Mike Atherton on the 16.4.

[Voice of fair play]

Of course Test cricket is the best form of cricket and one of the greatest manifestations of any competitive sport. However, one of the glories of cricket is that it can be played in so many different formats right from a knock about on the beach up to the Ashes at Lords.

Whether there is room for T20 and T100 is debatable (and by the way, calling it the "16.4" isn't big or clever). We'll just have to see whether The Hundred spreads to other countries. ODIs and Twenty20 both started as something of a joke but are now well established and taken seriously.

Personally I think we need one competition of the shorter format and we need to embrace that format make it a big competition similar to the IPL and play it in the school holidays to attract families, that is what should be learnt by this.

Then for the rest of the time focus on red ball cricket to give our test team the best chance.

Two competitions is too much.

The IPL and Big Bash are big competitions in their countries so this notion that only us have not given entire focus to red ball cricket I find confusing.

The shift to focus more on white ball cricket is worldwide not just by the ECB despite what some say

 

[Steak Pie]

Good post but it already is IMO

Suppose you can select the paragraph you wish. I paid more heed at the opening couple and the one about the development of players. Without Somerset, there’d be no Will Smeed. Just like without Durham we wouldn’t have had a World Cup winning captain and/or World Cup Final MoM.


I think we’ve already gone past that point, unfortunately.

We have seen some features of short form creep into test cricket, but the game is the same. Its still 450 overs in 5 days.

My worry is that structural changes will be forced into the game. We've already got some calls to go down to 4 days, we've already seen players being released from test squads to play in the IPL, we've just seen all preparation for a very important series completely destroyed. It's the thin end of the wedge.

I can see a time where maximum overs per innings, more fielding restrictions, changes to the ball to limit swing and seam are pushed into the game. By the time we realise we're sleepwalking into the death of test cricket, it will be too late.

 

[brandon]

We have seen some features of short form creep into test cricket, but the game is the same. Its still 450 overs in 5 days.

Ah, I see what you were getting at now.

Whether there is room for T20 and T100 is debatable (and by the way, calling it the "16.4" isn't big or clever). We'll just have to see whether The Hundred spreads to other countries. ODIs and Twenty20 both started as something of a joke but are now well established and taken seriously.

Can you really have a go at my choice of name for it when you refer to it as T100?

Or is that your own idea for a new format altogether? 100 overs a side, two days, most runs wins?

Personally I think we need one competition of the shorter format and we need to embrace that format make it a big competition similar to the IPL and play it in the school holidays to attract families, that is what should be learnt by this.

What about the 50 over format?

 

[HnTch]

Test cricket is the only true format and my preferred watch but I've enjoyed the 100. There's only room for one short format though IMO so we'll have to see where it goes.
Referring to it as 16.4 is wearing thin.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Ah, I see what you were getting at now.


Can you really have a go at my choice of name for it when you refer to it as T100?

Or is that your own idea for a new format altogether? 100 overs a side, two days, most runs wins?


What about the 50 over format?

Yeah meant 3 formats only room for them not both T20 and the hundred.

I have no idea why you see the need to pick up the other poster calling it T100 and then suggesting he is making up his own format when you know fine well what he meant?

 

[Stattos child]

Yeah meant 3 formats only room for them not both T20 and the hundred.

I have no idea why you see the need to pick up the other poster calling it T100 and then suggesting he is making up his own format when you know fine well what he meant?

its all pedantic. We need a shorter form whatever the name is and even us morons accept that red ball should be the main focus but for red ball to survive counties need cash from (30 x 6 / 1.8) or whatever we want to call the 1 accepted short form moving forward ( everyone seems to agree we need just 1) why previous posts comments etc are dredged up every time there is a debate is beyond me, surely people can have different opinions and are also allowed to change their minds as well if they wish.

 

[Voice of fair play]

its all pedantic. We need a shorter form whatever the name is and even us morons accept that red ball should be the main focus but for red ball to survive counties need cash from (30 x 6 / 1.8) why previous posts comments etc are dredged up every time there is a debate is beyond me, surely people can have different opinions and are also allowed to change their minds as well if they wish.

Too much common sense there mate.

The whole debate can be summed up with tests should remain first priority but at the same time we should and need to embrace shorter formats for both financial and entertainment values.

There is simply no need and was no need for the names in which T20 was first referred too and the hundred is now referred too.

They simply another format of the game of cricket that some fans happen to like.

 

[Stattos child]

Too much common sense there mate.

The whole debate can be summed up with tests should remain first priority but at the same time embrace shorter formats for both financial and entertainment values.

