Car Crash 16.4…

[Aidan11]

I more than admit it.

There is many faults of the competition, which I more than accept, should have left it as T20, such a popular format no idea and massive mistake to go with 100 balls, recruitment of overseas players extremely disappointing, and competition does not geographically reach enough people.

For the above the competition hasn’t lived up to the promises made and a balanced view would accept that which I do and accept criticism for it.

What I don’t accept is no balance or no praise for good performances because people have made they mind up it before even watching it to have a go irrespective of the quality on the field.

Just listened to the weekly Wisden podcast as I normally do, which was balanced as they normally are discussing good and bad points and good and bad performances in the competition

I find it very small minded and lack of class tbh, why there is no praise whatsoever for some very high top class bowling in this competition or praise for some good knocks in it which they had been.

You know as well as I do, posters all over bad games in the competition, no praise whatsoever for good games or good performances.

I would respect them more if they just said we made how mind up years/months ago that we were going to hate this competition no matter what even if there is great games we will not praise it as that’s exactly what happening.

The competition like any cricket tournament has good games and bad ones that’s just common sense.

They is some very valid criticism of this competition other points made are not valid and complete bollocks tbf,

There were quite a few posters, including myself, who hated this from the start. I did try to watch a game once but the graphics were confusing and there are some odd rules.

As for not praising great games, limited overs cricket is very disposable. You talk about great bowling performances but I thought the premise was for batters to smash the ball around. Will any of these games ever be considered as classics in the future? I think not. In fact when this year's tournament is over I suspect if asked what they remember most from this tournament will be Stokes getting injured.

I watch a lot of T20 but there is very little I can remember from past games...even from this season. Yes there are great contests but they are easily forgotten as these tournaments move so fast. Win the game then two days later move on to the next one.

Test cricket however I can still remember many moments from almost 50 years ago.

Players who do well in short formats don't have great games. They have lucky games. Bowlers take five-fers and hat tricks because the batters are swinging the bat from the off and making mistakes. There's no skill involved. There are a lot of old bowling coaches who are probably turning in their graves.

 

[Voice of fair play]

There were quite a few posters, including myself, who hated this from the start. I did try to watch a game once but the graphics were confusing and there are some odd rules.

As for not praising great games, limited overs cricket is very disposable. You talk about great bowling performances but I thought the premise was for batters to smash the ball around. Will any of these games ever be considered as classics in the future? I think not. In fact when this year's tournament is over I suspect if asked what they remember most from this tournament will be Stokes getting injured.

I watch a lot of T20 but there is very little I can remember from past games...even from this season. Yes there are great contests but they are easily forgotten as these tournaments move so fast. Win the game then two days later move on to the next one.

Test cricket however I can still remember many moments from almost 50 years ago.

Players who do well in short formats don't have great games. They have lucky games. Bowlers take five-fers and hat tricks because the batters are swinging the bat from the off and making mistakes. There's no skill involved. There are a lot of old bowling coaches who are probably turning in their graves.

‘ There is no skill involved’

‘ Players don’t have great games just lucky games’

I mean hway mate.

I totally accept and appreciate people preferring longer format and after watching cricket for 45 years the immense skills involved in longer format cricket.

And also accept and agree test cricket should always be the number one priority in this country.

And even your fair point about test matches moments living longer in the memory all fair.

But for you to say no skill and bowlers are lucky in T20 games is soo disgenerous and disrespectful towards some great short format bowlers.

People like Burmah, Rashid season after season as well as others are extremely consistent and simply brilliant skillful bowlers.

As I said some of the bowling in this competition this season especially the death bowling has been very good.

T20 has developed very high skills indeed, players can score 360 degrees around the wicket, bowlers have more variations than ever and fielding to a level never seen before.

I more than respect skills involved in red ball cricket, and love all cricket.

It puzzles me why white ball cricket fans like myself accept red ball skills and respect them.

While the likes of yourself with respect can’t seem to accept a least going of your above post or praise the obvious skills and performances in T20 or Hundred cricket.

 

[Parkside]

Problem been when that doesn’t happen and bowlers bowl really well like they have in this tournament with a lot of a skill tournament criticised for low scores.

Yet when to many big shots hit on flat wickets and small boundaries it’s still criticised.

