I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
First, there are more opportunities for the newly-professionalised women's sport to be shown off, and thanks in no small part to the Hundred, there are now domestic professional women's cricketers than ever before, rising by 16 to 41 last winter. The Hundred has stimulated the opportunity for women to play professional, full-time, domestic cricket for the first time, ever. Yes, there have been a few professional international cricketers. The game-changing aspect is that women can now make domestic cricket a full-time career for the first time.
Second, thousands of people got to see professional, live, 'big match' cricket for the first time ever yesterday. And thousands more will, later today. I know that some people, like @addick1956 might prefer not to see that as a benefit, but, hopefully you can see the advantages of more people being introduced to cricket? If it weren't for the Hundred, none of these would have fixtured to see on those two days. So, we have now welcomed thousands more people into the cricket-supporting family: undoubtedly a good thing.
Thirdly, you're right, children have been inspired by watching international cricketers up close, live, for donkeys years. I would agree with you that it's a good thing.
Fourthly, I think saying 'I prefer cricket' is pointless. Especially in relation to a game of... cricket.
Not everyone will like it. Not everyone will be open minded. And not everyone will want to acknowledge the obvious benefits it brings to the game, permanently.
However, I quite enjoyed it. And, although I don't give a flying fuck who wins tonight, I am looking forward to tonight's game. And I think those who don't want to enjoy it will miss out.
Care to share these obvious benefits?
All the "Benefits" that you talk about are already in place.
More money. More domestic professional, full-time domestic women's cricketers. More supporters.
So after watching 1 game you have come up with that?
More money for who? More full time cricket for women? That is not down to the 100 More supporters? You have had 1 match where approx 45% of the crowd were comps. Will they come back when they have to pay? We don't know.
How about putting all of the money spent on the 100 into T20 and I think you would get better results AND have a better return on the men's & women's game, especially at international level.
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
First, there are more opportunities for the newly-professionalised women's sport to be shown off, and thanks in no small part to the Hundred, there are now domestic professional women's cricketers than ever before, rising by 16 to 41 last winter. The Hundred has stimulated the opportunity for women to play professional, full-time, domestic cricket for the first time, ever. Yes, there have been a few professional international cricketers. The game-changing aspect is that women can now make domestic cricket a full-time career for the first time.
Second, thousands of people got to see professional, live, 'big match' cricket for the first time ever yesterday. And thousands more will, later today. I know that some people, like @addick1956 might prefer not to see that as a benefit, but, hopefully you can see the advantages of more people being introduced to cricket? If it weren't for the Hundred, none of these would have fixtured to see on those two days. So, we have now welcomed thousands more people into the cricket-supporting family: undoubtedly a good thing.
Thirdly, you're right, children have been inspired by watching international cricketers up close, live, for donkeys years. I would agree with you that it's a good thing.
Fourthly, I think saying 'I prefer cricket' is pointless. Especially in relation to a game of... cricket.
Not everyone will like it. Not everyone will be open minded. And not everyone will want to acknowledge the obvious benefits it brings to the game, permanently.
However, I quite enjoyed it. And, although I don't give a flying fuck who wins tonight, I am looking forward to tonight's game. And I think those who don't want to enjoy it will miss out.
Care to share these obvious benefits?
All the "Benefits" that you talk about are already in place.
More money. More domestic professional, full-time domestic women's cricketers. More supporters.
All that could have been done within the existing women's Kia Super League
As a side note on the women's part of the game is the below extract from the BBC web page on the 100
"female players' contracts are worth between £3,600 and £15,000 but male players will earn between £24,000 and £100,000.
And an article in the Daily Telegraph earlier this week said the ECB had initially failed to respond to requests for support for female part-time players whose ability to work would be impacted during the tournament."
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
First, there are more opportunities for the newly-professionalised women's sport to be shown off, and thanks in no small part to the Hundred, there are now domestic professional women's cricketers than ever before, rising by 16 to 41 last winter. The Hundred has stimulated the opportunity for women to play professional, full-time, domestic cricket for the first time, ever. Yes, there have been a few professional international cricketers. The game-changing aspect is that women can now make domestic cricket a full-time career for the first time.
Second, thousands of people got to see professional, live, 'big match' cricket for the first time ever yesterday. And thousands more will, later today. I know that some people, like @addick1956 might prefer not to see that as a benefit, but, hopefully you can see the advantages of more people being introduced to cricket? If it weren't for the Hundred, none of these would have fixtured to see on those two days. So, we have now welcomed thousands more people into the cricket-supporting family: undoubtedly a good thing.
