Very interesting questions @Addick Addict. I wonder if the real things that hold state educated kids back from professional cricket are things that the 100 couldn't possibly address. Namely lack of resources, and in particular physical space. In comparison you need a lot less space and equipment to organise football lessons/matches.
Even if a State secondary school has the space (and plenty of them have football and rugby pitches) there are two other things they need - a square fit for cricket (and a groundsman capable of maintaining one) because if they haven't then it will be dangerous. The other is that the school has to have teachers that understand cricket or bring in coaches. The latter requires funding.
But there are still schools that have the space and provide school games of cricket and plenty of talented cricketers out there who do not become part of the pathway because they are not favoured. And by that I mean this. If you have a coach at a school who is a former county cricketer then he will have direct links to the county and his opinion will be valued. Now, if that coach then offers one to one coaching to that pupil he has a vested interest in that individual's success. How does the lad who plays for a State school and whose parents can't afford one to ones and is at an unfashionable club get those same opportunities?
The link to The Hundred is that Harrison keeps using it as the vehicle that is going to bring cricket to all. Watching it possibly. On the pathway to playing it at the highest level certainly not.
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
What IS important is the damage IT IS doing to the game
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
What about first class games that can take place over four days or five? Or three or six? What about the 1 day tournament that’s currently 50 overs a side but at different points in time has been anywhere from 40 to 60 overs? Should those be counted separately? The notion that combining records like this is something new is a bit of a red herring.
Where’s the transparency in where all the money it’s bringing in to cricket is going to end up? I can’t find it. There must be a business plan and financial forecasts somewhere.
I mentioned previously that Sussex had 12 contracted players between the ages of 17 and 20 as opposed to Kent's two (one being Jordan Cox and the other Tawanda Muyeye who came from Sussex too).
The current Sussex CC team playing in this week's CC game has an average age of just over 20 and the following table has been tweeted by way of evidence:
Apart from their incredibly youthful team, the other striking aspect of this is that this XI were all privately educated (as were Muyeye and Cox at Kent).
An incredibly small number of pro footballers are privately educated. Equally, there are far more State school recreational cricketers than there are privately educated ones. So why are more State school children not breaking through? Perhaps the ECB should be asked as to how they propose State school educated children that pay to watch The Hundred, whose parents can't afford to send their child to a private school (even with a full scholarship), can progress into County age group squads?
I think the answer lies with the relationship between not the clubs and counties but the schools and counties. Take Eastbourne College for example. The Head of Cricket there is Rob Ferley, former Kent cricketer. He is the eyes and ears of the county and has a vested interest in producing pro cricketers because the more he does that the more attractive the school becomes. I believe that Sussex have an App that is shared by them and school coaches so both can monitor the progress and work on aspects of a child's game together. When a State school doesn't even support cricket as part of their curriculum there is no such continuity. The majority of parents don't have the money to pay for all that playing cricket at county age group level entails. Clubs don't either and neither do counties such as Kent.
So does Tom Harrison, the ECB CEO, who was himself privately educated himself at Oundle School actually understand this? Or is that he has no vested interest whatsoever in changing this? The programmes such as All Stars and Dynamos that the ECB sponsor only apply to the age of 10. They also end prior to The Hundred so the interest element is lost because there is no end product available anyway.
There are some interesting points here, but it's not really a post about The Hundred, which this thread is about. And The Hundred was never intended as a solution to counties drawing almost exclusively on private schools for their talent pool.
It is very much about The Hundred and Harrison's attempts to use it to engage kids at State schools:
"It's all a big challenge trying to capture kids' imaginations and young people's imaginations," he said. "We are competing with everything. We've had a lot of news about Fortnite recently in the news - that's the kind of competitive landscape that we're in.
"We've got a plan - it's called 'Inspiring Generations'. We launched it at the start of the year, [and] it's literally kicking off right now using the Ashes and the World Cup as a platform for growing the game.
"It's all about transforming the women's and girls' game in this country, and looking again at our schools strategy, because we're not comfortable about where we're at with schools in this country."
Harrison claimed that cricket had already enjoyed a post-World Cup bounce, highlighting strong sales in Vitality Blast tickets, and claimed that the ECB had seen "people writing in and saying 'my family have never really looked at cricket as being an option', and suddenly it's something that their kids are talking about, they want to play, they want to be part of".