Totally agree and opinions can change, when t20 came out I thought it was a fad invented by idiots, how wrong I was, if you remember at the start the players all thought of it as a bit of a laugh, it just shows how opinions can change. I still love my test cricket the most but I do embrace t20, if I’m honest prior to New Zealand and England in the main changing how 50 over cricket is played this was the format 10 years ago which had gone stale (remember teams scoring 80 runs overs 20-40 and this being the norm)

 

[Voice of fair play]

Totally agree and opinions can change, when t20 came out I thought it was a fad invented by idiots, how wrong I was, if you remember at the start the players all thought of it as a bit of a laugh, it just shows how opinions can change. I still love my test cricket the most but I do embrace t20, if I’m honest prior to New Zealand and England in the main changing how 50 over cricket is played this was the format 10 years ago which had gone stale (remember teams scoring 80 runs overs 20-40 and this being the norm)

T20 was always going to be popular mate imo because fans old and new have always wanted to watch big hitting attacking cricket players both locally, domestically and internationally well before T20 was even thought off.

I have said it before and will say it again when local cricket was thriving in this area and overseas international cricketers were playing for local clubs, grounds were full and it was to watch these players hit the ball of the park, it wasn’t to watch their better technique.

The danger is to not let the short format go to far and like you say for tests to still remain number one.

Everybody needs to work together to find a solution to embrace both

 

[Stattos child]

T20 was always going to be popular mate imo because fans old and new have always wanted to watch big hitting attacking cricket players both locally, domestically and internationally well before T20 was even thought off.

I have said it before and will say it again when local cricket was thriving in this area and overseas international cricketers were playing for local clubs, grounds were full and it was to watch these players hit the ball of the park, it wasn’t to watch their better technique.

The danger is to not let the short format go to far and like you say for tests to still remain number one.

Everybody needs to work together to find a solution to embrace both

Don’t disagree, as a kid I used to travel about 3 or 4 nights a week when not playing to watch local cup ties, mind 100 in 20 overs was a winning score back then. It must be the new bats. Still some of the best cricket I have watched or played in is a hard fought draw, but accept others like shorter form and I totally understand why some dont like longer version

 

[brandon]

I have no idea why you see the need to pick up the other poster calling it T100 and then suggesting he is making up his own format when you know fine well what he meant?

You mean you didn’t see the obvious hypocrisy of his post?

Nevermind.

its all pedantic. We need a shorter form whatever the name is and even us morons accept that red ball should be the main focus but for red ball to survive counties need cash from (30 x 6 / 1.8) or whatever we want to call the 1 accepted short form moving forward ( everyone seems to agree we need just 1) why previous posts comments etc are dredged up every time there is a debate is beyond me, surely people can have different opinions and are also allowed to change their minds as well if they wish.

Missing the obvious point that we always had ONE ‘shortest’ format. Atleast since 2003 anyway, which was universally accepted and globally successful. We gave T20 to the world and it was absolutely fine in the eyes of anyone with an ounce of common sense.

The problem came with the ECB’s greed.

Now we have two ‘shortest’ formats and people are saying “there isn’t room enough for two”

WE KNEW! We knew then, we told people, we still know now.

 

[Stattos child]

One thing I did like from the hundred was batsmen not being able to cross when a catch is taken, positive for bowler which I think should be used in all white ball cricket.

 

[Lawrenceslongthrowin]

I didn’t watch much of the hundred, I prefer test match cricket to any of the shorter forms, but in my opinion it’s the future, test cricket is on its arse in most countries apart from eng and Australia and I could see it disappear at some stage

 

[The Rat]

Personally I think we need one competition of the shorter format and we need to embrace that format make it a big competition similar to the IPL and play it in the school holidays to attract families, that is what should be learnt by this.

Then for the rest of the time focus on red ball cricket to give our test team the best chance.

Two competitions is too much.

The IPL and Big Bash are big competitions in their countries so this notion that only us have not given entire focus to red ball cricket I find confusing.

The shift to focus more on white ball cricket is worldwide not just by the ECB despite what some say

On what basis is the Big Bash more successful than the T20 Blast??

Because Michael Vaughan says it is?

IPL is a given, but by no standard can the Big Bash be seen as anything bigger than what has been in the UK. This has been one of the biggest miconceptions through this whole thing, to copy what Australia do, we don't need to do that at all. they have about 4 major cities like, so they fit a tournament around that, its not something we should copy.

I didn’t watch much of the hundred, I prefer test match cricket to any of the shorter forms, but in my opinion it’s the future, test cricket is on its arse in most countries apart from eng and Australia and I could see it disappear at some stage

Test cricket will never disappear like, you cant get a ticket in England, thats almost enough in itself

I dont know why people keep talking about the 100 and comparing it to test cricket

thats nothing to do with the argument, I am confused why people are doing that, the thing is getting rid of the counties and creating new teams, which didn't and still doesn't need to be done.

We already had a very very successful T20 tournament with huge crowds that just needed more promoting

You mean you didn’t see the obvious hypocrisy of his post?

Nevermind.


Missing the obvious point that we always had ONE ‘shortest’ format. Atleast since 2003 anyway, which was universally accepted and globally successful. We gave T20 to the world and it was absolutely fine in the eyes of anyone with an ounce of common sense.

The problem came with the ECB’s greed.