Thirdly, you're right, children have been inspired by watching international cricketers up close, live, for donkeys years. I would agree with you that it's a good thing.
Fourthly, I think saying 'I prefer cricket' is pointless. Especially in relation to a game of... cricket.
Not everyone will like it. Not everyone will be open minded. And not everyone will want to acknowledge the obvious benefits it brings to the game, permanently.
However, I quite enjoyed it. And, although I don't give a flying fuck who wins tonight, I am looking forward to tonight's game. And I think those who don't want to enjoy it will miss out.
Care to share these obvious benefits?
All the "Benefits" that you talk about are already in place.
More money. More domestic professional, full-time domestic women's cricketers. More supporters.
All that could have been done within the existing women's Kia Super League
If so, I hope the ECB took that into their consideration. I am not sure quite how the Kia Super League would achieve all those goals, increase revenue in the game, create more, full-time domestic cricketer and increase attendances ten-fold; while increasing sponsorship, advertising, free-to-air broadcast, live radio and an international tv audience.
If all that really could have been done within the Kia Super League, then the ECB must have some reason to have continued with the idea of the Hundred. Maybe they just thought it might be... fun.
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
First, there are more opportunities for the newly-professionalised women's sport to be shown off, and thanks in no small part to the Hundred, there are now domestic professional women's cricketers than ever before, rising by 16 to 41 last winter. The Hundred has stimulated the opportunity for women to play professional, full-time, domestic cricket for the first time, ever. Yes, there have been a few professional international cricketers. The game-changing aspect is that women can now make domestic cricket a full-time career for the first time.
Second, thousands of people got to see professional, live, 'big match' cricket for the first time ever yesterday. And thousands more will, later today. I know that some people, like @addick1956 might prefer not to see that as a benefit, but, hopefully you can see the advantages of more people being introduced to cricket? If it weren't for the Hundred, none of these would have fixtured to see on those two days. So, we have now welcomed thousands more people into the cricket-supporting family: undoubtedly a good thing.
Thirdly, you're right, children have been inspired by watching international cricketers up close, live, for donkeys years. I would agree with you that it's a good thing.
Fourthly, I think saying 'I prefer cricket' is pointless. Especially in relation to a game of... cricket.
Not everyone will like it. Not everyone will be open minded. And not everyone will want to acknowledge the obvious benefits it brings to the game, permanently.
However, I quite enjoyed it. And, although I don't give a flying fuck who wins tonight, I am looking forward to tonight's game. And I think those who don't want to enjoy it will miss out.
Care to share these obvious benefits?
All the "Benefits" that you talk about are already in place.
More money. More domestic professional, full-time domestic women's cricketers. More supporters.
So after watching 1 game you have come up with that?
More money for who? More full time cricket for women? That is not down to the 100 More supporters? You have had 1 match where approx 45% of the crowd were comps. Will they come back when they have to pay? We don't know.
How about putting all of the money spent on the 100 into T20 and I think you would get better results AND have a better return on the men's & women's game, especially at international level.
More money for the players and promoters of cricket.
Yes, more full-time, professional cricket for women. I don't think anyone is suggesting players only earn their living from the Hundred; it's part of a mix. No-one makes a living as an FA Cup footballer.
Yes, more supporters. The several thousand that turned up last night - and the several more thousand that will be there this evening - are additional to the domestic cricket audience, demonstrably. Yes, we don't know whether some, most or all of those who received comps for the first game will return, but the ECB has a good track record in increasing support for live cricket: no-one knew if people would take to T20 when the ECB introduced it nearly twenty years ago, but I am sure you will agree it's had some success.
You may be right that 'putting all of the money spent on the 100 into T20' might result in 'better results AND have a better return on the men's & women's game, especially at international level'. I don't know what your background is in marketing professional sport, so I wouldn't argue with your opinion. But the ECB are pretty good at what they do and I think they've taken everything into consideration.
If nothing else, the Hundred has been very effective in stimulating debate among people who consider themselves completely uninterested in the format.
probably because it is literally, and deliberately, a cricket competition for people who don't like cricket. The ecb has said as much. I see it running into the same problems as t20 blast has, if not worse.
The reason why T20 was and is a success is because it is much quicker than any other forms of the game. It exploded onto the scene exactly the same way the 100 is being promoted. For me the 100 is too similar to T20 for it to be a real success as a stand alone product, even using the same sales lines as T20.