Despite their apparent marginalisation to open up a window for The Hundred from next year, he said that the ECB have "got to put our counties at the heart of the challenge to grow the game in this country", and to ensure "that our county clubs are filling grounds across the country more regularly and for more formats of the game".
He also highlighted the role of the ECB's South Asian community programme, and said England "have got an incredibly diverse team that won the World Cup and that's playing in this Ashes Test right now" - despite the fact that ten of the side for the Edgbaston Test are white British and six were privately educated.
This interview was more than two years ago. The Hundred was and still is being touted as a vehicle to bring cricket to the masses. The masses can buy tickets but there is still no evidence whatsoever that he and the ECB have done a single thing to incentivise kids from State schools to break into the county set up. The fact that all 14 under 20 contracted players at Kent and Sussex were privately educated says it all in that respect.
No, you're conflating The Hundred with the ECB.
Isn’t this a bit like saying, ‘don’t confuse Fred West with the things he DID’?
I mentioned previously that Sussex had 12 contracted players between the ages of 17 and 20 as opposed to Kent's two (one being Jordan Cox and the other Tawanda Muyeye who came from Sussex too).
The current Sussex CC team playing in this week's CC game has an average age of just over 20 and the following table has been tweeted by way of evidence:
Apart from their incredibly youthful team, the other striking aspect of this is that this XI were all privately educated (as were Muyeye and Cox at Kent).
An incredibly small number of pro footballers are privately educated. Equally, there are far more State school recreational cricketers than there are privately educated ones. So why are more State school children not breaking through? Perhaps the ECB should be asked as to how they propose State school educated children that pay to watch The Hundred, whose parents can't afford to send their child to a private school (even with a full scholarship), can progress into County age group squads?
I think the answer lies with the relationship between not the clubs and counties but the schools and counties. Take Eastbourne College for example. The Head of Cricket there is Rob Ferley, former Kent cricketer. He is the eyes and ears of the county and has a vested interest in producing pro cricketers because the more he does that the more attractive the school becomes. I believe that Sussex have an App that is shared by them and school coaches so both can monitor the progress and work on aspects of a child's game together. When a State school doesn't even support cricket as part of their curriculum there is no such continuity. The majority of parents don't have the money to pay for all that playing cricket at county age group level entails. Clubs don't either and neither do counties such as Kent.
So does Tom Harrison, the ECB CEO, who was himself privately educated himself at Oundle School actually understand this? Or is that he has no vested interest whatsoever in changing this? The programmes such as All Stars and Dynamos that the ECB sponsor only apply to the age of 10. They also end prior to The Hundred so the interest element is lost because there is no end product available anyway.
There are some interesting points here, but it's not really a post about The Hundred, which this thread is about. And The Hundred was never intended as a solution to counties drawing almost exclusively on private schools for their talent pool.
It is very much about The Hundred and Harrison's attempts to use it to engage kids at State schools:
"It's all a big challenge trying to capture kids' imaginations and young people's imaginations," he said. "We are competing with everything. We've had a lot of news about Fortnite recently in the news - that's the kind of competitive landscape that we're in.
"We've got a plan - it's called 'Inspiring Generations'. We launched it at the start of the year, [and] it's literally kicking off right now using the Ashes and the World Cup as a platform for growing the game.
"It's all about transforming the women's and girls' game in this country, and looking again at our schools strategy, because we're not comfortable about where we're at with schools in this country."
Harrison claimed that cricket had already enjoyed a post-World Cup bounce, highlighting strong sales in Vitality Blast tickets, and claimed that the ECB had seen "people writing in and saying 'my family have never really looked at cricket as being an option', and suddenly it's something that their kids are talking about, they want to play, they want to be part of".
Despite their apparent marginalisation to open up a window for The Hundred from next year, he said that the ECB have "got to put our counties at the heart of the challenge to grow the game in this country", and to ensure "that our county clubs are filling grounds across the country more regularly and for more formats of the game".
He also highlighted the role of the ECB's South Asian community programme, and said England "have got an incredibly diverse team that won the World Cup and that's playing in this Ashes Test right now" - despite the fact that ten of the side for the Edgbaston Test are white British and six were privately educated.