So big scores, low scores, good games, bad games, angle was always going to be found to have a go

Bottom line is a lot of faults with the tournament but irrespective big scores or small scores it would meant another go at it,
The actual bowling in this tournrament has been exceptional which you would think after lots of criticism of short format been too much in favour of the batsman.

Would at least prompt one or two comments about how the balance between bat and ball has reduced in this current tournament.

But of course any even the slightest balanced comment or remotely positive comment will not happen because it’s treason to even make one positive comment.

The critics are using hyperbole-deliberately exaggerating to make the point with every comment not meant to be taken literally. Good or bad shot,good or bad bowling is purely subjective,such is the contrived nature of the Hundred critics can't make a valid judgement on the skill factor.Liam Livingstone is critical of the low scores quoting"the game is designed for kids "who want to see the ball hit out of the ground" and " have a laugh "i.e. Hit and giggle cricket.
Highly experienced cricket writers Wilde and Heifer have been absolutely scathing about the format.Clearly the format appears to you,so be it,but accept, in good grace, that equally others have the right to condemn it.
The recent change in the ball has shown how risky these innovative shots are and does a bowler stopping a batsman slogging constitute great death bowling?

 

[Voice of fair play]

The critics are using hyperbole-deliberately exaggerating to make the point with every comment not meant to be taken literally. Good or bad shot,good or bad bowling is purely subjective,such is the contrived nature of the Hundred critics can't make a valid judgement on the skill factor.Liam Livingstone is critical of the low scores quoting"the game is designed for kids "who want to see the ball hit out of the ground" and " have a laugh "i.e. Hit and giggle cricket.
Highly experienced cricket writers Wilde and Heifer have been absolutely scathing about the format.Clearly the format appears to you,so be it,but accept, in good grace, that equally others have the right to condemn it.
The recent change in the ball has shown how risky these innovative shots are and does a bowler stopping a batsman slogging constitute great death bowling?

Absolutely if people don’t like it and want to criticise the tournament as a whole that’s their fair choice, and like I said accept some of the valid criticism the tournament gets

But I find it disrespectful not to appreciate and accept like I said that they is highly skilful white ball cricketers out there.

There is highly skilful red ball cricketers out there and highly skilful white ball cricketers.

Just because a person does not like a format or competition doesn’t mean they have too dismiss the quality on show that will happen in a tournament.

A balanced view would be to say I dislike the hundred, but tbf there has been some good batting and bowling on show on occasions, but I simply don’t see that in the slightest, everything and I mean everything is had a go at, find that unbalanced and unfair, to say players in white ball games when do well are just lucky I find disrespectful to their talents.
Surely you people can dislike a tournament but still have the good grace to accept at times some good cricket played?

But I don’t see that even in the slightest

 

[Parkside]

Absolutely if people don’t like it and want to criticise the tournament as a whole that’s their fair choice, and like I said accept some of the valid criticism the tournament gets

But I find it disrespectful not to appreciate and accept like I said that they is highly skilful white ball cricketers out there.

There is highly skilful red ball cricketers out there and highly skilful white ball cricketers.

Just because a person does not like a format or competition doesn’t mean they have too dismiss the quality on show that will happen in a tournament.

A balanced view would be to say I dislike the hundred, but tbf there has been some good batting and bowling on show on occasions, but I simply don’t see that in the slightest, everything and I mean everything is had a go at, find that unbalanced and unfair, to say players in white ball games when do well are just lucky I find disrespectful to their talents.

And you are putting forward a balanced view? The degree of skill on display is purely a subjective view. There aren't any absolute rights or wrongs. I'm not alone in the view that because the format is designed to favour the batsmen it's difficult to make a skill judgement hence I'm dismissive of the skill factor. That's an opinion many share.
As I've mentioned,many eminent cricket writers have that view. Can you not respect that different perspective and not be so critical of those who hold them?

 

[Aidan11]

‘ There is no skill involved’

‘ Players don’t have great games just lucky games’

I mean hway mate.

I totally accept and appreciate people preferring longer format and after watching cricket for 45 years the immense skills involved in longer format cricket.

And also accept and agree test cricket should always be the number one priority in this country.

And even your fair point about test matches moments living longer in the memory all fair.

But for you to say no skill and bowlers are lucky in T20 games is soo disgenerous and disrespectful towards some great short format bowlers.

People like Burmah, Rashid season after season as well as others are extremely consistent and simply brilliant skillful bowlers.

As I said some of the bowling in this competition this season especially the death bowling has been very good.

