The Hundred 2025

[Voice of fair play]

I agree it was always going to happen and the lovable Mr Graves is claiming himself as the saviour of English cricket for inventing and promoting the Hundred.
We've already seen the next egg is not being dispersed either wisely or fairly. A token amount given to grass routes cricket and to those counties who don't t serve as Hundred venues. So we have a core elite of 8 teams and sod the rest of cricket.
How will such limited focus promote and sustain the game nationwide; the vast majority of the country won't be able to watch the spectacle.
Sad, but I fear rather than being the saviour it signals the slow death of what has been a wonderful game.

I don’t see it like that, respect you do but I genuinely don’t.

English cricket needed this injection of cash and the fact it’s such a massive injection can help it.

With or without ‘The Hundred’ not sure 18 counties was ever long term sustainable the way cricket has been going.

Not sure the vast amount of money given to other counties should ever be described as a ‘ token amount’

Agreeably as already said it’s not a fair distribution however it’s still a hell of a lot money they would have not seen before if this did not happen.
As the article said it will allow Worcestershire to relocate what desperately need to do, which would not have been achieved without this money

 

[Parkside]

I don’t see it like that, respect you do but I genuinely don’t.

English cricket needed this injection of cash and the fact it’s such a massive injection can help it.

With or without ‘The Hundred’ not sure 18 counties was ever long term sustainable the way cricket has been going.

Not sure the vast amount of money given to other counties should ever be described as a ‘ token amount’

Agreeably as already said it’s not a fair distribution however it’s still a hell of a lot money they would have not seen before if this did not happen.
As the article said it will allow Worcestershire to relocate what desperately need to do, which would not have been achieved without this money

Comparatively speaking it is a token amount. They've sold cricket's assets and not distributed them evenly and fairly amongst the stakeholders. It was a one off lifeline which could have been the panacea for cricket at all levels. Instead they chose to give the vast amount to those without need.
Once again we agree to disagree.

 

[Steak Pie]

It's amazing to me that these investors are handing over all this money and not expecting anything in return.

They must really love English domestic cricket.

 

[Voice of fair play]

It's amazing to me that these investors are handing over all this money and not expecting anything in return.

They must really love English domestic cricket.

Not sure anyone has said or would even suggest that.

Big investors, ‘invest’

That’s the meaning of the word so of course investors want to see a return?

Comparatively speaking it is a token amount. They've sold cricket's assets and not distributed them evenly and fairly amongst the stakeholders. It was a one off lifeline which could have been the panacea for cricket at all levels. Instead they chose to give the vast amount to those without need.
Once again we agree to disagree.

Only on the definition of token amount?
Are we now saying if this money was distributed fairly ( which we both think it should have been)

Then this tournament would have been a good thing for English cricket, in your words ‘the panacea’ ??

 

[Steak Pie]

Not sure anyone has said or would even suggest that.

Big investors, ‘invest’

That’s the meaning of the word so of course investors want to see a return?

Only on the definition of token amount?

I see.

So you're saying that the domestic game will suffer long term as money is sucked out to pay the investors their profit.

No way!

 

[Voice of fair play]

I see.

So you're saying that the domestic game will suffer long term as money is sucked out to pay the investors their profit.

No way!

No I am saying investments can be good for all parties and all concerned.

I do find it slightly ironic and mildly amusing that the narrative has now changed and moved on from ‘ investors will not be interested in this awful tournament’

Now that the money has arrived and proven that theory wrong

 

[Steak Pie]

No I am saying investments can be good for all parties and all concerned.

I do find it slightly ironic and mildly amusing that the narrative has now changed and moved on from ‘ investors will not be interested in this awful tournament’

Now that the money has arrived and proven that theory wrong

I told you years ago that it wouldn't be allowed to fail, whatever the cost.

So we're agreed. In return for removing test and first class cricket from the height of summer, we get to pay overseas investors for the privilege.

Amazing.

 

[Parkside]

Not sure anyone has said or would even suggest that.

Big investors, ‘invest’

That’s the meaning of the word so of course investors want to see a return?

Only on the definition of token amount?
Are we now saying if this money was distributed fairly ( which we both think it should have been)

Then this tournament would have been a good thing for English cricket, in your words ‘the panacea’ ??

