The Hundred - Free tickets



Reedie8610 said:
But if you’re out you can’t score runs. Our top order need to learn how to graft it out To then go on and score big at times and root is the only England player I would tryst to do it that’s my point
Click to expand...
Well that’s it, it’s about balance of staying in, but still looking to rotate the strike and move the game on to ideally put your side in a winning position in test cricket imo.

Simply looking to just survive and stay in without looking to score is a negative mentality for any team imo.

One of the great things about ‘The Ashes’ winning team of 2005 is they went at it with a mentality of fighting fire with fire and not just surviving!

Mind they had the players to do it!!
 
Last edited:
Marko said:
Not so sure myself.
We've introduced the 100 over here because by and large the T20 wasn't making enough money for the ECB. Myself. I accept that footballs our main game and I don't think we should change the game to attract non-cricket fans. The ECB obviously see differently.
Anyway, in Australia and India this isn't a problem. They cram them in for T20 games, as I'd imagine they do in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
If we'd had 8 counties I don't think we'd have moved away from T20. I think the ECB just changed the number of balls to make it edgy and different.
I'd be very surprised if the other test nations decided to adopt the 100 into international cricket as its not in their interests. and therefore it'll remain an England thing.
When England's performances begin to suffer I think the competition will be rethought, unless the ECB no longer give a shit and just have pound signs in their eyes.
Click to expand...

If cricket doesn’t attract new fans it’s more fucked long term than if England perform poorly in red ball.

If the ECB hadn’t effectively closed the game to new fans a while ago the base of red ball players to pick from would be bigger now.

You have to start at the bottom, which they’re trying to do. It’s the method that’s dubious (which I agree with you on).
 
FC United of Manchester said:
Problem is I think we all need to accept that red ball cricket as we know it is on it's way out. I hope I'm wrong but really don't think it will survive.
I can see the County Championship eventually being reduced to 2 days, probably over a weekend with one team batting Saturday and the other batting Sunday. Over time 50 over one day cricket will become our 'long' game. Yes, Test matches are still hugely popular but as white ball cricket continues to grow we just won't have the infastructure to develop players for it. Test matches will eventually get replaced with 'festivals' of short form cticket - 5 limited over games over 5 days.

The IPL, Big Bash, T20, 100 etc will attract the TV money and pay the best players the highest wages, It's inevitable (to me) that It wil become a year round moving circus of white ball cricket for the top players.

I love test cricket, I was brought up sneaking a radio under my pillow to listen to the Ashes tests down under but we're becoming the dinosaurs, it's not like most club cricketers will ever get a chance to play longer versions anyway, limited over cricket is what they are used to and top level cricket will represent the same game they play.

Bah humbug :(
Click to expand...
I remember when a county cricket match would be the headline on a back page.
Nowadays just about every paper will at most just carry a brief summary of the scorecard let alone have a special correspondent filing a report.
Attendances at County games have I think increased over recent years. People have more leisure time and retired people are younger and more active. However the days when thousands would queue on a Thursday morning to watch the first day of a Roses match or at the Oval for the visit of Yorkshire are but a distant memory.
Mark Perryman in his book titled 1966 And Not All That mentions that a report in the Guardian of the opening tournament game between England and Uruguay " spanned barely more column inches than a report of the Lancashire vs Hampshire county championship encounter "" .
 
A litmus test for me is to ask people what they remember about the whole tournament in a month's time. I've only seen the games on BBC and all I can remember is a fielder's trousers coming down. Maybe ask all those kids who were interviewed and said it was amazing how they are going to become involved in the future. I'd suspect only a miniscule percentage will ask to play the game.
 
Dan..Dan..Dan..Dan said:
A litmus test for me is to ask people what they remember about the whole tournament in a month's time. I've only seen the games on BBC and all I can remember is a fielder's trousers coming down. Maybe ask all those kids who were interviewed and said it was amazing how they are going to become involved in the future. I'd suspect only a miniscule percentage will ask to play the game.
Click to expand...

Stokes asking for the dead ball when someone ran on the field (yet again) and the next ball going for 6. That’s about it
 
I think what has come out of all this going forward is a shorter format of the game is both entertaining, needed to attract new fans to the game, and needed financially.

Therefore it is undoubtedly needed in the cricket summer calendar, and the challenge is to balance that with the importance of red ball cricket with obviously effects the test team which should remain the first priority.

There is always a lot of criticism on here regarding scheduling of the season, however imo it is not easy to balance the two conflicting priorities and easier to criticise then come up with the solution.

As I say it is vital to have a shorter format imo and I am a big fan of T20 first and foremost over ‘ The Hundred’ although not by much as they both more or less the same.

Going forward imo there is not enough room for two shorter formats in the calendar, so think they should choose between T20 and ‘The Hundred’ and just have one.

That could be franchise T20, or remain ‘The Blast’ or remain ‘The Hundred’ not really bothered which one as long as just one.

I am looking forward to ‘ The Blast’ quarter finals and the finals day just as much if not more than the hundred.

Whichever way they go my hope is to see more overseas stars playing over here ,the top ones similar to the IPL because the atmosphere and standard of cricket in the IPL is excellent and I have no doubt despite some comments on here over the years the skills developed in T20 all round has made cricket more entertaining and better and more likely to attract new fans and participation of the game.

