Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ECB’s “The Hundred”
Comments
-
Saw some highlights as had sky Sports News on last night, and I really really hate the graphics they use for the scores etc.4
-
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.7 -
Lots of sports have abridged formats to attract newbies though. You can "try a tri" if new to triathlon, at shorter than the sprint or olympic distances. It gets people who might not otherwise be interested in it taking it up. The crowds at the hundred have lots of kids watching excitedly during their school holidays.IAgree said:
Whatever this format is about it’s certainly not intended to promote cricket.moutuakilla said:Be good if they would promote the county game during this, mention some games people could go and see in the one day game. Get some games on terrestrial and the counties are hardly mentioned.
The shorter formats, and I include T20 in this, do make for potentially closer and more exciting finishes, and I like the idea of having a player draft recruitment system to even up competition. A bit early to judge how well that's working this year though.
It's cricket, just not as you and many others like it and I get that. My preference is for test cricket and T20, but I'll watch anything that moves if on readily available TV.
0 -
It really wasn't.MuttleyCAFC said:Was very entertaining last night.
For 80/90% of the game there was no atmosphere whatsoever. It was like being at a Fulham game! And even a screaming presenter couldnt raise the crowd.
OK the last 10 or so balls were interesting but surely a game has to be more than that to make it entertaining.3 -
I found it entertaining. You're telling me I'm wrong. Laughable 🤣Fortune 82nd Minute said:
It really wasn't.MuttleyCAFC said:Was very entertaining last night.
For 80/90% of the game there was no atmosphere whatsoever. It was like being at a Fulham game! And even a screaming presenter couldnt raise the crowd.
OK the last 10 or so balls were interesting but surely a game has to be more than that to make it entertaining.0 -
Well it was lashing all day & once the women’s game was cancelled we didn’t expect to get any cricket at all. But the weather gods were clearly on my side & we got 40 balls a side & boy did they deliver.
Delighted the Welsh won & I finally got to say, ‘the batsmen’s Holden the bowlers Willy’ to the delight of all around me! 🤣🤣🤣
Then off to the Old Arcade for a Brains & to watch the Invincibles beat the Spirit.
Curry picked up on the way home.
Happy Smudge 😎5 -
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.3 -
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.2 -
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Then it will have done its jobPrincessFiona said:
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.0 -
Never look at year 1 start up costs, especially as there were costs from aborting in 2020, let’s see what the numbers are like for ‘22.
as for ticket sales, it isn’t exactly easy to get tickets for London games as I’ve found out this week0 -
And I would wager apart from the test ground counties most of the others counties will lose money year on year, unless they have a source of income away from cricket.PrincessFiona said:
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.I don’t know the answer but IMO the county game cannot continue churning out the same product to the same low numbers of spectators if the numbers don’t add up.1 -
no it won't have but proper cricket will have won - if it was any good it wold last. But it won't because it isn'tChizz said:
Then it will have done its jobPrincessFiona said:
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.1 -
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Viewing it from the other end of the telescope, The Hundred provides desperately-needed funding for profligate, dreadfully-run counties, without which funding some, or possibly several, would be in existential threat.PrincessFiona said:
no it won't have but proper cricket will have won - if it was any good it wold last. But it won't because it isn'tChizz said:
Then it will have done its jobPrincessFiona said:
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.
The relationship between ECB revenue generation (England sponsorship and ticket receipts, The Hundred sponsorship and ticket receipts, broadcast revenues and so forth) and the "counties" is symbiotic. If there's a winner, or a loser, it's cricket.0 -
if it's any good it'll lastChizz said:
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Viewing it from the other end of the telescope, The Hundred provides desperately-needed funding for profligate, dreadfully-run counties, without which funding some, or possibly several, would be in existential threat.PrincessFiona said:
no it won't have but proper cricket will have won - if it was any good it wold last. But it won't because it isn'tChizz said:
Then it will have done its jobPrincessFiona said:
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.
The relationship between ECB revenue generation (England sponsorship and ticket receipts, The Hundred sponsorship and ticket receipts, broadcast revenues and so forth) and the "counties" is symbiotic. If there's a winner, or a loser, it's cricket.0 -
And, if it doesn't, then there will be some significant changes to county cricket's diminishing numbersPrincessFiona said:
if it's any good it'll lastChizz said:
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Viewing it from the other end of the telescope, The Hundred provides desperately-needed funding for profligate, dreadfully-run counties, without which funding some, or possibly several, would be in existential threat.PrincessFiona said:
no it won't have but proper cricket will have won - if it was any good it wold last. But it won't because it isn'tChizz said:
Then it will have done its jobPrincessFiona said:
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.
The relationship between ECB revenue generation (England sponsorship and ticket receipts, The Hundred sponsorship and ticket receipts, broadcast revenues and so forth) and the "counties" is symbiotic. If there's a winner, or a loser, it's cricket.0 -
And if it isn't, it won'tChizz said:
And, if it doesn't, then there will be some significant changes to county cricket's diminishing numbersPrincessFiona said:
if it's any good it'll lastChizz said:
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Viewing it from the other end of the telescope, The Hundred provides desperately-needed funding for profligate, dreadfully-run counties, without which funding some, or possibly several, would be in existential threat.PrincessFiona said:
no it won't have but proper cricket will have won - if it was any good it wold last. But it won't because it isn'tChizz said:
Then it will have done its jobPrincessFiona said:
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.
