Incidentally when is it? they have announced international dates and there doesn't seem to be a big gap in games. England stars are going to be delighted if they see Kohli and co earning megabucks while they play a one day game against Ireland!
According to Wiki...
'There will be eight city-based teams competing for the title over a 38-day period during the school summer holidays, which run from mid-July to early September. Each team will play four matches at home and four matches away (thereby playing their closest rival twice in a format similar to the Big Bash League), which means there will be a total of 32 games in the league that precedes the playoffs. '
In which case it will clash with the Pakistan test series at least. Therefore it seems as though England players will not be involved in the 100.
Incidentally when is it? they have announced international dates and there doesn't seem to be a big gap in games. England stars are going to be delighted if they see Kohli and co earning megabucks while they play a one day game against Ireland!
According to Wiki...
'There will be eight city-based teams competing for the title over a 38-day period during the school summer holidays, which run from mid-July to early September. Each team will play four matches at home and four matches away (thereby playing their closest rival twice in a format similar to the Big Bash League), which means there will be a total of 32 games in the league that precedes the playoffs. '
i.e. when the Blast is currently on
The Blast will thus get shunted away from the school holidays to earlier in the summer, where it will be dangerously close to the IPL.
Imagine if the FA came up with a new competition, the teams were franchises, that had a draft. The games were 80 minutes, not 90, and at every 20 mins you could sub half the team. And the ordinary football season would happen at the same time, so your favourite players might not be playing for charlton, but for "London united" or even "Yorkshire United", as they'll be drafts and no telling where the stars will end up. Not only that, but england will be playing international games during that period, so no england stars playing in this competition.
But the FA claims that it will get people into football, even though the game doesn't really resemble a football game, and that it's still 80 mins and only a little shorter than 90 mins. But some how that will appeal to people not keen on the time frame of a game. Would you still support it?
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Incidentally when is it? they have announced international dates and there doesn't seem to be a big gap in games. England stars are going to be delighted if they see Kohli and co earning megabucks while they play a one day game against Ireland!
According to Wiki...
'There will be eight city-based teams competing for the title over a 38-day period during the school summer holidays, which run from mid-July to early September. Each team will play four matches at home and four matches away (thereby playing their closest rival twice in a format similar to the Big Bash League), which means there will be a total of 32 games in the league that precedes the playoffs. '
i.e. when the Blast is currently on
The Blast will thus get shunted away from the school holidays to earlier in the summer, where it will be dangerously close to the IPL.
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
There'll only be 3 overseas players per side (only one more than in the t20 blast), and it's likely there'll be test matches happening whilst the 100 is happening, so no england players.
Why not have a big money t20 competition, with big prize money and a bigger limit on overseas players?
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
But why would the 100 make it any more likely that the international players would be over here anyway, rather than the Blast?
International matches clashing with our domestic season are far more of a problem. For example India are currently in the West Indies having been playing there all August while New Zealand are currently in Sri Lanka.
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
There'll only be 3 overseas players per side (only one more than in the t20 blast), and it's likely there'll be test matches happening whilst the 100 is happening, so no england players.
Why not have a big money t20 competition, with big prize money and a bigger limit on overseas players?
Imagine if the FA came up with a new competition, the teams were franchises, that had a draft. The games were 80 minutes, not 90, and at every 20 mins you could sub half the team. And the ordinary football season would happen at the same time, so your favourite players might not be playing for charlton, but for "London united" or even "Yorkshire United", as they'll be drafts and no telling where the stars will end up.
But the FA claims that it will get people into football, even though the game doesn't really resemble a football game, and that it's still 80 mins and only a little shorter than 90 mins. But some how that will appeal to people not keen on the time frame of a game. Would you still support it?
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
But why would the 100 make it any more likely that the international players would be over here anyway, rather than the Blast?
International matches clashing with our domestic season are far more of a problem. For example India are currently in the West Indies having been playing there all August while New Zealand are currently in Sri Lanka.
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
There'll only be 3 overseas players per side (only one more than in the t20 blast), and it's likely there'll be test matches happening whilst the 100 is happening, so no england players.
Why not have a big money t20 competition, with big prize money and a bigger limit on overseas players?
Imagine if the FA came up with a new competition, the teams were franchises, that had a draft. The games were 80 minutes, not 90, and at every 20 mins you could sub half the team. And the ordinary football season would happen at the same time, so your favourite players might not be playing for charlton, but for "London united" or even "Yorkshire United", as they'll be drafts and no telling where the stars will end up.
But the FA claims that it will get people into football, even though the game doesn't really resemble a football game, and that it's still 80 mins and only a little shorter than 90 mins. But some how that will appeal to people not keen on the time frame of a game. Would you still support it?
Bit of a silly argument/comparison really.
so is "come on guys, lets be more positive, remember twenty20".
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
But why would the 100 make it any more likely that the international players would be over here anyway, rather than the Blast?
International matches clashing with our domestic season are far more of a problem. For example India are currently in the West Indies having been playing there all August while New Zealand are currently in Sri Lanka.
Errrr, is it........money !!??
