The 100

Uboat said:

I've had a great idea. Let's scrap the FA cup and instead all football stops in January except for 8 teams made up of the best players. Our local team would be called South London Fanatics and would play at Selhurst Park, captained by local icon Wilfred Zaha.

Hopefully that will help a Surrey fan understand why Kent fans aren't too keen. 

The_President said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

redman said:

The_President said:

McBobbin said:

The hundred is up there with the Stanford super series. I could probably be tempted with a freebie to the oval on a Friday for a drink up, but I won't care about the cricket

Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?!
Its a bit selfish  tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).

Most of the people who go to the Oval for 20 20 aren't interested in the cricket. Why do you think 100 will be any different? 

Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.

Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?

The_President said:

Tell you what, i'll ignore the views of Root and Vaughan and Giles and Morgs and listen to Canters and McB,
Or i'll stand outside the gate at the Oval pick up my free ticket from McB as he would prefer to go to Canterbury to watch Stevens bowl to Cobb, whilst i watch Rabada bowling to Ben Stokes. 
 Thanks McB

The argument of Stevens to whoever has been refuted clearly and in detail on here to you at least 15 times by myself and others yet you keep dragging it out. It's bullshit even if you ignore that Stevens barely played in the blast this year (but the side he played for made the final).

This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.

redman said:

The_President said:

Lincsaddick said:

pretty much the full SP in this article .. no English coaches/managers, just disgraceful

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49716478

Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw).
I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.

Lancashire managed to have used same managing/coaching staff for 100. The county team will presumably be run by their back up team in their absence. Released despite being under contract. Another reason it is a mockery to suggest it is not a Lancashire team.

I thought you said this would be your last yet there are about 3 more after.!

I'm sorry , but the Stevens analogy CANNOT be refuted. Its a very simple question......Would the average cricket fan rather watch a) Rabada bowling to Stokes or b) Stevens bowling to Cobb ?? - its a very,very simple question that requires an answer of either a) or b) ! 

Have you answered ?! (let me remind you, its either a) or b)).
No, of course you havnt, because it doesnt suit your argument.

Now,if you have answered and if its b), then shift off to Canterbury and watch a tedious game of medium pacers against medium batters, or if its a) then you clearly enjoy watching quality cricket. Or you could do what McB intends to do, go to the ground, turn his back on the game and drink beer all night. Yeah , thats great , tell you what, someone give him some pink foam pigs willya.

There's no need to go spouting on pouring out paragraph after paragraph about how shit T100 is , providing some spawny information - if you dont want it, or dont like it, then bugger off to Canterbury, dont waste your clearly boundless Cricket energy and knowledge criticising it.

As i have also said to you, MANY MANY MANY MANY times that you also clearly selectively refuse to listen to, is that I dont know the answer to your questions - i've never suggested i do. Do i need to keep repeating it?

However coming back to my original very simple question , mine is a) because i would rather watch Stokes than Stevens - it s a simple question.
Its a question that the likes of Giles,Root,Morgs,Vaughan,Hussain,Atherton,Strauss have clearly answered a) - but obviously Cantersaddick knows better than the uninformed people above and its shit.

This thread was set up to explore and find out and enjoy the 100 - not to have some reprobate come on and slag it off extensively just coz it doesnt suit his particular agenda.

Firstly I quite clearly stated it was the last time I replied to that point. My following posts were on other issues. 

And I have answered you many times is that obviously everyone would rather see better players. What you keep ignoring is that the 100 isn't the only way to do this. In fact with the latest news of test players only playing 3 games it appears the 100 won't actually do that either.

I am not expecting you to know the answers to the questions raised. It would be wonderful if you could maybe acknowledge there are other sides to the argument and that all is not rosy. And maybe stop with the ridiculous groupthink "it's happening, all must buy into It, must not question it" approach.

Hahahahha imagine being called a reprobate by you! Comedy gold!

You mentioned me 3 times on this thread since you bumped it yesterday before I even commented - clearly trying to get me involved. Then you have a little strop when i call you out. Unique

Nothing about agenda. It's called a debate. Something you seem incapable of!

Have done no slagging off I have simply put out my views based on the evidence we have. 

The 100 will be fantastic - in my very simple outlook, its another game of cricket, played by better players than we see domestically now.

To me, there is a correlation between Charlton fans who dont want The 100 with Charlton fans who didnt want the move to the Peninsular. (i know i shouldnt have gone 'there'!)
I better go round up those ostriches ! (i've got Baboons and Peacocks and Emu's nearby, so i'm sure i can find a few Ostrichs) .

 

The_President said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

@The_President serious questions here as given your posts on this thread you are obviously all for this competition. 