The relationship between ECB revenue generation (England sponsorship and ticket receipts, The Hundred sponsorship and ticket receipts, broadcast revenues and so forth) and the "counties" is symbiotic. If there's a winner, or a loser, it's cricket.1 -
Kent make more money from a physio clinic in Canterbury then they do from their membership revenuebillysboots said:
And I would wager apart from the test ground counties most of the others counties will lose money year on year, unless they have a source of income away from cricket.PrincessFiona said:
Debatable. And seems not enough are paying for tickets and it is losing money. It's anticipated it won't last for more than another few years. I think the test series, Blast and other traditional cricket will be around a lot longer that the next few yearsChizz said:
It's an interesting opinion. And yet half a million spectators seem to enjoy it and it's probably the most-watched live cricket in the country.PrincessFiona said:
No need for the Hundred which it seems will be gone in a few years anyway. T20 is certainly good enough and without the unnecessary Hundred, the rest of the schedule can be done without negatively impacting the existing forms of the game. Imagine squeezing the greatest cricket tournament into as few weeks as possible, mostly outside of the school holidays for a completely unnecessary version that is actually losing money to the detriment of cricket. If the kinds aren't into cricket as it is, then they don't need the stars/professionals to have an 'exciting experience. Let the cricketers play cricket and some others/softball players/the U18s etc could do the HundredChizz said:
I have no intention of arguing that you should like it. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. That's totally fine.IAgree said:
I love one day cricket and I resent it being undermined by this attempt to make money. However feel free to argue why I should like the format.Chizz said:
Starting?IAgree said:Anyway I’m starting to sound grumpy and some of you enjoy the format
I shall return next year with further scathing comments……
It would be very odd if everyone liked all forms of cricket - there's a lot to choose from these days. In many ways, cricket has changed in the last fifty years from being one format (like, say, football) to being two formats when ODIs were introduced (like rugby with XV and VII versions of the game) to the multi-format sport we have now (now, perhaps, closely mirroring cycling). The Hundred is not my favourite, but also far from being the worst (in my view).
Test cricket offers the supreme in cerebral conflict; T20Is offer a quick fix of international combat; The Hundred offers fans the chance to watch very high quality matches in both men's and women's sport. These are all good things.
Around half a million tickets will be sold to watch The Hundred this month. That's a huge number of people engaged and excited by a sport within a very short period of time. Much more than the Ryder Cup; about the same as Wimbledon; about half as many as the Six Nations. As a gateway drug for spectators to Test cricket, that would be a very good thing.
If you don't like it, no-one is going to force you to. But some people will progress from attending their first games in The Hundred to watching even better formats in the future. I like that.
My view is that anyone can decide for themselves whether they like it; and it seems that many people do.I don’t know the answer but IMO the county game cannot continue churning out the same product to the same low numbers of spectators if the numbers don’t add up.0 -
The current TV deal between the ECB and Sky/BBC has been extended until 2028, this includes the Hundred, so it'll last until then.
The plan is from next year for 90 hours of live domestic cricket across Sky/BBC per year. This doesn't include England overseas tours where the broadcast rights are owned by other cricket boards. If you are interested the broadcast rights for the international world cup (T20 and 50 over formats) and other ICC sanctioned events are owned by Star Sports of India who have that contract for years to come, they then sell them on to other national broadcasters. Star are owned by Disney (who bought it from Fox 21st Century a few years back).
I think the Hundred is good for the Women's game giving it a higher profile etc, but it's a negative for the Men's game, the 50 Over One Day cup began this week (England are only the current world champions) and has been relegated in importance, many of the best players are heading for the Hundred instead including most Test players.
The Hundred's popularity might have something to do with it being virtually the only live cricket on terrestrial TV but from anecdotal evidence it seems to be mostly popular with families wanting to keep their children/grandchildren occupied in school holidays rather than because it has any intrinsic sporting value. Whether it has any financial value is moot. It has soaked up a lot of start up money from the ECB and needs to start paying something back. If not then the ECB will deserve an award for destroying the 50 Over format and wasting money on a competition that few people want (other than the commentators who are contractually obliged to get giddy with excitement on command).
I'd rather that the T20 format was extended, perhaps by bringing in a few new franchise teams in say Scotland/Ireland/Norn Iron to take the game to parts of the British Isles that currently have little or no First Class cricket. The problem with this idea was that the ECB wanted to crowbar some extra money out of Sky and get some live cricket on the BBC, the existing broadcast rights contract made that impossible so a new format was dreamt up. It'll be interesting to see whether the Hundred survives after 2028 when the new broadcast contract kicks in. I can see it being kicked into touch and the BBC bidding for some T20 Blast matches instead. There's been an idea floating around that one live Test per year could be shown on terrestrial TV (i.e. one of the Lord's Tests) that could work but the BBC (or ITV, C4 etc) can't really compete with Sky's deeper pockets and while the latter are happy to see cricket broadcast on the BBC they don't want to hand over too much lest people start cancelling their subscriptions.