Kohli or any of the other major stars won't dump on their countries to play in the 100
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
So why are you so ridiculously in love with something you clearly know nothing about and aren't able to respond to any criticism of.
Surely that would raise a few doubts in the mind of most reasonable people?
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
So why are you so ridiculously in love with something you clearly know nothing about and aren't able to respond to any criticism of.
Surely that would raise a few doubts in the mind of most reasonable people?
Havnt i answered that many times already ??!!
btw 'ridiculously in love' is a bit OTT tbh. !! And also, to say i 'know nothing about' is also a bit incongruous. I know who are the best players in the world and who are not - maybe , in this situation, its as simple as that, rather than listening to cricket badgers and Sussex second XI players.
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
So why are you so ridiculously in love with something you clearly know nothing about and aren't able to respond to any criticism of.
Surely that would raise a few doubts in the mind of most reasonable people?
Oh oh, here we go, cant think of anything constructive against the argument, so post the most stupid Simpsons JPG. Doesnt look good on you - who looks stupid now ??
Or Canters for LOL'ing it - you should know better.
Oh oh, here we go, cant think of anything constructive against the argument, so post the most stupid Simpsons JPG. Doesnt look good on you - who looks stupid now ??
Or Canters for LOL'ing it - you should know better.
Says the guy who has given zero responses to any of the criticisms of the hundred... definitely a troll. Admins ban please.
Oh oh, here we go, cant think of anything constructive against the argument, so post the most stupid Simpsons JPG. Doesnt look good on you - who looks stupid now ??
Or Canters for LOL'ing it - you should know better.
Says the guy who has given zero responses to any of the criticisms of the hundred... definitely a troll. Admins ban please.
Have you bothered to read the thread ?
It really is a trait of this forum to try to ridicule anyone who has opinions other than the norm. It is a really childish thing.
Oh oh, here we go, cant think of anything constructive against the argument, so post the most stupid Simpsons JPG. Doesnt look good on you - who looks stupid now ??
Or Canters for LOL'ing it - you should know better.
Says the guy who has given zero responses to any of the criticisms of the hundred... definitely a troll. Admins ban please.
Have you bothered to read the thread ?
It really is a trait of this forum to try to ridicule anyone who has opinions other than the norm. It is a really childish thing.
Nah, just ridicule anyone who can't contribute to a discussion constructively, other than "bE mOrE pOsItIvE gUiZe".
Oh oh, here we go, cant think of anything constructive against the argument, so post the most stupid Simpsons JPG. Doesnt look good on you - who looks stupid now ??
Or Canters for LOL'ing it - you should know better.
Says the guy who has given zero responses to any of the criticisms of the hundred... definitely a troll. Admins ban please.
Have you bothered to read the thread ?
It really is a trait of this forum to try to ridicule anyone who has opinions other than the norm. It is a really childish thing.
Nah, just ridicule anyone who can't contribute to a discussion constructively, other than "bE mOrE pOsItIvE gUiZe".
What are your responses to my criticisms?
Kent - i think you should go back to your lego and chill out.
Oh oh, here we go, cant think of anything constructive against the argument, so post the most stupid Simpsons JPG. Doesnt look good on you - who looks stupid now ??
Or Canters for LOL'ing it - you should know better.
Says the guy who has given zero responses to any of the criticisms of the hundred... definitely a troll. Admins ban please.
Have you bothered to read the thread ?
It really is a trait of this forum to try to ridicule anyone who has opinions other than the norm. It is a really childish thing.
Nah, just ridicule anyone who can't contribute to a discussion constructively, other than "bE mOrE pOsItIvE gUiZe".
What are your responses to my criticisms?
Kent - i think you should go back to your lego and chill out.
What are your responses to my criticisms, @The_President?
President you keep using the argument that you would rather watch say Starc v Kohli than stevens v Cobb. I can sort of see your logic. However it doesn't follow. I am from Kent and support so won't see Starc v Kohli. I am going to be deprived of watching some other Kent players so my option is to watch almost a Kent secondXI play. In football I have watched all sorts of awful players play for and against Charlton. I could see better players by buying a cheap season ticket at the Olympic Park but I won't. Football is stronger because fans loyalties are spread around. The same applies to cricket. Whatever name they giver to the teams it Surrey playing at the Oval and Lancashire playing at Old Trafford.
I like football as it is but can’t help thinking that it
would be better if we had a ‘hundred’ version.
They could merge Charlton, Palace and Millwall together and call the
team the South London Jellied Eels – they could play in red white and blue
stripes. Matches could take place at
Wembley – I know it isn’t in the catchment area but it’s a bigger stadium so it’s
got to be better hasn’t it.
The rules should change too to make them more ‘metric’, 100
metre pitch, 100 minute game, only ten players on the pitch (all ten of them
imported from abroad so you feel even more disenfranchised).
The Leeds based side just effectively guaranteed getting Ben Stokes. From BBC website...
At least one England Test player will be signed to each of the eight men's teams competing in The Hundred, the new 100-ball competition starting in 2020.
Each city-based side will first have the chance to select one England player based in their catchment area.
Teams without a contracted player in their region will then get to pick one of those left unassigned.