This interview was more than two years ago. The Hundred was and still is being touted as a vehicle to bring cricket to the masses. The masses can buy tickets but there is still no evidence whatsoever that he and the ECB have done a single thing to incentivise kids from State schools to break into the county set up. The fact that all 14 under 20 contracted players at Kent and Sussex were privately educated says it all in that respect.
No, you're conflating The Hundred with the ECB.
Isn’t this a bit like saying, ‘don’t confuse Fred West with the things he DID’?
No. It's like saying 'Fred West was a terrible builder, no wonder so many people ended up being murdered'
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
If that includes matches he's played in The Hundred, it should definitely not be included.
No "if" it does. Can't believe someone of your intelligence and ability to wind people up on here can't recognise the fact. Scroll down the page if you don't believe me. Or keep looking for The Hundred column for games. It might take you a while to find it
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
What about first class games that can take place over four days or five? Or three or six? What about the 1 day tournament that’s currently 50 overs a side but at different points in time has been anywhere from 40 to 60 overs? Should those be counted separately? The notion that combining records like this is something new is a bit of a red herring.
So the term "over" that has been in place since cricket began now has to disappear because of a Mickey Mouse competition invented by the ECB foe their own ends. Maybe Umpires should now call "that's 6 legitimate balls" instead of "over" as that term is no longer recognised!
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
the one day game has always been the working man's game, how many leagues play other than one dayers ? for example ..Bradford Premier League - Wikipedia ..
the longer 'county' and 'test' version were the medium for the leisured 'gentlemen' who could afford to employ 'players' as professionals, players who usually did the bowling, the outfielding and looked after the grounds and pitches.
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
But it doesn't mean is it good for the game of cricket overall. The Super League would have been entertaining - but not good for the game of football overall. Like the ECB (does the C not stand for Cricket in the Fred West analogy?). Maybe the franchises could have their own players and not disrupt the existing forms
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
But it doesn't mean is it good for the game of cricket overall. The Super League would have been entertaining - but not good for the game of football overall. Like the ECB (does the C not stand for Cricket in the Fred West analogy?). Maybe the franchises could have their own players and not disrupt the existing forms
I didn’t say it was good for game or cricket overall.
All I’m pointing out is different supporters of cricket see things differently & shouldn’t just be berated just because it that.
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
So what makes The Hundred different from T20 as a game? 20 balls per side? That surely can't be the difference between your friend watching a T20 game on the Beeb can it? Except the ECB didn't negotiate with the Beeb to show any T20 matches so your friend could not have watched any of those if they tried.
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
So what makes The Hundred different from T20 as a game? 20 balls per side? That surely can't be the difference between your friend watching a T20 game on the Beeb can it? Except the ECB didn't negotiate with the Beeb to show any T20 matches so your friend could not have watched any of those if they tried.
The BBC weren't interested, and nor were Sky in paying any more for the Blast
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
So what makes The Hundred different from T20 as a game? 20 balls per side? That surely can't be the difference between your friend watching a T20 game on the Beeb can it? Except the ECB didn't negotiate with the Beeb to show any T20 matches so your friend could not have watched any of those if they tried.
No. She attended ones she was able to live. She actually prefers to watch sport live. She’s a Cardiff City season ticket holder & when Cardiff are away, she goes to watch Cardiff Blues in the rugby if they’re at home.
And she’s a bit like myself, likes to listen to sports on the radio, that’s how she covers any 5 day games she wants to keep up to date with. That way she can be doing something else at the same time 🤣
I honestly think the main difference between the Hundred and the Blast for her was being able to watch the women as well as the men. It was a huge driver for her getting the tickets in the first place.
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
If that includes matches he's played in The Hundred, it should definitely not be included.
No "if" it does. Can't believe someone of your intelligence and ability to wind people up on here can't recognise the fact. Scroll down the page if you don't believe me. Or keep looking for The Hundred column for games. It might take you a while to find it
I don't think matches in The Hundred should count towards the domestic T20 records of players, in the same way second XI matches shouldn't count towards first class records or Sheffield Shield matches count towards Test records. They're all different. However, it appears they do. No explanation was given, other than a short sentence in something written by Andrew Miller in July: "All statistics from the Hundred will be logged under the existing T20 data". This seems a daft decision to me.
