The Hundred

Waste of time competition that is not wanted or needed. Instead of trying to introduce this rubbish they should’ve been making a big thing of 20/20 in 2020 before COVID intervened obviously
 
No overs, any bowler can bowl 20 deliveries in an innings but no more than 10 in a row with a minimum of 5 at a time.
Can't get my head round that structure, wouldn't like to captain a side and work out my bowlers from all that or keep up with it as a commentator or an umpire.
You've got Joe Root playing for Trent Rockets and Liam Livingstone for Birmingham Phoenix. Can't get my head round all that either and players being distributed to other sides. In a football comparison it's like playing a normal season and then half way through seeing Jerry Yates playing for Deepdale Ducks for a month .
Least the kits should be traditional, oh hold on a minute.......
 
It's cricket for people who don't like or understand cricket.

A complete waste of time and effort, I haven't spoken to one genuine cricket fan who thinks it is a good idea.
 
I think of my Dad who loved Cricket and would be horrified if he was still around to see this. I feel sorry for those who don't have access to Sky and this will be their cricket fix. It's sad and the game is just selling out. They have spoilt so much and yet there is still so much to love about it.
 
Test cricket....then 50 overs......then 20 overs......then sod the over just have 100 ball.......are we soon going to see super over cricket, just six balls?

Is this an attempt to make a competitive town/city league structure, like football has? If that's the case, why can't they just use T20?
 
Don't think I'll bother with it. The competition itself may or may not be a good idea- I tend to think not, but there's no soul to it.

I'd much rather have a proper structure to the 4 day game and the one days (50 + 20)
 
The women's game has improved massively, it's gone from Under 9's to Sunday League. As for the new format, I'm yet to be convinced that cricket needs another shortened format.
 
Unbelievable comments from a lot of stuck in the mud dinosaurs on here.

I'm well up for it. It's a quick entertaining game of cricket and if you are a genuine cricket lover you'll watch it.

The short format is the future (as I've been saying for years on here) as it's what people want and it's what fills cricket grounds. Cricket in it's purest form. Some people are stuck in the dark ages which ain't coming back.
 
I wander down and watch the county championship games sometimes, hardly anyone there. It's depressing cos I really like it, but not enough moaners actually show up. It's easy for me obviously, I wouldn't if I wasn't nearby. The choice seems to be between cricket that sells or no cricket. Excellent T20 game last night again, and that had a similar initial reception to the Hundred. T20 is popular. It pays the wages and the bills.

Red ball cricket will probably die out alongside cask ale. 🤠
 
TangerineTed said:
Waste of time competition that is not wanted or needed. Instead of trying to introduce this rubbish they should’ve been making a big thing of 20/20 in 2020 before COVID intervened obviously
Click to expand...
The big selling point is that it's on terrestrial TV. Sky have exclusive rights to the other forms.

This is about getting the public engaged with the game again, after becoming a niche sport only seen by a few.
 
The thing is, previous new format introductions have been for logical reasons and give significant advantages of doing it. For example, the big advantage of T20 over ODI is that you can have midweek games that people can attend after work.
This just feels a bit too much like the same to me. What's it's selling point vs the other formats? What will it allow that the other formats won't? Valid questions I think.
 
Dollar Thief said:
Stuck in the dark ages? no one is moaning about T20 and that is less than 20 years old.

The difference between T20 and The Hundred is the same as reducing a game of football from 90 minutes to 75, no doubt you'd be thinking that would be a great idea?

It just seems stupid to run the two (T20 & The Hundred) against each other and just look how many towns aren't involved, there are only 8 teams in the tournament, I'd always support a team that represented Lancashire but never a team with another towns/cities name.

There won't be many scouse Lancashire fans wanting Manchester to win.
Click to expand...

Poor analogy as the 100 is set up differently. The 2 comps aren't competing as they are both different rules, different platforms, not using counties and are making the women's teams an integral part of the package. I don't support a Premier League football team but I'll still watch the games.

Listen if you don't like it - fine. Leave it to others. Like Voy said there are a whole host of moaners about these short format games but they NEVER attend Country cricket.

Was only a few years ago people were moaning (actually on here a lot still are) that T20 was an abomination. But it's hugely successful on a global level and is filling stadia all over the world so it must be doing it right.

People still long for steam trains - but they are a thing of the past. You either get with it or stop watching.
 
Last edited:
BFC_53 said:
The thing is, previous new format introductions have been for logical reasons and give significant advantages of doing it. For example, the big advantage of T20 over ODI is that you can have midweek games that people can attend after work.
This just feels a bit too much like the same to me. What's it's selling point vs the other formats? What will it allow that the other formats won't? Valid questions I think.
Click to expand...