In that respect it would be but I don't agree with the franchise model full stop. I firmly believe that English cricket could survive independently from international cricket gate and TV money plus domestic T20 given the proper publicity and the revenue distributed evenly.There's undoubtedly an appetite for short form cricket in England given appropriate promotion but declining attendances in the Hundred suggests there's not the appetite for that particular format. Paying obscene salaries for supposedly "world class" stars is wholly unnecessary and doesn't make financial sense.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I told you years ago that it wouldn't be allowed to fail, whatever the cost.

So we're agreed. In return for removing test and first class cricket from the height of summer, we get to pay overseas investors for the privilege.

Amazing.

Well it certainly hasn’t failed the article earlier in the thread says this sale looks like bringing a whopping 800 million into our game!

As I told you years ago, nobody in their right mind would turn down that enormous amount of money, so a retired gentleman could still watch Leicestershire against Gloucestershire in August.

Rather than have the money and have a world class short form tournament in the same month.

Whisper it quietly but maybe the ECB (sorry my mistake FTECB) knew what they were doing all along and made a hell of a deal!!

 

[Parkside]

No I am saying investments can be good for all parties and all concerned.

I do find it slightly ironic and mildly amusing that the narrative has now changed and moved on from ‘ investors will not be interested in this awful tournament’

Now that the money has arrived and proven that theory wrong

Not so sure about cynicism regarding investment. My concern was that the investors would bail out quickly when they find there is n't the appetite long term for watching franchise cricket (world class cricket my @rse) and take with it what appetite there was for domestic T20. The issue is far from amusing. There was genuine concern about the gamble of franchise. I'm disappointed that you appear to choose to crow about the issue.

 

[Steak Pie]

Well it certainly hasn’t failed the article earlier in the thread says this sale looks like bringing a whopping 800 million into our game!

As I told you years ago, nobody in their right mind would turn down that enormous amount of money, so a retired gentleman could still watch Leicestershire against Gloucestershire in August.

Rather than have the money and have a world class short form tournament in the same month.

Whisper it quietly but maybe the ECB (sorry my mistake FTECB) knew what they were doing all along and made a hell of a deal!!

As you said though, £800m in and then a lot more back out again.

Just remember that. It will, ultimately, suck money out of the game.

 

[Voice of fair play]

In that respect it would be but I don't agree with the franchise model full stop. I firmly believe that English cricket could survive independently from international cricket gate and TV money plus domestic T20 given the proper publicity and the revenue distributed evenly.There's undoubtedly an appetite for short form cricket in England given appropriate promotion but declining attendances in the Hundred suggests there's not the appetite for that particular format. Paying obscene salaries for supposedly "world class" stars is wholly unnecessary and doesn't make financial sense.

As long as remember cricket or most sports for that matter, people want and have wanted to watch better quality of cricketers or sportsman, going back to days in club cricket cup ties when grounds were fuller when star overseas pros turned up.

Change the format back to T20 and back to normal cricket rules and get world class crickets in it along with top English stars and fans will come alright.

 

[vinegar hill]

I always thought it was a crackpot idea from the start.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Not so sure about cynicism regarding investment. My concern was that the investors would bail out quickly when they find there is n't the appetite long term for watching franchise cricket and take with it what appetite there was for domestic T20. The issue is far from amusing. There was genuine concern about the gamble of franchise. I'm disappointed that you appear to choose to crow about the issue.

Well seen as I was told time and time again the investors would either not be interested or not bid as much as they have for the teams, it was inevitable I may mention once or twice that appears not to now be the case

 

[Parkside]

As long as remember cricket or most sports for that matter, people want and have wanted to watch better quality of cricketers or sportsman, going back to days in club cricket cup ties when grounds were fuller when star overseas pros turned up.

Change the format back to T20 and back to normal cricket rules and get world class crickets in it along with top English stars and fans will come alright.

And with a red ball?
Certainly the likes of Parry, Richardson, Raja were great attractions but they were in the days of proper red ball cricket ties. White ball cricket creates such an imbalance between bat and ball that it's become just a slogging match creating an evening out of talent particular with the bat. How many overseas T20s signings excel over their domestic counterparts?. I maintain there's very little difference.
Totally concur with your last paragraph.