Now we have two ‘shortest’ formats and people are saying “there isn’t room enough for two”

WE KNEW! We knew then, we told people, we still know now.

Spot on

I am very confused by a lot of the posts on here about the 100, I dont think anyone is disputing the need for a premier white ball tournament, but we've already had one, thats the point

Just throw money at that, promote that. Dont create another one which will just end up killing off half the counties and the oringial T20 tournament itself

 

[brandon]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[dixonsafc]

I didn’t watch much of the hundred, I prefer test match cricket to any of the shorter forms, but in my opinion it’s the future, test cricket is on its arse in most countries apart from eng and Australia and I could see it disappear at some stage

Like him or not, Kohli is helping test crickets popularity in India with how seriously he takes it and talks about it. Once he goes, that could be another nail in its coffin.

 

[Parkside]

T20 was always going to be popular mate imo because fans old and new have always wanted to watch big hitting attacking cricket players both locally, domestically and internationally well before T20 was even thought off.

I have said it before and will say it again when local cricket was thriving in this area and overseas international cricketers were playing for local clubs, grounds were full and it was to watch these players hit the ball of the park, it wasn’t to watch their better technique.

The danger is to not let the short format go to far and like you say for tests to still remain number one.

Everybody needs to work together to find a solution to embrace both

You have to go back to the 50s for full grounds but evening cup ties have always been more popular than Saturday league cricket. Not so sure that 6 hitting will remain a particular highlight it's so commonplace nowadays with such ridiculously short boundaries.Technique,however, has improved exponentially with scoops,switch hits etc. Fielding has also reached new levels adding a further dimension to the game.
It's a fallacy that the 16.4 that will attract a wider audience-it's basically the same format as T20,which doesn't require handing out freebies to artificially boost attendances figures.
The term 16.4 is used as a measure of contempt for a superfluous competition-I'm surprised some posters appear to be offended by it.

 

[Voice of fair play]

You have to go back to the 50s for full grounds but evening cup ties have always been more popular than Saturday league cricket. Not so sure that 6 hitting will remain a particular highlight it's so commonplace nowadays with such ridiculously short boundaries.Technique,however, has improved exponentially with scoops,switch hits etc. Fielding has also reached new levels adding a further dimension to the game.
It's a fallacy that the 16.4 that will attract a wider audience-it's basically the same format as T20,which doesn't require handing out freebies to artificially boost attendances figures.
The term 16.4 is used as a measure of contempt for a superfluous competition-I'm surprised some posters appear to be offended by it.

I agree with some of that and can only repeat we need to have a major short format in the calendar whether T20 or the hundred does not matter to me and agree with most of the above especially the bit about improved skills developed and yeah I agree and always have very little difference between T20 and Hundred.

As the last bit and calling in 16.4 I just find it another example possibly rightly or wrongly of a snobbish attitude towards other forms of the game to go with previous comments that started with T20 like pajama cricket, hit and giggle, ‘ not proper cricket’ when reality T20 is proper cricket (started in cup ties in the 50s) just another format and highly skillful format at that.

This notion it is just slugging I have never agreed with bowlers such as Rashid Khan are great bowlers and always bowlers are first picks in most drafts.

I appreciate all forms of the game and think the scoops, switch hits you mention are highly skillful, finding places to hit the ball where fielders are not there, just the same as digging in on a bad wicket in swinging conditions is also highly skillful and both should be appreciated rather than one looked down as ‘ not proper cricket’

 

[brandon]

This notion it is just slugging I have never agreed with bowlers such as Rashid Khan are great bowlers and always bowlers are first picks in most drafts.

He’d probably argue he’s an all-rounder, likewise, it’s the all-rounders who generally go first.

 

[Parkside]

I agree with some of that and can only repeat we need to have a major short format in the calendar whether T20 or the hundred does not matter to me and agree with most of the above especially the bit about improved skills developed and yeah I agree and always have very little difference between T20 and Hundred.

As the last bit and calling in 16.4 I just find it another example possibly rightly or wrongly of a snobbish attitude towards other forms of the game to go with previous comments that started with T20 like pajama cricket, hit and giggle, ‘ not proper cricket’ when reality T20 is proper cricket (started in cup ties in the 50s) just another format and highly skillful format at that.

This notion it is just slugging I have never agreed with bowlers such as Rashid Khan are great bowlers and always bowlers are first picks in most drafts.

I appreciate all forms of the game and think the scoops, switch hits you mention are highly skillful, finding places to hit the ball where fielders are not there, just the same as digging in on a bad wicket in swinging conditions is also highly skillful and both should be appreciated rather than one looked down as ‘ not proper cricket’

There's a world of difference between between T20 and the traditional cuptie cricket of the '50s. It was redball, white clothing and normal boundaries with no blaring music and flashing lights. T20 appeals to the present generation, I've no problem with that. But pyjama game and hit and giggle are fitting descriptions of that form. Traditional followers have the right to be cynical about it- that doesn't make them snobs.