I don't think it's a 'damage' to the game. But I recognise that lots of people are fascinated by the statistics that cricket throws up.
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
But it doesn't mean is it good for the game of cricket overall. The Super League would have been entertaining - but not good for the game of football overall. Like the ECB (does the C not stand for Cricket in the Fred West analogy?). Maybe the franchises could have their own players and not disrupt the existing forms
I didn’t say it was good for game or cricket overall.
All I’m pointing out is different supporters of cricket see things differently & shouldn’t just be berated just because it that.
I didn't say you did and no one is bein berated. As pointed out previously, despite Chizz asking the same question over, one (new) form of cricket is having an adverse affect on the existing ones. Now, some people will not a) accept b) care about that, as long as they are entertained by the new format. But others will care. The owners of the clubs involved thought the Super League was a great idea - doesn't make it right for the game though!
In rugby 7's, internationals are unlikely to be an international at the standard XV format (but not impossible, before someone quotes those that have played both recently)
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
So what makes The Hundred different from T20 as a game? 20 balls per side? That surely can't be the difference between your friend watching a T20 game on the Beeb can it? Except the ECB didn't negotiate with the Beeb to show any T20 matches so your friend could not have watched any of those if they tried.
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
If that includes matches he's played in The Hundred, it should definitely not be included.
No "if" it does. Can't believe someone of your intelligence and ability to wind people up on here can't recognise the fact. Scroll down the page if you don't believe me. Or keep looking for The Hundred column for games. It might take you a while to find it
I don't think matches in The Hundred should count towards the domestic T20 records of players, in the same way second XI matches shouldn't count towards first class records or Sheffield Shield matches count towards Test records. They're all different. However, it appears they do. No explanation was given, other than a short sentence in something written by Andrew Miller in July: "All statistics from the Hundred will be logged under the existing T20 data". This seems a daft decision to me.
I don't think it's a 'damage' to the game. But I recognise that lots of people are fascinated by the statistics that cricket throws up.
It's not the same though is it? Questioning whether the balls bowled in the Hundred should be included in T20 stats is vastly different from the removal of the term "over". A term that has been in place since the invention of the game but that disappeared in a nanosecond courtesy of the ECB because it does not fit the narrative of The Hundred.
"So what were your figures today?" the 3rd team skipper asks the 4th team opening bowler. "8 overs, 6 maidens, 4 for 8" is the reply one might have heard pre The Hundred. Now it will be "48 balls, 38 dots, 4 for 26".
Good luck with the bowler getting the number of dot balls from Play Cricket let alone the scorer on the day of the game!!!!
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
If that includes matches he's played in The Hundred, it should definitely not be included.
No "if" it does. Can't believe someone of your intelligence and ability to wind people up on here can't recognise the fact. Scroll down the page if you don't believe me. Or keep looking for The Hundred column for games. It might take you a while to find it
I don't think matches in The Hundred should count towards the domestic T20 records of players, in the same way second XI matches shouldn't count towards first class records or Sheffield Shield matches count towards Test records. They're all different. However, it appears they do. No explanation was given, other than a short sentence in something written by Andrew Miller in July: "All statistics from the Hundred will be logged under the existing T20 data". This seems a daft decision to me.
I don't think it's a 'damage' to the game. But I recognise that lots of people are fascinated by the statistics that cricket throws up.
It's not the same though is it? Questioning whether the balls bowled in the Hundred should be included in T20 stats is vastly different from the removal of the term "over". A term that has been in place since the invention of the game but that disappeared in a nanosecond courtesy of the ECB because it does not fit the narrative of The Hundred.
"So what were your figures today?" the 3rd team skipper asks the 4th team opening bowler. "8 overs, 6 maidens, 4 for 8" is the reply one might have heard pre The Hundred. Now it will be "48 balls, 38 dots, 4 for 26".
Good luck with the bowler getting the number of dot balls from Play Cricket let alone the scorer on the day of the game!!!!
I don't think it's being suggested that overs or maidens will be done away with in other formats.
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
If that includes matches he's played in The Hundred, it should definitely not be included.
