. I’m not keen upon the Hundred format for probably the same reasons others like it, however all the discussions of how successful & financially sustainable the competition is aside, it is without doubt, highly divisive and generates a strongly negative reaction from most cricket fans, because of the timing, the alien nature of the format and because the impact upon other completions
I question the point of a competition sold as a way to bring more people to cricket if it’s significantly and adversely undermines the game it’s supposed to be promoting.
A final point is that my loyalty is to a very well established and historic club with a long and proud history. I feel absolutely zero affinity to entirely manufactured teams, with frankly silly names playing a format which leaves me absolutely cold.
Unless a way is found to play the format without the destructive impact it is having upon the fundamentals of the game it is supposed to promote, then I’m afraid most cricket fans will continue to oppose it.
What a lot of sense you talk - but some people won't/can't get it, it seems!
I think they can. It's just that some get a kick out of arguing for arguments sake.
Agreed, it must be that because they don't actually make logical sense!
It is known as sealioning & you've been suckered.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[8]
The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate",[1][2][4][9] so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.[3][10][11] It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.[12]
Just to point out the “low standard” cricket in August is because the best players are involved with the Hundred. I don’t blame them, they have a living to make, however it’s stretching credulity to suggest that the extra competition doesn’t adversely impact upon a crowded domestic season and inevitably upon the competition it’s directly scheduled against. And of course not playing 50 over cricket will affect the national side. That’s axiomatic! The Hundred did have a direct impact upon the timing of the ashes, and my personal view the very concentrated schedule resultant adversely impacted our performance.
Personally I love the one day game, and have developed an appreciation for T20. I’m not keen upon the Hundred format for probably the same reasons others like it, however all the discussions of how successful & financially sustainable the competition is aside, it is without doubt, highly divisive and generates a strongly negative reaction from most cricket fans, because of the timing, the alien nature of the format and because the impact upon other completions
I question the point of a competition sold as a way to bring more people to cricket if it’s significantly and adversely undermines the game it’s supposed to be promoting.
A final point is that my loyalty is to a very well established and historic club with a long and proud history. I feel absolutely zero affinity to entirely manufactured teams, with frankly silly names playing a format which leaves me absolutely cold.
Unless a way is found to play the format without the destructive impact it is having upon the fundamentals of the game it is supposed to promote, then I’m afraid most cricket fans will continue to oppose it.
What a lot of sense you talk - but some people won't/can't get it, it seems!
I think they can. It's just that some get a kick out of arguing for arguments sake.
Agreed, it must be that because they don't actually make logical sense!
It is known as sealioning & you've been suckered.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[8]
The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate",[1][2][4][9] so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.[3][10][11] It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.[12]
I always try to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Am generally aware they are being like that but I pretend to take them at face-value and play with a straight bat and not getting angry so I never seem to be seen as closed-minded and unreasonable
I think it just makes them look bad and hopefully I don't!
Let's not bother trying to work out why they are like this though!
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
Lol, as opposed to where during the northern hemisphere summer and southern hemisphere winter? Ireland, The Netherlands?
BBL doesn't just take drafts from northern hemisphere summer franchises, of course. Other franchises from whom the BBL teams could draft players include SA20, CPL, MLC, Shpageeza Cricket League, BPL, IPL, PSL, Lanka Premier League, Super Smash and so on. So it is interesting, at least, that The Hundred provided more than any other franchise's BBL draft picks this week.
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
Here we go, explaining the full picture as opposed to making a stat fit our opinion! Did these same players play elsewhere for the northern hemisphere season and then just jet in for the Mighty Hundred or did some/most/all of them play for counties as well? That said, if any could afford to take the southern hemisphere winter off, they'd want to get back in form for the WC and their nation's international warm up games. Maybe the Mighty Hundred (let's get it renamed?!) pipped the alternatives in the northern hemisphere countries?!
My son is on an group chat with Aussie club mates from his time playing out there in the last two years and asked them whether they had seen the figures of Spencer Johnson (who he played against and follows as a result) a few weeks ago of 3-1 off 20 balls in The Hundred. The standard response was "no" and a few professed to having no idea as to what The Hundred was. International competition my arse!
My son is on an group chat with Aussie club mates from his time playing out there in the last two years and asked them whether they had seen the figures of Spencer Johnson (who he played against and follows as a result) a few weeks ago of 3-1 off 20 balls in The Hundred. The standard response was "no" and a few professed to having no idea as to what The Hundred was. International competition my arse!
Did you see that spell? It was pretty damn good bowling, I thought.
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
So @Chizz - you aren't normally shy at answer questions so what is the answer to this one?
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
So @Chizz - you aren't normally shy at answer questions so what is the answer to this one?
