The Hundred 2023

[Silly Point]

All reasonable predictions/fears. I suspect that at some point the 'Counties Vote' will somehow be bypassed and become a thing of the past.

I'll add to those above that the pesky UK weather and relatively short season will cause indoor cricket to become a thing. Played in purpose built indoor arenas.

Think this is a good shout particularly as it seems to have done nothing but rain all year apart fromma couple of weeks in June and one in September, and I think that will be the general trend for us with climate change

 

[Voice of fair play]

Cricket and sport generally should be a competition to establish who is the best team/player over a given period/competition. Yes, it should make an effort to entertain but not at the expense of the integrity of the game itself. Cricket is heading in one direction, very quickly and It won't ever recover. The desperate chase to capture the attention (read cash) of kids/teens/young adults is short-sighted and harmful.

Personally I disagree for the longevity of any sport you need to continue to attract both old and new audiences and undoubtedly new audiences are attracted to shorter formats and if they weren’t they would not be happening

Of course sport is a form of entertainment, with different versions appealing to different mind sets, some prefer a light hearted none too serious version which requires little concentration i.e. a simpler version and the longer form which ebbs and flows as to which team has the ascendancy and consequently requires more concentration.
MCC has ceased to be the rule making body for a number of years and no one would argue that it wasn't elitist but it's been superseded by ECB who are promoting the shorter form to cater for a broader audience. The context in which I've used the term simpleton shouldn't imply any snobbery. If offering a quiet background to watch cricket rather than blaring music and a chanting audience implies snobbery then so be it.
In fact criticising those who dislike this noisy background is inverted snobbery.

And some prefer a format that although shorter is just as serious as a longer format and requires very talented cricketers to showcase their undoubted talents to entertain us.

Some have always preferred shorter format to longer formats and always appreciated the high skills on show in shorter formats and certainly don’t see themselves as simpletons because that is their preference.

They also appreciate and respect others prefer the longer format and don’t see the need to call them names because of their preference.

Others also appreciate that noise off the field whether music or not is totally irrelevant to skills on show on the actual cricket field

 

[Parkside]

Personally I disagree for the longevity of any sport you need to continue to attract both old and new audiences and undoubtedly new audiences are attracted to shorter formats and if they weren’t they would not be happening

And some prefer a format that although shorter is just as serious as a longer format and requires very talented cricketers to showcase their undoubted talents to entertain us.

Some have always preferred shorter format to longer formats and always appreciated the high skills on show in shorter formats and certainly don’t see themselves as simpletons because that is their preference.

They also appreciate and respect others prefer the longer format and don’t see the need to call them names because of their preference.

Others also appreciate that noise off the field whether music or not is totally irrelevant to skills on show on the actual cricket field

The term simpleton was used in the context of being a devotee of a simpler form of the game. It's purely a subjective opinion regarding the degree of skill required to hit a straight delivery on pitches of even bounce to an area of the field where fielders are prohibited or over ridiculously short boundaries. It's generally the elderly who prefer the longer more sedate form while the younger generation require the additional distraction of music and stroboscope lighting. If that's their taste so be it but I reserve the right to be cynical of a form of the game which is so heavily weighted in favour of the batting side.

 

[Voice of fair play]

The term simpleton was used in the context of being a devotee of a simpler form of the game. It's purely a subjective opinion regarding the degree of skill required to hit a straight delivery on pitches of even bounce to an area of the field where fielders are prohibited or over ridiculously short boundaries. It's generally the elderly who prefer the longer more sedate form while the younger generation require the additional distraction of music and stroboscope lighting. If that's their taste so be it but I reserve the right to be cynical of a form of the game which is so heavily weighted in favour of the batting side.

Well I am old

And have always preferred skillful cricketers hitting the ball out of the park.

Than batsman been good at leaving and grinding out scores

Or wickets that were regularly prepared in the sub continent where results were unlikely even after 5 days but each to their own.

Irrespective of whether any music played or not

It’s question of preference not looking down at one or the other in my humble opinion

 

[Parkside]

Well I am old

And have always preferred skillful cricketers hitting the ball out of the park.

Than batsman been good at leaving and grinding out scores

Or wickets that were regularly prepared in the sub continent where results were unlikely even after 5 days but each to their own.

Irrespective of whether any music played or not

It’s question of preference not looking down at one or the other in my humble opinion

Cynicism doesn't imply belittling or looking down in my not so humble opinion. Have a good 2024 and long may our opinions differ

 

[Voice of fair play]

Cynicism doesn't imply belittling or looking down in my not so humble opinion. Have a good 2024 and long may our opinions differ

Aye always enjoy the craic and respect others opinion, but will continue to champion aggressive positive cricket over less positive cricket.

Fortunately and it’s great for cricket imo, due to the likes of T20 and McCullum and Stokes longer format cricket more aggressive and positive than ever before long may it continue.

The first test win in Pakistan was exactly the thought process teams should have in test cricket, would never have happened before the two above factors influenced it.
You have a great 2024 too

 

[Dan..Dan..Dan..Dan]

Personally I disagree for the longevity of any sport you need to continue to attract both old and new audiences and undoubtedly new audiences are attracted to shorter formats and if they weren’t they would not be happening

And some prefer a format that although shorter is just as serious as a longer format and requires very talented cricketers to showcase their undoubted talents to entertain us.

