Parliamentary debate on the future of English cricket

I did notice that some witnesses said that The Hundred gone wrong could be an existential threat to cricket but what I didn't know was that the £1.5 million to the counties was only for the first 5 years, thereafter nothing is promised and there could be nothing to distribute if they're having to pay top dollar to attract the 'stars'.

So based off that statement surely we should want it to succeed then?
 


That's me really. In order of preference.

1. County T20 on BBC
2. Something else franchise related on BBC
.
.
.
100. All county cricket behind a paywall.

Option 100 was far more damaging for the game than Option 2 will be imo, so I see it as an improvement on the last 14 years.
We're fairly close to getting County cricket not behind a paywall and on the cheap. I mean we now have cameras at most if not all matches and commentary at all. At present, it's two cameras, one at each end but from next season some are adding at least another one so we'll be able to see the fielding.

I can remember the BBC only having 1 camera behind the bowler's arm so for one over you'd see the batsman straight on and for the next over you'd see the bowler straight on and looking at the batsman's back!
So based off that statement surely we should want it to succeed then?
Yes. Or fail very very quickly or not go ahead at all.

The dilemma is that if it fails it's a threat to county cricket but if it succeeds it's also a threat but a different one.
 
Last edited:
I can remember the BBC only having 1 camera behind the bowler's arm so for one over you'd see the batsman straight on and for the next over you'd see the bowler straight on and looking at the batsman's back!

In 1980 when TV cameras cost ££££££££££.

Never had a problem with that. You don't walk round to the opposite stand every over.
 
I don’t know whether you have read my posts, I am sure you have, but I have said countless times that I would prefer a T20 format on free to air telly rather than the hundred.

However any format that could increase participation and on free to air telly.should be at least given a chance.

Of course that is very diffrent from saying it’s a good idea!
But should it, if it's at the real risk of diminishing participation of another format i.e.T20? Hundred is being promoted at great cost without any evidence of market research showing that there's any demand for it. Using that criteria, why should it be given a chance?
 
But should it, if it's at the real risk of diminishing participation of another format i.e.T20? Hundred is being promoted at great cost without any evidence of market research showing that there's any demand for it. Using that criteria, why should it be given a chance?

Because it’s on free to air telly and kids could watch it and take up the game.

Whether it should or should not have happened has now past.

It’s happening and for the good of the game for the long term, kids could watch it and take up the game and end up playing other formats.
 
Because it’s on free to air telly and kids could watch it and take up the game.

Whether it should or should not have happened has now past.

It’s happening and for the good of the game for the long term, kids could watch it and take up the game and end up playing other formats.
What evidence is there that because it's on fta
a. Kids would watch it
b. Even if they did, that they'd want to try it.
No reason either why the provenT20 shouldn't have been sold with a fta portion. It's a proven venture and hence would be more saleable than the unproven hundred.
This "less than 3 hrs" demand by BBC is purely ECB propaganda denied by BBC themselves. Contradicted also by the fact that almost all existing BBC sports coverage is in far longer than 3hr slots.
 
Last edited:
What evidence is there that because it's on fta
a. Kids would watch it
b. Even if they did, that they'd want to try it.
No reason either why the provenT20 shouldn't have been sold with a fta portion. It's a proven venture and hence would be more saleable than the unproven hundred.
This "less than 3 hrs" demand by BBC is purely ECB propaganda denied by BBC themselves. Contradicted also by the fact that almost all existing BBC sports coverage is in far longer than 3hr slots.

For your first two points there is no evidence that because on free to air telly that kids will watch it and take up the game.

However there is loads of evidence at local club level of less kids taking up cricket so surely you must agree putting cricket on free to air is a good step and a step worth pursuing?

As for your other point I have agreed many times T20 blast on free to air would have been my preferred option.

So agree on that point, but once again it’s now moved past that debate.

We have a new competition of free to air telly that I will hope achieves the objective of increased participation of the game.

It’s really that simple and clear view for me.
 
For your first two points there is no evidence that because on free to air telly that kids will watch it and take up the game.

However there is loads of evidence at local club level of less kids taking up cricket so surely you must agree putting cricket on free to air is a good step and a step worth pursuing?

As for your other point I have agreed many times T20 blast on free to air would have been my preferred option.

So agree on that point, but once again it’s now moved past that debate.

We have a new competition of free to air telly that I will hope achieves the objective of increased participation of the game.