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
So @Chizz - you aren't normally shy at answer questions so what is the answer to this one?
I really don't know. But I think both captains from the finalists and the captains of Birmingham and the Superchargers; the top seven batters (by runs) and most (I think) of the top bowlers, by wickets taken. But I suspect you know and you'll be able neatly to tie it up into a coruscating damnation of all things to do with The Hundred and the the ECB. Again.
More interesting to me, though, is the rankings of franchise cricket. I would assume the IPL is at the "top" of such rankings, but I didn't know they'd been formally defined. Is there such a list?
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
So @Chizz - you aren't normally shy at answer questions so what is the answer to this one?
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
So @Chizz - you aren't normally shy at answer questions so what is the answer to this one?
I really don't know. But I think both captains from the finalists and the captains of Birmingham and the Superchargers; the top seven batters (by runs) and most (I think) of the top bowlers, by wickets taken. But I suspect you know and you'll be able neatly to tie it up into a coruscating damnation of all things to do with The Hundred and the the ECB. Again.
More interesting to me, though, is the rankings of franchise cricket. I would assume the IPL is at the "top" of such rankings, but I didn't know they'd been formally defined. Is there such a list?
Isn't it amazing how you were certain that the top seven batters played in the IPL (even though you weren't correct) but you only "thought" that most of the top bowlers were. What research did you do for the former stat and what research did you undertake for the latter one?
Well the truth is that not all the top seven batsmen in The Hundred played in the IPL and of the top 7 bowlers in The Hundred only 2 played - and they managed just 3 games between them.
And you are correct that the IPL is vastly superior to The Hundred. As evidenced by the lack of quality international players in the ECB's Mickey Mouse competition. But then you knew that and are just looking for your next "victim" to have a pointless argument with. Save your breath for someone who can bother to engage with you.
I did follow a bit of the BBL draft and did find it incredibly weird. Wasn't helped by Rizwan and Nic Pooran pulling out completely the night before but a lot of passes and a few unusual picks (Corey Anderson??!???)
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
So @Chizz - you aren't normally shy at answer questions so what is the answer to this one?
I really don't know. But I think both captains from the finalists and the captains of Birmingham and the Superchargers; the top seven batters (by runs) and most (I think) of the top bowlers, by wickets taken. But I suspect you know and you'll be able neatly to tie it up into a coruscating damnation of all things to do with The Hundred and the the ECB. Again.
More interesting to me, though, is the rankings of franchise cricket. I would assume the IPL is at the "top" of such rankings, but I didn't know they'd been formally defined. Is there such a list?
Well take the time to find out if you really are trying to make a valid point.
Oh, OK! If I decide to bring up a point about the IPL, I'll consider your advice.
Anyway, back to the cricket. It's interesting to see that eighteen of the twenty-one players drafted into the men's BBL have played in the Hundred; and eight of the finalists. It seems the Australians see the Hundred as a major international recruiting ground.
The BBL, in the world rankings of franchise cricket, is only marginally above The Hundred which remains way down at the very bottom. How many of the players who played in this year's The Hundred also took part in the biggest franchise tournament in the world - this year's IPL?
So @Chizz - you aren't normally shy at answer questions so what is the answer to this one?
I really don't know. But I think both captains from the finalists and the captains of Birmingham and the Superchargers; the top seven batters (by runs) and most (I think) of the top bowlers, by wickets taken. But I suspect you know and you'll be able neatly to tie it up into a coruscating damnation of all things to do with The Hundred and the the ECB. Again.
More interesting to me, though, is the rankings of franchise cricket. I would assume the IPL is at the "top" of such rankings, but I didn't know they'd been formally defined. Is there such a list?
Well take the time to find out if you really are trying to make a valid point.
For those that don't have the time to wade through the article, the conclusion is that the only real people it has benefitted are the likes of Harrison et al who rode off into the sunset with their bonuses for ruining the game:
Conclusion
Everything about The Hundred ranges from a missed opportunity to a fundamentally flawed concept. Even the women’s competition, the one shining beacon of light in the whole thing, fails to lead anywhere else beyond attracting an audience for itself.
Obviously it works out pretty well for some people. Anyone employed as a marketer or PR consultant in North London, for example, or the eight ECB executives who pocketed a huge bonus cheque. A large selection of mediocre men’s T20 cricketers also have good reason to be thankful.
Beyond that, the greatest success The Hundred has had is in persuading people to say that it’s successful.
Think I saw that Bransgrove is looking to sell his controlling interest in Hampshire to GMR, part owners of the Delhi Capitals.