With all due respect, 'long format' cricket has been going for 130+ years. I agree 'short format' cricket has it's place but the reality is that the money that will be spent/invested in it will be at the detriment of the long term health of the game.

I assume you are a football fan? How would you feel if they decided the increase the size of the goals to 12 feet by 32 which would mean that there would be more goals. Because more goals are 'better' yes? Maybe 90 minutes is too long for newbies to concentrate so we'll shorten games to 40 minutes. The current format of 92 clubs would need amending too. Let's amalgamate the players of those 92 teams and lump them into vaguely geographic new teams with zappy new names. Yes, some places where they've always supported the game will have to do without, but that doesn't matter. The games of the national team would have to be fitted in around the new format and if that meant they failed at international tournements, then that's a price worth paying?

 

[Voice of fair play]

With all due respect, 'long format' cricket has been going for 130+ years. I agree 'short format' cricket has it's place but the reality is that the money that will be spent/invested in it will be at the detriment of the long term health of the game.

I assume you are a football fan? How would you feel if they decided the increase the size of the goals to 12 feet by 32 which would mean that there would be more goals. Because more goals are 'better' yes? Maybe 90 minutes is too long for newbies to concentrate so we'll shorten games to 40 minutes. The current format of 92 clubs would need amending too. Let's amalgamate the players of those 92 teams and lump them into vaguely geographic new teams with zappy new names. Yes, some places where they've always supported the game will have to do without, but that doesn't matter. The games of the national team would have to be fitted in around the new format and if that meant they failed at international tournements, then that's a price worth paying?

I think it’s a balance mate, as their is room for both test cricket and T20 cricket if planned properly and agree test cricket should remain the pinnacle.

I really don’t get your football comparison,I am over 50 and have always loved shorter forms of the game going back to club cricket cup 20 over games on a night.

T20 is just a further extension of that.

The amazing success of the IPl, and other shorter format tournaments developing in other countries is evidence fans both want and enjoy it and furthermore as alluded to in my previous posts this has actually enhanced test cricket and made it more watchable imo.

The IPL for example has increased the talent in that country and enhanced the quality of their national team which is the opposite of what you suggesting.

Sport including cricket needs to evolve and attract new fans for the longevity of it.

That’s the bottom line, personally I don’t care about sappy new names or music playing as think people get sidetracked by that and forget the high skills on show and the high entertainment on the field.

I agree longer format should remain king, but at the same time we need to embrace changing times and changing preferences and work together for the longer benefit of the game.

This country imo should have a showcase T20 tournament in a designated window similar to the IPL, while at the same time having test cricket as the main priority.

It can be done imo if all work together.

 

[Parkside]

I think it’s a balance mate, as their is room for both test cricket and T20 cricket if planned properly and agree test cricket should remain the pinnacle.

I really don’t get your football comparison,I am over 50 and have always loved shorter forms of the game going back to club cricket cup 20 over games on a night.

T20 is just a further extension of that.

The amazing success of the IPl, and other shorter format tournaments developing in other countries is evidence fans both want and enjoy it and furthermore as alluded to in my previous posts this has actually enhanced test cricket and made it more watchable imo.

The IPL for example has increased the talent in that country and enhanced the quality of their national team which is the opposite of what you suggesting.

Sport including cricket needs to evolve and attract new fans for the longevity of it.

That’s the bottom line, personally I don’t care about sappy new names or music playing as think people get sidetracked by that and forget the high skills on show and the high entertainment on the field.

I agree longer format should remain king, but at the same time we need to embrace changing times and changing preferences and work together for the longer benefit of the game.

This country imo should have a showcase T20 tournament in a designated window similar to the IPL, while at the same time having test cricket as the main priority.

It can be done imo if all work together.

By all do you mean globally or nationally? ICC are now officially the rulers of cricket but in effect it's BCCI who have the wealth and so are the real ruling body. India,however,recognise that they need both England and Australia which gives these 2 countries some recognition and powers in the global market. However, I think domestically we are now at a crucial stage in getting the correct balance between red ball and white ball cricket. Clearly there's only room long term for 1 short ball tournament,be it T20 or the Hundred if the longer form is to survive. Equally all eighteen counties need to be a involved.I really think the future of the game itself is at stake in getting the correct decision on this.And beware the hint from Mr Bostock -the Saudis are looking at getting involved. Worrying times!

 

[Voice of fair play]

By all do you mean globally or nationally? ICC are now officially the rulers of cricket but in effect it's BCCI who have the wealth and so are the real ruling body. India,however,recognise that they need both England and Australia which gives these 2 countries some recognition and powers in the global market. However, I think domestically we are now at a crucial stage in getting the correct balance between red ball and white ball cricket. Clearly there's only room long term for 1 short ball tournament,be it T20 or the Hundred if the longer form is to survive. Equally all eighteen counties need to be a involved.I really think the future of the game itself is at stake in getting the correct decision on this.And beware the hint from Mr Bostock -the Saudis are looking at getting involved. Worrying times!