No "if" it does. Can't believe someone of your intelligence and ability to wind people up on here can't recognise the fact. Scroll down the page if you don't believe me. Or keep looking for The Hundred column for games. It might take you a while to find it
I don't think matches in The Hundred should count towards the domestic T20 records of players, in the same way second XI matches shouldn't count towards first class records or Sheffield Shield matches count towards Test records. They're all different. However, it appears they do. No explanation was given, other than a short sentence in something written by Andrew Miller in July: "All statistics from the Hundred will be logged under the existing T20 data". This seems a daft decision to me.
I don't think it's a 'damage' to the game. But I recognise that lots of people are fascinated by the statistics that cricket throws up.
It's not the same though is it? Questioning whether the balls bowled in the Hundred should be included in T20 stats is vastly different from the removal of the term "over". A term that has been in place since the invention of the game but that disappeared in a nanosecond courtesy of the ECB because it does not fit the narrative of The Hundred.
"So what were your figures today?" the 3rd team skipper asks the 4th team opening bowler. "8 overs, 6 maidens, 4 for 8" is the reply one might have heard pre The Hundred. Now it will be "48 balls, 38 dots, 4 for 26".
Good luck with the bowler getting the number of dot balls from Play Cricket let alone the scorer on the day of the game!!!!
I don't think it's being suggested that overs or maidens will be done away with in other formats.
They do not appear in the stats:
Jimmy Anderson's are below and his Test stats appear as
The ECB now want clubs to play The Hundred instead of T20. It would not surprise me in the least if they feed this down to the County age groups and on Play Cricket (which they own), they make the format balls rather than overs for that reason.
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
But it doesn't mean is it good for the game of cricket overall. The Super League would have been entertaining - but not good for the game of football overall. Like the ECB (does the C not stand for Cricket in the Fred West analogy?). Maybe the franchises could have their own players and not disrupt the existing forms
I didn’t say it was good for game or cricket overall.
All I’m pointing out is different supporters of cricket see things differently & shouldn’t just be berated just because it that.
I didn't say you did and no one is bein berated. As pointed out previously, despite Chizz asking the same question over, one (new) form of cricket is having an adverse affect on the existing ones. Now, some people will not a) accept b) care about that, as long as they are entertained by the new format. But others will care. The owners of the clubs involved thought the Super League was a great idea - doesn't make it right for the game though!
In rugby 7's, internationals are unlikely to be an international at the standard XV format (but not impossible, before someone quotes those that have played both recently)
Some are being berated though, maybe not by you but they are.
Theres a huge difference between the constant comparison with the super league & franchise cricket. The supporters. There is zero appetite from most supporters for a super league in football but after being shown how good it is, there is an interest for franchise cricket.
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Matches in The Hundred do not count towards Test, ODI, T20i, First Class, List A, or T20 records, because they are not Tests, One Day Internationals, T20 internationals, First class matches, List A matches, or T20 matches. There are records for each and all of these categories, none of which will be changed, impacted, altered or otherwise amended or appended by what takes place in matches in The Hundred.
In no way does this 'damage the game'. Overs will continue to be six, consecutive deliveries bowled by one bowler in a first class match a limited over match or a T20 match, until such time as that number changes again (as it has in the past).
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the recording of maiden overs in a format of cricket that has neither maidens or overs.
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish. Take a look at Tom Curran's record and you will find no category for The Hundred. The reason? Because it has been included in his T20 record. There is also no reference whatsoever under those stats for any form of the game to "Overs" let alone "Maidens":
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
If that includes matches he's played in The Hundred, it should definitely not be included.
No "if" it does. Can't believe someone of your intelligence and ability to wind people up on here can't recognise the fact. Scroll down the page if you don't believe me. Or keep looking for The Hundred column for games. It might take you a while to find it
I don't think matches in The Hundred should count towards the domestic T20 records of players, in the same way second XI matches shouldn't count towards first class records or Sheffield Shield matches count towards Test records. They're all different. However, it appears they do. No explanation was given, other than a short sentence in something written by Andrew Miller in July: "All statistics from the Hundred will be logged under the existing T20 data". This seems a daft decision to me.
I don't think it's a 'damage' to the game. But I recognise that lots of people are fascinated by the statistics that cricket throws up.
It's not the same though is it? Questioning whether the balls bowled in the Hundred should be included in T20 stats is vastly different from the removal of the term "over". A term that has been in place since the invention of the game but that disappeared in a nanosecond courtesy of the ECB because it does not fit the narrative of The Hundred.