"GMR Group has a diversified global cricket portfolio with a 50% stake in Delhi Capitals in the IPL and Women’s Premier League in association with JSW Group. Their ownership extends to the Dubai Capitals in the UAE’s ILT20 and a partnership interest in the Seattle Orcas in the USA’s Major League Cricket. In the South African SA20, JSW owns Pretoria Capitals, a subsidiary of the Delhi franchise."
First sign of the IPL money creeping into County Cricket
Comments
Mine was this: If it's so important for countries to play low-standard, List A cricket in August, leading up to a World Cup, why haven't any of the participants?
Personally I love the one day game, and have developed an appreciation for T20. I’m not keen upon the Hundred format for probably the same reasons others like it, however all the discussions of how successful & financially sustainable the competition is aside, it is without doubt, highly divisive and generates a strongly negative reaction from most cricket fans, because of the timing, the alien nature of the format and because the impact upon other completions
I question the point of a competition sold as a way to bring more people to cricket if it’s significantly and adversely undermines the game it’s supposed to be promoting.
A final point is that my loyalty is to a very well established and historic club with a long and proud history. I feel absolutely zero affinity to entirely manufactured teams, with frankly silly names playing a format which leaves me absolutely cold.
At least we have the fundamentals right however, we love cricket and love Charlton (and hopefully Kent!) so that’s some level of consensus
It's just that some get a kick out of arguing for arguments sake.
My view is that talent spread thinly over eighteen counties will be less effective in finessing the talents and skills of elite-level cricketers than a series of ODIs.
With the concentration of England players coming from a small number of Counties, (for example, the current World Cup provisional squad comprises players from one-third of the Counties), a one-day competition would have a proliferation of players not considered good enough to get in the England squad. Most games wouldn't involve a single England player. This is what I regard as dilution. Kent v Sussex, Leicestershire v Worcestershire, Somerset v Glamorgan, Derbyshire v Hampshire - and many more - would involve two teams with no current ODI squad members. Purely as an exercise to prepare England for a World Cup tournament, a domestic (synonymous with "lower standard", in my view) tournament would be an expensive, pointless waste of time.
By definition, England's ODI team is always made up exclusively of international players. Elite players need significant, purposeful, concentrated, competitive conditions in which to test, refine and hone their abilities. England should have packed more ODIs in the days and weeks after The Hundred - at home and away - than they have been able to do. Driving from Canterbury to Taunton to miss a straight one is terrible preparation for a world class tournament; playing a ODI for England is a very good preparation for playing ODIs for England.
I am not saying there's no room for List A matches in county cricket. I am questioning why some people think it's crucial for English players to play domestic fifty over games, but can't explain why the same appears not to be true for most (or any?) of the other World Cup nations.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[8]
Description[edit]
The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate",[1][2][4][9] so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.[3][10][11] It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#References
More interesting to me, though, is the rankings of franchise cricket. I would assume the IPL is at the "top" of such rankings, but I didn't know they'd been formally defined. Is there such a list?
Well the truth is that not all the top seven batsmen in The Hundred played in the IPL and of the top 7 bowlers in The Hundred only 2 played - and they managed just 3 games between them.
And you are correct that the IPL is vastly superior to The Hundred. As evidenced by the lack of quality international players in the ECB's Mickey Mouse competition. But then you knew that and are just looking for your next "victim" to have a pointless argument with. Save your breath for someone who can bother to engage with you.
https://beingoutsidecricket.com/2024/02/20/is-the-hundred-a-success/?fbclid=IwAR0f89h7KB7NrPLH3bYwCJIkfh-8su_IOE7bCvG5jUuc8EntG9pdOP6CTDU
For those that don't have the time to wade through the article, the conclusion is that the only real people it has benefitted are the likes of Harrison et al who rode off into the sunset with their bonuses for ruining the game:
Conclusion
Everything about The Hundred ranges from a missed opportunity to a fundamentally flawed concept. Even the women’s competition, the one shining beacon of light in the whole thing, fails to lead anywhere else beyond attracting an audience for itself.
Obviously it works out pretty well for some people. Anyone employed as a marketer or PR consultant in North London, for example, or the eight ECB executives who pocketed a huge bonus cheque. A large selection of mediocre men’s T20 cricketers also have good reason to be thankful.
Beyond that, the greatest success The Hundred has had is in persuading people to say that it’s successful.
"GMR Group has a diversified global cricket portfolio with a 50% stake in Delhi Capitals in the IPL and Women’s Premier League in association with JSW Group. Their ownership extends to the Dubai Capitals in the UAE’s ILT20 and a partnership interest in the Seattle Orcas in the USA’s Major League Cricket. In the South African SA20, JSW owns Pretoria Capitals, a subsidiary of the Delhi franchise."
First sign of the IPL money creeping into County Cricket