Yeah think that a really good post mate, nearly agreed with all of it

I have always said it’s about the right balance between the two and embracing each format rather than constantly having a go at one.

Certainly only room imo for just one short format tournament as per other nations and it also needs to be T20 and not 100 balls.

Where we slightly differ is not sure it’s possible to have all 18 counties always involved all the time.

As think our domestic short format tournament like others needs to have a designated window and each match an event and don’t think or at least very hard to involve all of them that way.

 

[Parkside]

Yeah think that a really good post mate, nearly agreed with all of it

I have always said it’s about the right balance between the two and embracing each format rather than constantly having a go at one.

Certainly only room imo for just one short format tournament as per other nations and it also needs to be T20 and not 100 balls.

Where we slightly differ is not sure it’s possible to have all 18 counties always involved all the time.

As think our domestic short format tournament like others needs to have a designated window and each match an event and don’t think or at least very hard to involve all of them that way.

If it's your local team each match is a local event with local pride at stake. Forget about attracting supposedly world class players.It's HAWWAY THE LADS with locals the youngsters can identify with. Stokes and Wood still at the ground at 10pm autographs and selfies with the youngsters.Unforgettable.

 

[Voice of fair play]

If it's your local team each match is a local event with local pride at stake. Forget about attracting supposedly world class players.It's HAWWAY THE LADS with locals the youngsters can identify with. Stokes and Wood still at the ground at 10pm autographs and selfies with the youngsters.Unforgettable.

Well I guess that the key difference in all these debates and a big reason for a lot of disagreements, the powers of be have to look of all of cricket where I lot of fans very understandably soo are interested and care about their team above all other issues

 

[Parkside]

Well I guess that the key difference in all these debates and a big reason for a lot of disagreements, the powers of be have to look of all of cricket where I lot of fans very understandably soo are interested and care about their team above all other issues

And their team has to be accessible so you need a countrywide set of teams.
But to build anything you have to have firm foundations and build from grass roots level. No cricket in schools means local clubs provide those roots and the pathway to an attainable and accessible higher level. Not at all sure that paying huge salaries to mercenaries is a sensible use of finances.Youngsters will surely more readily identify with the local product made good.

 

[Voice of fair play]

And their team has to be accessible so you need a countrywide set of teams.
But to build anything you have to have firm foundations and build from grass roots level. No cricket in schools means local clubs provide those roots and the pathway to an attainable and accessible higher level. Not at all sure that paying huge salaries to mercenaries is a sensible use of finances.Youngsters will surely more readily identify with the local product made good.

Local kids have to want to play cricket in the first place and go to their local clubs therefore it needs to attract them in the first place and to do that cricket needs to be seen as entertaining, enjoyable and exciting competing with all other modern interests.

The season before last for example can’t remember the exact results but a combination of flat wickets and lack of will to win from county championship sides meant a hell of a lot of games drawn and boring and not even close to result.

That type of cricket will not attract new fans to the game imo and if we kept going down the route lack of participation at ground level would continue to dwindle imo.

But fast paced, short format exciting cricket will do or at least has a chance to increase that participation

Fortunately last seasons county championship especially Durham and England has been a totally different brand of long format cricket long may it continue
Private investment as Bostock will bring in that well needed finances to pay the top stars which in turn will hopefully increase interest in participation in cricket and the money filter down to ground level, to keep all happy.
I am pretty sure kids in India will see the top stars and the high profile entertainment on show in say the IPL and want to be part of it in the future, similar could apply here

 

[Parkside]

Local kids have to want to play cricket in the first place and go to their local clubs therefore it needs to attract them in the first place and to do that cricket needs to be seen as entertaining, enjoyable and exciting competing with all other modern interests.

The season before last for example can’t remember the exact results but a combination of flat wickets and lack of will to win from county championship sides meant a hell of a lot of games drawn and boring and not even close to result.

That type of cricket will not attract new fans to the game imo and if we kept going down the route lack of participation at ground level would continue to dwindle imo.

But fast paced, short format exciting cricket will do or at least has a chance to increase that participation

Fortunately last seasons county championship especially Durham and England has been a totally different brand of long format cricket long may it continue
Private investment as Bostock will bring in that well needed finances to pay the top stars which in turn will hopefully increase interest in participation in cricket and the money filter down to ground level, to keep all happy.
I am pretty sure kids in India will see the top stars and the high profile entertainment on show in say the IPL and want to be part of it in the future, similar could apply here

Yes you certainly initially have to attract the young to the game. That's the aim of the Chance to Shine initiative.
What we fundamentally disagree on is the attraction that these top stars bring. Can't think of any overseas player who has greatly improved Durham's T20performances. In general hard to think of any overseas import who drastically improved any team.They're generally overrated and overvalued. Now you point out a Potts or Carse to a youngster and say "He plays for England" and he's far more likely to be impressed.
It's wholly unrealistic to create an IPL like tournament in England.
Equally it's equally wasteful to award 26 central multi-year central contracts. Put resources in at the grass roots is the way to develop the game.