"So what were your figures today?" the 3rd team skipper asks the 4th team opening bowler. "8 overs, 6 maidens, 4 for 8" is the reply one might have heard pre The Hundred. Now it will be "48 balls, 38 dots, 4 for 26".
Good luck with the bowler getting the number of dot balls from Play Cricket let alone the scorer on the day of the game!!!!
I don't think it's being suggested that overs or maidens will be done away with in other formats.
They do not appear in the stats:
Jimmy Anderson's are below and his Test stats appear as
The ECB now want clubs to play The Hundred instead of T20. It would not surprise me in the least if they feed this down to the County age groups and on Play Cricket (which they own), they make the format balls rather than overs for that reason.
It's good news that the ECB want clubs to play The Hundred (with its inherent advantages in terms of time) as long as it's only at the expense of T20 matches.
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
But it doesn't mean is it good for the game of cricket overall. The Super League would have been entertaining - but not good for the game of football overall. Like the ECB (does the C not stand for Cricket in the Fred West analogy?). Maybe the franchises could have their own players and not disrupt the existing forms
I didn’t say it was good for game or cricket overall.
All I’m pointing out is different supporters of cricket see things differently & shouldn’t just be berated just because it that.
I didn't say you did and no one is bein berated. As pointed out previously, despite Chizz asking the same question over, one (new) form of cricket is having an adverse affect on the existing ones. Now, some people will not a) accept b) care about that, as long as they are entertained by the new format. But others will care. The owners of the clubs involved thought the Super League was a great idea - doesn't make it right for the game though!
In rugby 7's, internationals are unlikely to be an international at the standard XV format (but not impossible, before someone quotes those that have played both recently)
Some are being berated though, maybe not by you but they are.
Theres a huge difference between the constant comparison with the super league & franchise cricket. The supporters. There is zero appetite from most supporters for a super league in football but after being shown how good it is, there is an interest for franchise cricket.
Just because people enjoy watching it, doesn't mean it's right.
I have said I completely understand why others aren’t happy with The Hundred.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
Cricket needs supporters…………………all forms, all types.
But it doesn't mean is it good for the game of cricket overall. The Super League would have been entertaining - but not good for the game of football overall. Like the ECB (does the C not stand for Cricket in the Fred West analogy?). Maybe the franchises could have their own players and not disrupt the existing forms
I didn’t say it was good for game or cricket overall.
All I’m pointing out is different supporters of cricket see things differently & shouldn’t just be berated just because it that.
I didn't say you did and no one is bein berated. As pointed out previously, despite Chizz asking the same question over, one (new) form of cricket is having an adverse affect on the existing ones. Now, some people will not a) accept b) care about that, as long as they are entertained by the new format. But others will care. The owners of the clubs involved thought the Super League was a great idea - doesn't make it right for the game though!
In rugby 7's, internationals are unlikely to be an international at the standard XV format (but not impossible, before someone quotes those that have played both recently)
Some are being berated though, maybe not by you but they are.
Theres a huge difference between the constant comparison with the super league & franchise cricket. The supporters. There is zero appetite from most supporters for a super league in football but after being shown how good it is, there is an interest for franchise cricket.
Just because people enjoy watching it, doesn't mean it's right.
If only more people wanted to/could actually watch five day cricket more often.
Sadly they don’t/can’t.
I don’t know the answer. I don’t know how you can keep everyone happy. But those who have enjoyed The Hundred shouldn’t be the ones at the end of those who don’t like it’s cool tongue.
I didn't say you did and no one is bein berated. As pointed out previously, despite Chizz asking the same question over, one (new) form of cricket is having an adverse affect on the existing ones. Now, some people will not a) accept b) care about that, as long as they are entertained by the new format. But others will care. The owners of the clubs involved thought the Super League was a great idea - doesn't make it right for the game though!
In rugby 7's, internationals are unlikely to be an international at the standard XV format (but not impossible, before someone quotes those that have played both recently)
Some are being berated though, maybe not by you but they are.
Theres a huge difference between the constant comparison with the super league & franchise cricket. The supporters. There is zero appetite from most supporters for a super league in football but after being shown how good it is, there is an interest for franchise cricket.