It’s really that simple and clear view for me.
you certainly have a clear and simple viewpoint, that much is obvious - It's here so let's support it.
No matter that is an unnecessary high risk strategy that is well on its way to bankrupting the game.
No matter that all the stakeholders have been vehemently against it but their viewpoints totally ignored and ECB proceeded with it.
So we agree to be virtually being blackmailed to watch it?
 
you certainly have a clear and simple viewpoint, that much is obvious - It's here so let's support it.
No matter that is an unnecessary high risk strategy that is well on its way to bankrupting the game.
No matter that all the stakeholders have been vehemently against it but their viewpoints totally ignored and ECB proceeded with it.
So we agree to be virtually being blackmailed to watch it?

No we at least give it a chance?

We could at least watch one game?

We could have a open mind and see how it pans out?

And then it doesn’t work or unpopular then fair enough.
 
No we at least give it a chance?

We could at least watch one game?

We could have a open mind and see how it pans out?

And then it doesn’t work or unpopular then fair enough.
So we show support for an autocratic governing board who has written roughshod over the views of all the stakeholders?
There is a lack of participation by youngsters in all sports-it's not peculiar to cricket and all relevant bodies are aware of the obesity problems it's creating. We tackle the issue at its core -making participation in sports compulsory on the school curriculum and have specialist coaches in schools making participation appealing.
An unproven gimmick is not a long term solution so why support it?
 
That's me really. In order of preference.

1. County T20 on BBC
2. Something else franchise related on BBC
.
.
.
100. All county cricket behind a paywall.

Option 100 was far more damaging for the game than Option 2 will be imo, so I see it as an improvement on the last 14 years.

I do agree with wanting cricket on free to air TV but I can't agree with the final paragraph.

In that 14 year period you talk about we've had a test team be the number one in the world, won a world T20 and got to the final of another and won the 50 over World Cup.

What evidence do you have for it being such a dark period for English cricket?
 
I do agree with wanting cricket on free to air TV but I can't agree with the final paragraph.

In that 14 year period you talk about we've had a test team be the number one in the world, won a world T20 and got to the final of another and won the 50 over World Cup.

What evidence do you have for it being such a dark period for English cricket?

You could have a party in the middle of the North Pole tonight but the edges of it are still melting.

The decline at grass roots level will slowly show itself at the top. Probably in terms of a growing reliance on public schoolboys and South Africans in the England side.

I do agree that it's been a great era to watch though. England fantastic at home in particular, a legend in Anderson and the Blast is quality.
 
So we show support for an autocratic governing board who has written roughshod over the views of all the stakeholders?
There is a lack of participation by youngsters in all sports-it's not peculiar to cricket and all relevant bodies are aware of the obesity problems it's creating. We tackle the issue at its core -making participation in sports compulsory on the school curriculum and have specialist coaches in schools making participation appealing.
An unproven gimmick is not a long term solution so why support it?

Yep some very good points there especially the compulsory sport in schools.

What should we do now hope the hundred fails or succeeds?
 
Yep some very good points there especially the compulsory sport in schools.

What should we do now hope the hundred fails or succeeds?
That's a difficult one to answer at present. If it is well supported, it'll probably be at the expense of T20 and,if so, what would be the consequences for those counties not hosting the hundred?
Just don't trust ECB or any of their promises.
Hopefully they'll clean up their act as they've been instructed to do and become a democratic body. I suspect Graves is the main culprit,hopefully he'll be gone soon.
Convinced though that the long term solution is as I've outlined.
I did notice that some witnesses said that The Hundred gone wrong could be an existential threat to cricket but what I didn't know was that the £1.5 million to the counties was only for the first 5 years, thereafter nothing is promised and there could be nothing to distribute if they're having to pay top dollar to attract the 'stars'.
In fairness,the tv contract is for only 5 years so consequently the funding could only be guaranteed for that period.
 
Last edited:
That's a difficult one to answer at present. If it is well supported, it'll probably be at the expense of T20 and,if so, what would be the consequences for those counties not hosting the hundred?
Just don't trust ECB or any of their promises.
Hopefully they'll clean up their act as they've been instructed to do and become a democratic body. I suspect Graves is the main culprit,hopefully he'll be gone soon.
Convinced though that the long term solution is as I've outlined.

In fairness,the tv contract is for only 5 years so consequently the funding could only be guaranteed for that period.

My opinion is although I entirely appreciate loyal fans of counties will disagree that the longevity and increased take up of the game is more important than a particular county.
 

Back
Top