T20 has developed very high skills indeed, players can score 360 degrees around the wicket, bowlers have more variations than ever and fielding to a level never seen before.

I more than respect skills involved in red ball cricket, and love all cricket.

It puzzles me why white ball cricket fans like myself accept red ball skills and respect them.

While the likes of yourself with respect can’t seem to accept a least going of your above post or praise the obvious skills and performances in T20 or Hundred cricket.

I stand by my point.

I'm not saying the players aren't skillful. I'm saying they don't have time to be skillful. It's impossible to craft an innings in 100 or 120 balls.

How many centuries have their been in the 16.4 in total? I'll bet it's less than 10.

There are plenty of skillful white ball players but that's in the longer format of 50 overs. Although the ECB aren't helping to encourage that.

As I said players can't be skillful in the shorter formats as there just isn't time. No playing yourself in as a batter. No time for a bowler to find their rythym.

It's hit and hope.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I stand by my point.

I'm not saying the players aren't skillful. I'm saying they don't have time to be skillful. It's impossible to craft an innings in 100 or 120 balls.

How many centuries have their been in the 16.4 in total? I'll bet it's less than 10.

There are plenty of skillful white ball players but that's in the longer format of 50 overs. Although the ECB aren't helping to encourage that.

As I said players can't be skillful in the shorter formats as there just isn't time. No playing yourself in as a batter. No time for a bowler to find their rythym.

It's hit and hope.

With respect I totally and utterly disagree is Kholi, Buttler, Rohit, S Yadav a lot more skillful than other batsman in short format cricket or Burmah, Rashid, K Yadav a lot more skillful than other bowlers in short format cricket.

Of course they are, they are batsman and bowlers a lot more consistent and skillful than others in short format cricket, surely you know that?

Been able to score runs quickly and bowl consistently in short format cricket is a very skillful trait, and why them top cricketers make a lot of money.

In fact if batters don’t have time to play themselves in or bowlers time to get into a rhythm, that is actually more evidence of the skill they have to still perform to such a high quality and consistent level, despite having less time,


To describe them as hit and hope is disrespectful to their obvious and clear talents.

The players I mentioned above and many more are highly skillful cricketers it is nonsense to suggest all they do is ‘hit and hope’

As for the 50 over comment to put the blame on that demise purely at the ECB is entirely unfair when that has been a worldwide trend for years now

 

[Fleagle]

Made my annual trip to watch “our” team last night in a group that a work colleague organises. The only two things in its favour that I would have to say were that I was the only member of the group of 12 who had watched any other domestic cricket this season, so it has worked anecdotally on that measure at least, and that Potts bowled superbly.

The crowd was significantly down on the equivalent match last year though, noticeably more subdued, and didn’t even seem to have the family demographic that I felt was a potential positive in previous years. If feels this experiment has failed even on its its own terms.

The trouble is, my experience of the Blast this year would have me saying the same about crowds and atmosphere. It’s dying on its arse as well. This is what I always feared with regional franchises. They don’t catch on themselves but they sideline the existing competition by making it visibly second rate so it fades as well. Something similar happened to Welsh rugby with the regional franchises. They don’t attract spectators unless you can pretend it’s Cardiff v Swansea but they have killed the domestic championship as a spectator sport.

Trouble is, English domestic cricket is a spectator sport largely without spectators. You can’t see the 18 club professional model surviving this fiasco. And you might not need to be too much of a tinfoil hat merchant to wonder if that was always part of the agenda. There’s been a reductionist tendency at the ECB. If the Hundred had succeeded, you have eight or 10 franchises and job done. If it fails, you’ll be lucky to have eight or 10 counties survive the financial car crash, and job done anyway.

 

[brandon]

A point seen raised elsewhere, but very pertinent - are the Northern Phonechargers going to be paying for Ben Stokes’ rehab? Will their medical and training staff be leading on it?

 

[mosi]

A point seen raised elsewhere, but very pertinent - are the Northern Phonechargers going to be paying for Ben Stokes’ rehab? Will their medical and training staff be leading on it?

I’d expect it’s going to be the ECB, as they employ him and allowed him to play. Plus they own all the franchises atm anyway.

 

[Beau Peep]

A point seen raised elsewhere, but very pertinent - are the Northern Phonechargers going to be paying for Ben Stokes’ rehab? Will their medical and training staff be leading on it?