I would say because T20 is so huge they feel there is room to fill grounds more regularly with another competition along the same vein. Good economics.
 
Macseasider said:
I would say because T20 is so huge they feel there is room to fill grounds more regularly with another competition along the same vein. Good economics.
Click to expand...
I remain to be convinced but I like to think i'm open minded so will watch tomorrow too. I could see the appeal of developing a town/city league structure much like there is in football, if that's what they're trying to do.
 
BBC media personality grabs an interview with Mum and 2 'cute' kids....

"What do you like most about The Hundred?" asks the interviewer,

..."The fireworks."

The Hundred seeks to attract a new audience.
 
Dollar Thief said:
Stuck in the dark ages? no one is moaning about T20 and that is less than 20 years old.

The difference between T20 and The Hundred is the same as reducing a game of football from 90 minutes to 75, no doubt you'd be thinking that would be a great idea?

It just seems stupid to run the two (T20 & The Hundred) against each other and just look how many towns aren't involved, there are only 8 teams in the tournament, I'd always support a team that represented Lancashire but never a team with another towns/cities name.

There won't be many scouse Lancashire fans wanting Manchester to win.
Click to expand...
Lots of people moaned about T20 before it started. Just like now.

T20 was like reducing 50 overs cricket from a 90 minute game to half an hour.

More cities could join later, like Liverpool. Manchester has a large local population.

I don't know if it'll work but I'm not writing it off before it starts. T20 is way more popular than the stuff that went before so there's a logic. People want short format cricket.
 
Dollar Thief said:
Just looked at the teams.

Manchester Originals
Northern Superchargers
Birmingham Phoenix
Trent Rockets
Welsh Fire
London Spirit
Oval Invincibles
Southern Brave

There's no consistency in the names
1 named after a country.
3 named after cities.
1 who is within of the cities
1 named after a river

Manchester are also Northern and London and Oval are also Southern.

I take it not much thought went into the name picking.
Click to expand...
So what really? You're seeking out stuff to moan at.
 
I caught the end of the game and thought both the cricket and the TV coverage on BBC was great.

My only problem for the mens comp is . . I don't know who to support? The obvious choice for a proud Lancastrian is Manchester Originals but my favourite two players - Livi & Davies play for somebody else 🤔
 
Cricket has far better support in towns than cities. So the answer is to turn away from Taunton or Chelmsford or Canterbury and play instead in Cardiff! Nonsense.

I am also a fan of the BBC but the totally biased analysis in the build up to the hundred is outrageous
 
The game was close but Manchester dropped three easy catches so they will be disappointed in that respect. Get rid of the DJ’s no need for them really. Will watch the men’s game tomorrow. 160 plus I estimate would be hard to chase.
 
Close finish, excitement for the crowd and lots of families and kids that clearly enjoyed it so maybe it has something. But I can't understand why they would go to one of these games and not a T20. Does the 40 less balls just make the timeframe more doable? I read what the aim is while watching and it's to have two matches, the women's and men's during the same session so I guess it does.
The other question is what do the rules changes bring to it? Are they really necessary? I'm not sure it makes things clearer for newbies to the sport.
 
Old_Laytonian said:
Perhaps because they make up 50% of the population?
Click to expand...
I appreciate that they are trying to promote the women’s game, but I find it a bit flat and boring compared to the men’s game. The women may have the skill but don’t possess the power to make the same spectacle as the men. Bowling 74mph or less and struggling to hit a 6 when the ropes are a long way in is not the same spectacle for fans.
I appreciate the effort the women are putting in, but it’s not the same. Like going from premier league to welsh league in football terms.
 
Never liked franchise cricket, particularly when focussed on artificial city teams. Why can't they stick to the county roots
 
straightatthewall said:
It’s a solution to a problem that didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
They could have done the same things with the Blast, I'm sure, TV-wise. The main advantage seems to be TV exposure. But I think there were contractual issues that have caused them to start a new but similar format? Maybe the city team thing coupled with terrestrial TV exposure will create new fans over time. I do think cricket's absence from free TV has been a really bad thing. A generation or two almost lost.
 
Tangerinewookiee said:
I appreciate that they are trying to promote the women’s game, but I find it a bit flat and boring compared to the men’s game. The women may have the skill but don’t possess the power to make the same spectacle as the men. Bowling 74mph or less and struggling to hit a 6 when the ropes are a long way in is not the same spectacle for fans.
I appreciate the effort the women are putting in, but it’s not the same. Like going from premier league to welsh league in football terms.
Click to expand...
Agree with that, I will watch the odd women's cricket match but it's just not the same. I want fast bowling, spectacular hitting and outstanding fielding. All for promoting the women's game and it will be great if some young women take up the sport but not too much prime time exposure for me.
 