This debate is all about balance and getting that balance right!!!
 
Voice of fair play said:
Better cricket to watch imo mate😀

I will never get it round my head how someone could ever actually prefer to watch Dom Sibley over Liam Livingstone.

But guess have to respect different preferences and views!!
Click to expand...
You’re using one of the most out of form, dull batsmen to represent one format you’re arguing against to directly compare it to one of the most exciting and in-form batsmen in another format.

Surely you can spot the massive flaw in your own argument 🤷‍♂️

You did it with Tavare v Brown earlier on the same page too.

Why not use Root? Or Stokes? Or KP even? For your Test example.
Voice of fair play said:
I think what has come out of all this going forward is a shorter format of the game is both entertaining, needed to attract new fans to the game, and needed financially.
Click to expand...

:lol:

It last just as long (and in some cases longer) than a T20 match FFS :lol:
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
You’re using one of the most out of form, dull batsmen to represent one format you’re arguing against to directly compare it to one of the most exciting and in-form batsmen in another format.

Surely you can spot the massive flaw in your own argument 🤷‍♂️

You did it with Tavare v Brown earlier on the same page too.
Why not use Root? Or Stokes? Or KP even? For your Test example.



It last just as long (and in some cases longer) than a T20 match FFS :lol:
Click to expand...
Yeah for your first point was just using that as a example that I much prefer attacking batsman over defensive ones but of course yes I agree the examples extreme from one end to the other.

I wasn’t using them examples to defend the hundred I was using them examples that a shorter format is needed either T20 or the hundred not bothered which

As for your second point, by shorter format I meant either T20 or the hundred ,I am agreeing that there is nothing really different between The hundred and T20 time wise at all and that we only need one of those going forward as long as only one, because we don’t need both them in the calendar as take up too much room.

But would we do need is one or the other in the calendar.
My point been shorter formats are great to watch and people clearly like watching it, personally I see nothing different between ‘The Hundred’ and T20 and think just one needs taking forward to make sure the balance right between red ball and white ball cricket
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
No, not exactly, you don’t get it do you?! :lol:


It has been since 2003, it’s called Twenty20.
Click to expand...
Thats what my post was about now that the hundred has happened and finished the powers of be should decide whether to go back to just county T20 or The hundred or franchise T20 having two short formats is not viable imo.

Whichever one they think will grow the game.
 
Voice of fair play said:
Thats what my post was about now that the hundred has happened and finished the powers of be should decide whether to go back to just county T20 or The hundred or franchise T20 having two short formats is not viable imo.

Whichever one they think will grow the game.
Click to expand...

‘The powers that be’ will select the 16.4, because they cannot allow it to be anything other than a success.

Irrespective of whether that’s the best format for the game.

It’s frustrating that you keep choosing to ignore the overwhelming fact that T20 could’ve adequately grown the game - had they spent as much time, money and effort promoting it.
 
brandon said:
‘The powers that be’ will select the 16.4, because they cannot allow it to be anything other than a success.

Irrespective of whether that’s the best format for the game.

It’s frustrating that you keep choosing to ignore the overwhelming fact that T20 could’ve adequately grown the game - had they spent as much time, money and effort promoting it.
Click to expand...
It’s frustrating to me that you seem to assume I prefer the hundred when on numerous occasions I have said I am a massive T20 fan and previous years have repeated that time and time again, and have only ever wanted a big competition in our country similar to the IPL and big bash to help grow the game and bring international overseas stars to this country to increase the standard and the excitement of the game.

I have said from the very beginning could not care less whether that is the current T20 a new competition like the hundred or even a new T20 city franchise.

My issue from the very beginning and I could not have made myself clearer is that whichever way they went was going to give it a chance to succeed to achieve the objective of growing the game.

My initial post today was about moving the debate on the hundred has now finished I was asking the question by saying there is imo only room for one shorter format and which one should they choose going forward?

As to keep the balance right between right and white ball cricket there is only room for one.
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
It’s frustrating to me that you seem to assume I prefer the hundred
Click to expand...
Nope, wrong again. I’m assuming nothing. I know (because you’ve said it yourself) that you don’t give a shit about county cricket.

Hence why you’re banging on about how it’s either a choice between the 16.4 or a franchise T20 competition.
 
brandon said:
Nope, wrong again. I’m assuming nothing. I know (because you’ve said it yourself) that you don’t give a shit about county cricket.

Hence why you’re banging on about how it’s either a choice between the 16.4 or a franchise T20 competition.
Click to expand...
Not sure where this argument is going, voice of fair play has stated that he enjoys shorter form of the game (what is wrong with that) lots of people do. I personally love a drawn backs to the wall test match, however also like the shorter for of the game. I think the point that is trying to be made is that the hundred itself is not affecting the current test team (don’t deny it could affect future years), however like it or not lots of people like the shorter game and it’s money making, which the counties need given the unfortunate low attendances at county cricket (mainly on when people work). Therefore we need a shorter form of the game to help cricket survive financially, this could be the blast, franchise t20 or the hundred, but everyone seems to agree that we need to just pick one (no consensus on which one this should be). Me personally franchise t20 but with games shared between all counties
 

Back
Top