Do you not think it would've been better if the money had instead gone on making the T20 blast better? Attracting better overseas players, making England players available, better marketing, slightly shorter format etc.

To me (and it seems most others) it offers no real benefit to cricket in this country. By moving county and T20 fixtures for the 100 and downgrading the 50 over competition, the ECB is surely harming not helping the game.
Made up team names and not proper county sides? 10 ball overs? Every side sponsored by crisp/snack companies? The most northern team based at Leeds? And they didn't pick Root or Bairstow? Bairstow now the captain of the Welsh side?! The Somerset player who is named as the 'local icon'........for the Welsh Fire. Somerset fans won't go and support a Welsh team.

I'd love to know what you honestly feel the positives of this competition are?

Chris,
 
My simple view is that if you look at the models of IPL and Big Bash, with their City based formats, the format clearly works.Attendances are high,cricket is good and high quality with high quality overseas stars, and its obviously a very marketable product.
If's something that clearly had to be emulated in the English league.We couldn't stand back and be the last ones out of the block again.

Now,believe it or not, i'm probably in favour of retaining the T20 format and turning it into ,say, a 2 division format, with the county teams playing in a sortof 2nd division. There are obviously marketing and business related decisions that have created this '100' contest - , but, as Canters has his (very valid and well researched) opinions on this, but, i trust the people like Vaughan,Hussain,Giles,Strauss who have all come out in support of the competition more than i do Cantersaddick (nothing personal , Canters).
 I know very little about the construct of the game, like 10 ball overs and no lbw's etc, but am just excited about the prospect of having so many high class players playing in 1 game,under lights, and on terrestrial too. However, i dont like the snack company sponsorship thing.
TBH, when the 20/20 comp first came out, everyone just ridiculed it and said it was just hit-and giggles - look at it now, probably the most importanat (financially) format in the planet.

In my view England players will improve as will the English players on the fringe (and before someone comes on , and say 'they' will only play 3 games' - its not just game time, its also being around and in the nets with these guys.

But, to just slag it off dismiss it and say things like 'i'll go to the game if i get a free ticket, and just drink' or 'hope it crashes and burns' is just plain crass and childish

The_President said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

@The_President serious questions here as given your posts on this thread you are obviously all for this competition. 

Do you not think it would've been better if the money had instead gone on making the T20 blast better? Attracting better overseas players, making England players available, better marketing, slightly shorter format etc.

To me (and it seems most others) it offers no real benefit to cricket in this country. By moving county and T20 fixtures for the 100 and downgrading the 50 over competition, the ECB is surely harming not helping the game.
Made up team names and not proper county sides? 10 ball overs? Every side sponsored by crisp/snack companies? The most northern team based at Leeds? And they didn't pick Root or Bairstow? Bairstow now the captain of the Welsh side?! The Somerset player who is named as the 'local icon'........for the Welsh Fire. Somerset fans won't go and support a Welsh team.

I'd love to know what you honestly feel the positives of this competition are?

Chris,
 
My simple view is that if you look at the models of IPL and Big Bash, with their City based formats, the format clearly works.Attendances are high,cricket is good and high quality with high quality overseas stars, and its obviously a very marketable product.
If's something that clearly had to be emulated in the English league.We couldn't stand back and be the last ones out of the block again.

Now,believe it or not, i'm probably in favour of retaining the T20 format and turning it into ,say, a 2 division format, with the county teams playing in a sortof 2nd division. There are obviously marketing and business related decisions that have created this '100' contest - , but, as Canters has his (very valid and well researched) opinions on this, but, i trust the people like Vaughan,Hussain,Giles,Strauss who have all come out in support of the competition more than i do Cantersaddick (nothing personal , Canters).
 I know very little about the construct of the game, like 10 ball overs and no lbw's etc, but am just excited about the prospect of having so many high class players playing in 1 game,under lights, and on terrestrial too. However, i dont like the snack company sponsorship thing.
TBH, when the 20/20 comp first came out, everyone just ridiculed it and said it was just hit-and giggles - look at it now, probably the most importanat (financially) format in the planet.

In my view England players will improve as will the English players on the fringe (and before someone comes on , and say 'they' will only play 3 games' - its not just game time, its also being around and in the nets with these guys.

But, to just slag it off dismiss it and say things like 'i'll go to the game if i get a free ticket, and just drink' or 'hope it crashes and burns' is just plain crass and childish

Mate I've said before these people are either paid by the ECB or sky who have put money into it. They're not allowed to not support it. Hardly impartial. Plenty of former players and some current ones (see my comments on the first page) and journos  have come out against it.

I give up - either its a shit idea or now its coz they are in the pay of the broadcaster.
ffs.