My main reason for the comparison was that the ££££s element and it not being good for the sport as a whole
The ECB now want clubs to play The Hundred instead of T20. It would not surprise me in the least if they feed this down to the County age groups and on Play Cricket (which they own), they make the format balls rather than overs for that reason.
It's good news that the ECB want clubs to play The Hundred (with its inherent advantages in terms of time) as long as it's only at the expense of T20 matches.
Comments
But there are still schools that have the space and provide school games of cricket and plenty of talented cricketers out there who do not become part of the pathway because they are not favoured. And by that I mean this. If you have a coach at a school who is a former county cricketer then he will have direct links to the county and his opinion will be valued. Now, if that coach then offers one to one coaching to that pupil he has a vested interest in that individual's success. How does the lad who plays for a State school and whose parents can't afford one to ones and is at an unfashionable club get those same opportunities?
The link to The Hundred is that Harrison keeps using it as the vehicle that is going to bring cricket to all. Watching it possibly. On the pathway to playing it at the highest level certainly not.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/tom-curran-550235
It's as if Tom Curran never bowled an over yet alone a maiden. Yet another "improvement" to that game as a result of The Hundred!
Where’s the transparency in where all the money it’s bringing in to cricket is going to end up? I can’t find it. There must be a business plan and financial forecasts somewhere.
Why are you choosing to ignore that?
Interesting conversation with my Welsh Bestie (who I introduced to cricket whilst she was my boss when we both worked at Vauxhall & is now a regular at Glamorgan) her Hundred ticket money was refunded before she’d even got the email to say her tickets had been cancelled for the opening fixtures at Sophia Gardens. She believes that the ECB didn’t realise that Wales were under different lockdown restrictions to England & sold a full capacity by mistake.
She added that she wasn’t bitter about it, watched every single game on the beeb & can’t wait until next year when she’s invited me to join her (which I hope I can). She also commented on why she liked it. She was thoroughly entertained, she admitted it could have been the lack of sports with crowds but entertained none the less. And, in her words not mine, it wasn’t ‘five days wasted and still ending up with a draw’ cricket 🤷♀️
the longer 'county' and 'test' version were the medium for the leisured 'gentlemen' who could afford to employ 'players' as professionals, players who usually did the bowling, the outfielding and looked after the grounds and pitches.
All I’m pointing out is different supporters of cricket see things differently & shouldn’t just be berated just because it that.
She attended ones she was able to live.
She actually prefers to watch sport live. She’s a Cardiff City season ticket holder & when Cardiff are away, she goes to watch Cardiff Blues in the rugby if they’re at home.
And she’s a bit like myself, likes to listen to sports on the radio, that’s how she covers any 5 day games she wants to keep up to date with. That way she can be doing something else at the same time 🤣
I honestly think the main difference between the Hundred and the Blast for her was being able to watch the women as well as the men. It was a huge driver for her getting the tickets in the first place.
I don't think it's a 'damage' to the game. But I recognise that lots of people are fascinated by the statistics that cricket throws up.
In rugby 7's, internationals are unlikely to be an international at the standard XV format (but not impossible, before someone quotes those that have played both recently)
"So what were your figures today?" the 3rd team skipper asks the 4th team opening bowler. "8 overs, 6 maidens, 4 for 8" is the reply one might have heard pre The Hundred. Now it will be "48 balls, 38 dots, 4 for 26".
Good luck with the bowler getting the number of dot balls from Play Cricket let alone the scorer on the day of the game!!!!
Jimmy Anderson's are below and his Test stats appear as
https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/james-anderson-8608
The ECB now want clubs to play The Hundred instead of T20. It would not surprise me in the least if they feed this down to the County age groups and on Play Cricket (which they own), they make the format balls rather than overs for that reason.
Theres a huge difference between the constant comparison with the super league & franchise cricket. The supporters. There is zero appetite from most supporters for a super league in football but after being shown how good it is, there is an interest for franchise cricket.
It's good news that the ECB want clubs to play The Hundred (with its inherent advantages in terms of time) as long as it's only at the expense of T20 matches.
Sadly they don’t/can’t.
I don’t know the answer. I don’t know how you can keep everyone happy. But those who have enjoyed The Hundred shouldn’t be the ones at the end of those who don’t like it’s cool tongue.