The reason this has been done is so that the ECB (I think) can own it and sell the franchise on the the sub c and the other test nations, but more importantly to China and N America. I think that's the idea.
 
fcblackpool said:
The reason this has been done is so that the ECB (I think) can own it and sell the franchise on the the sub c and the other test nations, but more importantly to China and N America. I think that's the idea.
Click to expand...
They ballsed up with 20/20 it seems by not trademarking it.

www.theguardian.com

ECB sweats on Hundred catching fire but did it really have to be this way?

England’s answer to the Big Bash begins on Wednesday but doubling down on the county game was the braver option
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

"In essence, the Hundred is a repackaging of Twenty20 cricket, which was launched by the England and Wales Cricket Board in 2003 as a gateway format and then flew around the globe before it could be trademarked. Myriad franchise tournaments were spawned as a result, the biggest beast of them all being the Indian Premier League, yet English eyes looked increasingly enviously towards Australia’s Big Bash League.

"The ECB saw Cricket Australia’s family-focused tournament – those balmy salmon-sky evenings pumped into UK living rooms during cold winter mornings – and began to lose faith in the T20 Blast as its own recruitment vehicle. It also forecast a decline in revenues for international cricket and feared the governing body was financially exposed without a domestic product it owned. Coming amid a long overdue acceptance that 15 years behind a paywall had seen cricket’s visibility shrink, it opted for a fresh start over a reboot of the existing competition.
 
voyeur said:
They ballsed up with 20/20 it seems by not trademarking it.

www.theguardian.com

ECB sweats on Hundred catching fire but did it really have to be this way?

England’s answer to the Big Bash begins on Wednesday but doubling down on the county game was the braver option
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

"In essence, the Hundred is a repackaging of Twenty20 cricket, which was launched by the England and Wales Cricket Board in 2003 as a gateway format and then flew around the globe before it could be trademarked. Myriad franchise tournaments were spawned as a result, the biggest beast of them all being the Indian Premier League, yet English eyes looked increasingly enviously towards Australia’s Big Bash League.

"The ECB saw Cricket Australia’s family-focused tournament – those balmy salmon-sky evenings pumped into UK living rooms during cold winter mornings – and began to lose faith in the T20 Blast as its own recruitment vehicle. It also forecast a decline in revenues for international cricket and feared the governing body was financially exposed without a domestic product it owned. Coming amid a long overdue acceptance that 15 years behind a paywall had seen cricket’s visibility shrink, it opted for a fresh start over a reboot of the existing competition.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.
 
voyeur said:
They ballsed up with 20/20 it seems by not trademarking it.

www.theguardian.com

ECB sweats on Hundred catching fire but did it really have to be this way?

England’s answer to the Big Bash begins on Wednesday but doubling down on the county game was the braver option
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

"In essence, the Hundred is a repackaging of Twenty20 cricket, which was launched by the England and Wales Cricket Board in 2003 as a gateway format and then flew around the globe before it could be trademarked. Myriad franchise tournaments were spawned as a result, the biggest beast of them all being the Indian Premier League, yet English eyes looked increasingly enviously towards Australia’s Big Bash League.

"The ECB saw Cricket Australia’s family-focused tournament – those balmy salmon-sky evenings pumped into UK living rooms during cold winter mornings – and began to lose faith in the T20 Blast as its own recruitment vehicle. It also forecast a decline in revenues for international cricket and feared the governing body was financially exposed without a domestic product it owned. Coming amid a long overdue acceptance that 15 years behind a paywall had seen cricket’s visibility shrink, it opted for a fresh start over a reboot of the existing competition.
Click to expand...
Yeah - interesting reading.

Although the question for me would be why couldn't the Blast be turned into something similar to the IPL or BBL? It's not as though the Hundred is exclusively being shown on BBC anyway. They boobed, but this isn't the way forward. It's akin to the FA creating a new game of football with bigger goals, fewer players and an oval pitch in the hope that it can compete with the EPL. The format changes are pointless and do nothing in terms of encouraging new skills that the T20 format isn't already doing.
 
straightatthewall said:
Yeah - interesting reading.

Although the question for me would be why couldn't the Blast be turned into something similar to the IPL or BBL? It's not as though the Hundred is exclusively being shown on BBC anyway. They boobed, but this isn't the way forward. It's akin to the FA creating a new game of football with bigger goals, fewer players and an oval pitch in the hope that it can compete with the EPL. The format changes are pointless and do nothing in terms of encouraging new skills that the T20 format isn't already doing.
Click to expand...
I'll have to bow to your superior wisdom on that! I really don't know, I'll just have to see how it goes. Its Beeb coverage might result in it becoming pretty popular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top