As I said, put all that money into T20 and watch the game explode like the IPL has, then the real money would roll in.
The reason why T20 was and is a success is because it is much quicker than any other forms of the game. It exploded onto the scene exactly the same way the 100 is being promoted. For me the 100 is too similar to T20 for it to be a real success as a stand alone product, even using the same sales lines as T20.
As I said, put all that money into T20 and watch the game explode like the IPL has, then the real money would roll in.
An expensive gamble springs to mind.
Another reason t20 was so popular is that it had been played in schools and clubs after work for decades.
I had played in dozens of 20 over games before the expression T20 was ever used.
All the "Benefits" that you talk about are already in place.
More money. More domestic professional, full-time domestic women's cricketers. More supporters.
Not for the counties. Personally, I think the T20 format brings in sufficient new interest in a more exciting format than maybe the test forms for cricket newbies. What is the benefit of having only 100 deliveries compared to 120 and messing around with the format and rules? Maybe the Hundred would have had more impact if there hadn't already been the T20 format. When was the Hundred format conceived? I think it would be even less well supported if covid hadn't happened and we'd been locked down and watched less live sport and/or for the recent dry weather.
The women's game has gained a lot more support and viewing in the past few years, notably since winning the world cup. The Oval had to give away several times more comps than tickets sold to get a small crowd.
The reason why T20 was and is a success is because it is much quicker than any other forms of the game. It exploded onto the scene exactly the same way the 100 is being promoted. For me the 100 is too similar to T20 for it to be a real success as a stand alone product, even using the same sales lines as T20.
As I said, put all that money into T20 and watch the game explode like the IPL has, then the real money would roll in.
An expensive gamble springs to mind.
Another reason t20 was so popular is that it had been played in schools and clubs after work for decades.
I had played in dozens of 20 over games before the expression T20 was ever used.
It's still played in schools - just not anywhere near as many State ones. With the erosion of facilities and funding that isn't going to change
The reason why T20 was and is a success is because it is much quicker than any other forms of the game. It exploded onto the scene exactly the same way the 100 is being promoted. For me the 100 is too similar to T20 for it to be a real success as a stand alone product, even using the same sales lines as T20.
As I said, put all that money into T20 and watch the game explode like the IPL has, then the real money would roll in.
An expensive gamble springs to mind.
Another reason t20 was so popular is that it had been played in schools and clubs after work for decades.
I had played in dozens of 20 over games before the expression T20 was ever used.
this is exactly why i loved t20 when it came on the scene - i had been playing 20 over games for a few years, it was cool to see pros playing the same length of games as me.
The hundred feels like it's the ECB trying to bring Kwik Cricket into the pros game.
I suspect the sums are the ECB see the Hundred as something that can wash its face and return money to the game. They certainly were saying that to funding partners, and the broadcast deal with Sky and BBC reflect that they were hitting the targets set
Let's assume the hundred works perfectly as intended and attracts this whole new demographic to cricket that found county names confusing and T20 just too damn long to hold their attention. Then what? We've already established they weren't attracted to T20, so are they just hundred fans now? And what if, having been drawn in by the hundred, they decide maybe they do like cricket so want to try other formats. How do you explain to them that a load of the rules they've just taken the effort to learn don't apply in any other form of the game? That even basics like number of balls in an over are completely different in every other format? How many are then going to hang around and bother to learn and understand the differences?
It just doesn't make any sense on any level, other than possibly money to the ECB as franchiser and rights holder. The money spent conceiving and promoting the hundred should have been to improve marketing and accessibility to T20 and to make the games double headers with the ladies sides to increase spectator numbers (and eventually participation) there.
hold on - what do you mean their T20 competition was scrapped and there are fewer opportunities for English players due to the influx of foreign players playing in this new competition?
I understand following your own county, but wonder how you develop an affinity to a team that doesn't represent anything in particular.
I enjoy watching the T20 Blast on tv, but hated the graphics all over the screen on the Hundred match last night.
It's not for everyone. And it's totally fine not to like it. But, if it's a pathway to get some people to start watching, enjoying and caring about cricket, then that's surely got to be a good thing.
The ECB have made some very, very good, (literally) game-changing decisions in the last few years, not least T20 and central contracts. There are some very smart people working at the ECB and I am sure a lot of thought has gone into this. I hope it pays off - and I imagine it will.