2 - Sponsored links:
-
Do some posters think that their opinion of the Hundred should define it as an experience for all. Saying it's not cricket, it's no good, and it's not entertaining are all subjective judgements, not fact.
I like it, along with other forms of cricket, all of which I find entertaining. That's just personal preference and nothing anyone says can influence how I feel watching it.
5 -
No one is saying their opinion should define it as an experience for allswordfish said:Do some posters think that their opinion of the Hundred should define it as an experience for all. Saying it's not cricket, it's no good, and it's not entertaining are all subjective judgements, not fact.
I like it, along with other forms of cricket, all of which I find entertaining. That's just personal preference and nothing anyone says can influence how I feel watching it.0 -
The Oval is sold out I believe but tickets are available for the Lords games.Rothko said:Never look at year 1 start up costs, especially as there were costs from aborting in 2020, let’s see what the numbers are like for ‘22.
as for ticket sales, it isn’t exactly easy to get tickets for London games as I’ve found out this week2 -
It's quite obviously cricket and entertaining if you like hit and giggle cricket along with cringey interviews conducted by reality tv stars plus flashy graphics. Is it really cricket though? Only in the sense that Strongbow is apparently classified as cider despite having a loose relationship with any actual apples.swordfish said:Do some posters think that their opinion of the Hundred should define it as an experience for all. Saying it's not cricket, it's no good, and it's not entertaining are all subjective judgements, not fact.
I like it, along with other forms of cricket, all of which I find entertaining. That's just personal preference and nothing anyone says can influence how I feel watching it.
The ECB binned the 40 Over competition because no other nation played that format, they wanted players to develop their skills in red ball FC cricket plusT20 and 50 Over cricket as these were played internationally. Now they've introduced a 100 ball game because something, actually it was to make money and plug a few financial holes and fit neatly into the evening TV schedules and not over-run with the 10PM news.
Good batsmen are having to develop their games now to play four separate formats which isn't good for them. You can see the effects of T20 franchise cricket in the lack of batsmen able to play at opener/number three for our Test team. We simply aren't giving batsmen the opportunity to play long innings and County sides are preferring to contract players who have a white ball game because that's where the money is.
Personally I consider the Hundred to be a grievous crime against cricket and humanity, whether that's objective or subjective I don't really care.7 -
That tells you all you need to know about the punters who frequent these grounds .Fortune 82nd Minute said:
The Oval is sold out I believe but tickets are available for the Lords games.Rothko said:Never look at year 1 start up costs, especially as there were costs from aborting in 2020, let’s see what the numbers are like for ‘22.
as for ticket sales, it isn’t exactly easy to get tickets for London games as I’ve found out this week
5 Ashes Tests at Lord's please .2 -
I'm entertained more by the sporting competition than the packaging. I don't go to football for the pies and to listen to the band at half time and the same applies to cricket.FSLN1 said:
It's quite obviously cricket and entertaining if you like hit and giggle cricket along with cringey interviews conducted by reality tv stars plus flashy graphics. Is it really cricket though? Only in the sense that Strongbow is apparently classified as cider despite having a loose relationship with any actual apples.swordfish said:Do some posters think that their opinion of the Hundred should define it as an experience for all. Saying it's not cricket, it's no good, and it's not entertaining are all subjective judgements, not fact.
I like it, along with other forms of cricket, all of which I find entertaining. That's just personal preference and nothing anyone says can influence how I feel watching it.
The ECB binned the 40 Over competition because no other nation played that format, they wanted players to develop their skills in red ball FC cricket plusT20 and 50 Over cricket as these were played internationally. Now they've introduced a 100 ball game because something, actually it was to make money and plug a few financial holes and fit neatly into the evening TV schedules and not over-run with the 10PM news.
Good batsmen are having to develop their games now to play four separate formats which isn't good for them. You can see the effects of T20 franchise cricket in the lack of batsmen able to play at opener/number three for our Test team. We simply aren't giving batsmen the opportunity to play long innings and County sides are preferring to contract players who have a white ball game because that's where the money is.
Personally I consider the Hundred to be a grievous crime against cricket and humanity, whether that's objective or subjective I don't really care.
In terms of the game itself, I don't regard the Hundred as so different to T20 and didn't see the need for both, but it's here and widely accessible, so I watch it and have seen games I've enjoyed, both men's and women's, irrespective of the razzmatazz.
A grievous crime against humanity? Don't make yourself look so ridiculous.
2 -
Another close ending! Southern Brave beat Welsh Fire1
-
What a finish - Tie at the Oval0
-
Could have been rained off for the points they get for that entertainment. Oval manage a draw by millimetres.Women invincibles lost earlier with a terrible tally posted. Almost the lowest in hundred history.0
-
One of the attractions (not for me but I assume others) of The Hundred is that the shorter you make a game the greater the chance of a close finish. This forgets the fact that a one-sided game is dull (IMHO).1