Each side can then select up to two more England players from their area before a player draft on 20 October.
The system for England player selection means that, for example, Joe Root, Jonny Bairstow and Ben Stokes are all available to be selected first by the Leeds-based team which represents Yorkshire and Durham.
The two not picked could end up being snapped up by another franchise before the Leeds-based team gets another opportunity to sign them, but it is a possibility that all three could play in the same side.
The Leeds based side just effectively guaranteed getting Ben Stokes. From BBC website...
At least one England Test player will be signed to each of the eight men's teams competing in The Hundred, the new 100-ball competition starting in 2020.
Each city-based side will first have the chance to select one England player based in their catchment area.
Teams without a contracted player in their region will then get to pick one of those left unassigned.
Each side can then select up to two more England players from their area before a player draft on 20 October.
The system for England player selection means that, for example, Joe Root, Jonny Bairstow and Ben Stokes are all available to be selected first by the Leeds-based team which represents Yorkshire and Durham.
The two not picked could end up being snapped up by another franchise before the Leeds-based team gets another opportunity to sign them, but it is a possibility that all three could play in the same side.
As Test matches will presumably clash with the 100, I imagine the Leeds (or wherever) team will see as much of Stokes as Durham will this season
Comments
The Blast will thus get shunted away from the school holidays to earlier in the summer, where it will be dangerously close to the IPL.
https://www.wisden.com/stories/interviews/ben-brown-no-need-for-the-hundred-the-blast-is-a-fantastic-product
But the FA claims that it will get people into football, even though the game doesn't really resemble a football game, and that it's still 80 mins and only a little shorter than 90 mins. But some how that will appeal to people not keen on the time frame of a game. Would you still support it?
Firstly, as i have said many,many times before, i dont know the answer to your questions, which is probably why i havnt answered them !
In actual fact, i think i've answered your questions by saying i dont know !!
I've already said on this thread that i didnt even know how many balls per over etc. - but the bottom line for me (i dont know how many times i have to say it - a bit like you saying i havnt answered your point) is that i am a simple man and that i would rather see Rabada bowling to Kohli than Stevens to Cobb - i would rather take my children to see Starc v Gayle etc - its a pretty simple argument in that , lets say, the ECB were to come to me and say, can i have your money to watch a a cricket match?, ok, but who is playing?)
As i have also said on this thread, i LOVE cricket - any format, any style,any colour, any anything. - Like you.
I just cannot comprehend the negativity towards it.
Lastly, who the feck is the cricket badger ?!
Ben Brown, who spends most of his time in the Sussex second team.
Why not have a big money t20 competition, with big prize money and a bigger limit on overseas players?
International matches clashing with our domestic season are far more of a problem. For example India are currently in the West Indies having been playing there all August while New Zealand are currently in Sri Lanka.
Bit of a silly argument/comparison really.
Errrr, is it........money !!??
You're all frustrated Kent fans - Canters,shut up.:)
Although with that name i do wonder.
Surely that would raise a few doubts in the mind of most reasonable people?
btw 'ridiculously in love' is a bit OTT tbh. !!
And also, to say i 'know nothing about' is also a bit incongruous. I know who are the best players in the world and who are not - maybe , in this situation, its as simple as that, rather than listening to cricket badgers and Sussex second XI players.
Doesnt look good on you - who looks stupid now ??
Or Canters for LOL'ing it - you should know better.
It really is a trait of this forum to try to ridicule anyone who has opinions other than the norm. It is a really childish thing.
What are your responses to my criticisms?
In football I have watched all sorts of awful players play for and against Charlton. I could see better players by buying a cheap season ticket at the Olympic Park but I won't. Football is stronger because fans loyalties are spread around. The same applies to cricket. Whatever name they giver to the teams it Surrey playing at the Oval and Lancashire playing at Old Trafford.
I like football as it is but can’t help thinking that it would be better if we had a ‘hundred’ version. They could merge Charlton, Palace and Millwall together and call the team the South London Jellied Eels – they could play in red white and blue stripes. Matches could take place at Wembley – I know it isn’t in the catchment area but it’s a bigger stadium so it’s got to be better hasn’t it.
The rules should change too to make them more ‘metric’, 100 metre pitch, 100 minute game, only ten players on the pitch (all ten of them imported from abroad so you feel even more disenfranchised).
At least one England Test player will be signed to each of the eight men's teams competing in The Hundred, the new 100-ball competition starting in 2020.
Each city-based side will first have the chance to select one England player based in their catchment area.
Teams without a contracted player in their region will then get to pick one of those left unassigned.
Each side can then select up to two more England players from their area before a player draft on 20 October.
The system for England player selection means that, for example, Joe Root, Jonny Bairstow and Ben Stokes are all available to be selected first by the Leeds-based team which represents Yorkshire and Durham.
The two not picked could end up being snapped up by another franchise before the Leeds-based team gets another opportunity to sign them, but it is a possibility that all three could play in the same side.
I'd like to see Joe Root and the rest of the England team wear those shirts at Old Trafford ... when Steve Smith is batting.
EDIT: And Warner. Cheating b'stards.
Literally.