The same ones that supervised his warm-up perhaps.

 

[Fleagle]

A point seen raised elsewhere, but very pertinent - are the Northern Phonechargers going to be paying for Ben Stokes’ rehab? Will their medical and training staff be leading on it?

I think this effectively came up last year when there were issues surrounding release of players who weren’t being used back to their counties while the hundred was still going on. The ECB is the employer in respect of the hundred, its insurance covers the players, and it’s their responsibility. The point being in respect of last year’s issue that this wouldn’t be true if they were playing for someone else, even the county that held their registration, so there were some counties that didn’t want to risk hundred players in the one-day cup because they would have had to shell out to cover them. Either way, this isn’t going to be on Durham.

I should add that there is no suggestion the ECB doesn’t cover centrally contracted players who are released to their county because the ECB wants them to get some match fitness, this was specific to those contracted to The Hundred itself, but it still seems to answer the question in respect of Stokes.

 

[Aidan11]

With respect I totally and utterly disagree is Kholi, Buttler, Rohit, S Yadav a lot more skillful than other batsman in short format cricket or Burmah, Rashid, K Yadav a lot more skillful than other bowlers in short format cricket.

Kholi has 9 T20 centuries in 399 matches.

A ratio of roughly one every 40 games.

In any other format that would be a p*** poor return for any batter, not just one who is world class.

Just proves that T20 is a lottery.

 

[brandon]

I’d expect it’s going to be the ECB, as they employ him and allowed him to play. Plus they own all the franchises atm anyway.

I suspect he’ll do most of it at Durham, in the indoor school and the outdoor nets, predominantly with DCCC coaches, so we have to build him back up.

One thing is for sure, the Phonechargers will contribute fuckall.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Kholi has 9 T20 centuries in 399 matches.

A ratio of roughly one every 40 games.

In any other format that would be a p*** poor return for any batter, not just one who is world class.

Just proves that T20 is a lottery.

Really!!

No it doesn’t at all.

Obviously the shorter format the less balls you face there is less chance you have to score a century, that’s just common sense.

I can’t believe you making that argument.

Let’s say on average a opener faces half of the 120 balls (60) and Kholi has not even opened all the time.

You actually using the fact that a person doesn’t score at nearly 2 runs a ball as a tool to knock their record, it’s a ridiculous argument

 

[mackembhoy]

Kholi has 9 T20 centuries in 399 matches.

A ratio of roughly one every 40 games.

In any other format that would be a p*** poor return for any batter, not just one who is world class.

Just proves that T20 is a lottery.

That is a terrible argument. There is only 120 balls in the format.

Kohli averages over 40 in the format and 48 internationally. He's so far ahead of pretty much everyone else that's played the format.

Kohli used to mainly bat 3 as well, so even less time at the crease.

 

[Voice of fair play]

That is a terrible argument. There is only 120 balls in the format.

Kohli averages over 40 in the format and 48 internationally. He's so far ahead of pretty much everyone else that's played the format.

Kohli used to mainly bat 3 as well, so even less time at the crease.

That’s broadly my point Kholi very skillful short format cricketer and whether we like him or not as a person just like we might not like a tournament or not.

We still surely have to respect his skill and ability, we can’t just say he has been luckier with his ‘hit and hopes’

That’s soo unfair on his ability as a cricketer over a long period of time

And the same principle applies imo to other top quality T20 cricketers

 

[Aidan11]

The point is being missed here so I'm not going to bang my head against the wall.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Voice of fair play]

The point is being missed here so I'm not going to bang my head against the wall.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

That fine mate all opinions valid and to be respected

 

[Steak Pie]

A balanced view would be to say I dislike the hundred, but tbf there has been some good batting and bowling on show on occasions, but I simply don’t see that in the slightest, everything and I mean everything is had a go at, find that unbalanced and unfair, to say players in white ball games when do well are just lucky I find disrespectful to their talents.
Surely you people can dislike a tournament but still have the good grace to accept at times some good cricket played?

But I don’t see that even in the slightest

That would entail watching this farce, and I'm not, so can't comment on something I haven't seen. I care too much about the sport, and in particular Test cricket, to give a minute to this horrific stain on the domestic game.

I just commented on Livingstone's comments that nobody wants to watch a game where the bowlers have a chance. What was it? It's no fun fending one off your nose or something like that? f***ing ridiculous comment which is just downright offensive to the game of cricket.