 

[Voice of fair play]

And with a red ball?
Certainly the likes of Parry, Richardson, Raja were great attractions but they were in the days of proper red ball cricket ties. White ball cricket creates such an imbalance between bat and ball that it's become just a slogging match creating an evening out of talent particular with the bat. How many overseas T20s signings excel over their domestic counterparts?. I maintain there's very little difference.
Totally concur with your last paragraph.

I genuinely look at T20 cricket a different way, I have seen the skills of all three (batting, bowling and fielding) evolve and improve massively.

Bowlers have more variety and more skills than ever before, there is some brilliant batsman and shots developed to play 360 degrees round the wicket showing immense skill and talent.

Fielding has developed to breathtaking levels.

Although I agree T20 does favour batting over bowling, not sure it does as much as you portray.

And quite often teams who win these tournaments have the best bowlers in that tournament and a massive say it winning it.

I think the immense skills in general developed in short format cricket over these last 15/20 years are unappreciated in my opinion.

I hear loads of times that T20 is a slog fest, I find that disrespectful to the immense skills on show

 

[Parkside]

I genuinely look at T20 cricket a different way, I have seen the skills of all three (batting, bowling and fielding) evolve and improve massively.

Bowlers have more variety and more skills than ever before, there is some brilliant batsman and shots developed to play 360 degrees round the wicket showing immense skill and talent.

Fielding has developed to breathtaking levels.

Although I agree T20 does favour batting over bowling, not sure it does as much as you portray.

And quite often teams who win these tournaments have the best bowlers in that tournament and a massive say it winning it.

I think the immense skills in general developed in short format cricket over these last 15/20 years are unappreciated in my opinion.

I hear loads of times that T20 is a slog fest, I find that disrespectful to the immense skills on show

Yeh,the quality in T20 is the main bone of contention. It would be pretty boring if we all saw things the same. You certainly like your superlatives. 200 is regarded as a par score in a T20 game-that to me proves that there is a massive imbalance between bat and ball. If that what entertains the punters so be it.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Yeh,the quality in T20 is the main bone of contention. It would be pretty boring if we all saw things the same. You certainly like your superlatives. 200 is regarded as a par score in a T20 game-that to me proves that there is a massive imbalance between bat and ball. If that what entertains the punters so be it.

I think on occasions it can be like that, and agree we don’t want it to go totally that way as of course you dead right there needs to be more of a balance between bat and ball, but 200 been a par score is not as regular as you possibly make out imo, and there is games and bowlers with excellent variations and skills who win games for teams.

However saying all that, I do believe whether you or me like it, fans have and always will enjoy seeing the ball going out the park for sixes it’s always been that way.

Whether it was going back to them overseas pros in club cricket you mentioned or watching Sobers through to Botham through to Buttler etc etc, fans love big shots it’s one of the reasons T20 became and is soo popular.

So while I agree with you the balance has certainly tipped too much in favour of the batsman and we don’t want it going to far, there has to be a reality and acceptance fans very much like to see big shots always have as long as cricket has existed.

 

[Alfies Hat]

As well as banning the white ball they should reintroduce different changing rooms for gentlemen and players.

 

[Peterlee James]

Tbh mate, I have never fell out with you like many others have, as I normally respect your opinion and not only that I enjoy the debate with you and have done many many times over the years without us getting personal or upsetting each other.

But on this occasion for you to have a go at me and call me bizarre and laugh about it as well, simply because I have honestly stated my personal preference of not really supporting a particular team because I have spent most of my life playing sport rather than watching it.

Is bang out of order on your part!

Tbh mate reading the thread I’m exactly the same as you.

Love cricket, watch every England game and any Blast, T20 or IPL on that’s ever on. (Even the smaller nations on different channels too)

I also listen to tailenders, No balls, sky sprints cricket podcast etc every week. And love woman’s cricket just as much as mens.

Never really been interested in Durham; I’d like to see them so well as that’s where I’m from, and if it’s say Durham vs Sussex on the telly, Il be cheering for Durham… but apart from that I’ve never been fussed.