I don't think I will go to any games - I much prefer Test match cricket. But I am pleased it's been launched and hopeful that it will bring more money and more fans into the sport.
I love the fact that every first-class match & more is now live via Youtube, spoilt for choice today for proper cricket...some good games developing in the RLC - thankfully its easy to watch the real game & entirely ignore the hundred rubbish being rammed down our throats by the ECB/BBC etc
Thing is, for all the years I was the Cricket gal at work (spanning 8 yrs), it got harder & harder to get tickets for any format of the game at the Oval.
I was literally allowed to dedicate time to buy them as soon as they came out & even then I didn’t always get the games we wanted. Turned out some of the best games we saw were the ones we thought would be rubbish.
So for all the talk, someone is doing something right somewhere. And I can guarantee, if I were still at work, we’d have tried to get tickets for the 100.
C’mon if that was a 50 over game at Headingley, the place would be empty, Scarborough festival games sell out regardless of the format
That's not the point though is it?
Its not the format it's the viability and marketing. The appite for cricket is there, the viewing figures for any offerings on free to air TV back that up.
The viewing figures on the BBC tonight would probably be even bigger if it was Surrey v Lancashire in the blast.
Comments
More money for who?
More full time cricket for women? That is not down to the 100
More supporters? You have had 1 match where approx 45% of the crowd were comps. Will they come back when they have to pay? We don't know.
How about putting all of the money spent on the 100 into T20 and I think you would get better results AND have a better return on the men's & women's game, especially at international level.
"female players' contracts are worth between £3,600 and £15,000 but male players will earn between £24,000 and £100,000.
And an article in the Daily Telegraph earlier this week said the ECB had initially failed to respond to requests for support for female part-time players whose ability to work would be impacted during the tournament."
If all that really could have been done within the Kia Super League, then the ECB must have some reason to have continued with the idea of the Hundred. Maybe they just thought it might be... fun.
Yes, more full-time, professional cricket for women. I don't think anyone is suggesting players only earn their living from the Hundred; it's part of a mix. No-one makes a living as an FA Cup footballer.
Yes, more supporters. The several thousand that turned up last night - and the several more thousand that will be there this evening - are additional to the domestic cricket audience, demonstrably. Yes, we don't know whether some, most or all of those who received comps for the first game will return, but the ECB has a good track record in increasing support for live cricket: no-one knew if people would take to T20 when the ECB introduced it nearly twenty years ago, but I am sure you will agree it's had some success.
You may be right that 'putting all of the money spent on the 100 into T20' might result in 'better results AND have a better return on the men's & women's game, especially at international level'. I don't know what your background is in marketing professional sport, so I wouldn't argue with your opinion. But the ECB are pretty good at what they do and I think they've taken everything into consideration.
As I said, put all that money into T20 and watch the game explode like the IPL has, then the real money would roll in.
An expensive gamble springs to mind.
I had played in dozens of 20 over games before the expression T20 was ever used.
The women's game has gained a lot more support and viewing in the past few years, notably since winning the world cup. The Oval had to give away several times more comps than tickets sold to get a small crowd.
The hundred feels like it's the ECB trying to bring Kwik Cricket into the pros game.
It just doesn't make any sense on any level, other than possibly money to the ECB as franchiser and rights holder. The money spent conceiving and promoting the hundred should have been to improve marketing and accessibility to T20 and to make the games double headers with the ladies sides to increase spectator numbers (and eventually participation) there.
I enjoy watching the T20 Blast on tv, but hated the graphics all over the screen on the Hundred match last night.
The ECB have made some very, very good, (literally) game-changing decisions in the last few years, not least T20 and central contracts. There are some very smart people working at the ECB and I am sure a lot of thought has gone into this. I hope it pays off - and I imagine it will.
I don't think I will go to any games - I much prefer Test match cricket. But I am pleased it's been launched and hopeful that it will bring more money and more fans into the sport.
I was literally allowed to dedicate time to buy them as soon as they came out & even then I didn’t always get the games we wanted. Turned out some of the best games we saw were the ones we thought would be rubbish.
So for all the talk, someone is doing something right somewhere.
And I can guarantee, if I were still at work, we’d have tried to get tickets for the 100.
Its not the format it's the viability and marketing. The appite for cricket is there, the viewing figures for any offerings on free to air TV back that up.
The viewing figures on the BBC tonight would probably be even bigger if it was Surrey v Lancashire in the blast.
That's probably what made me laugh so much.
first thing I hear is Tufnell calling them Surrey !