The Hundred 2023

[Parkside]

I am over the moon with that first paragraph although I am not seeing it, there is certainly pockets where it is striving but others where participation is falling rapidly and club teams are struggling to field teams another poster on here that is involved at ground level has already alluded to it.

I am totally confused how me personally saying that the bigger picture for me personally is more participation in the game than the success or not of one particular club is implying anything at all of what that particular club does or condescending in the slightest to them.

It’s not having a go in the slightest at that club in anyway it’s just a personal prority of what I consider more important.

as usual you're taking things out of context. Of course the aim is greater participation but you offer no justification nor evidence that tv coverage is going to encourage kids to watch a game of which they know nothing about. Kids hardly watch TV nowadays.Again,in the main,that's only accessible to those privileged to have access to Sky..
as to your 1st paragraph,clubs that are struggling,get into schools, tell the kids what's on offer at their local club. That's the Durham template.That's how you create the bigger picture.

 

[Voice of fair play]

as usual you're taking things out of context. Of course the aim is greater participation but you offer no justification nor evidence that tv coverage is going to encourage kids to watch a game of which they know nothing about. Kids hardly watch TV nowadays.Again,in the main,that's only accessible to those privileged to have access to Sky..
as to your 1st paragraph,clubs that are struggling,get into schools, tell the kids what's on offer at their local club. That's the Durham template.That's how you create the bigger picture.

Personally I think you have took things out of context and took my posts as a criticism of Durham when it was nothing of the sort.

I have no doubt Durham will be doing everything it possibly can to increase participation, and have no criticism of them in the slightest, but there is certainly an argument with all other modern interests nowadays that something bigger needs to be done to get more interest in the game at a younger age and attract families to the game which the hundred is doing and trying to do while at the same time agreeing with you that it not widespread enough and only currently aimed and where more population is.

 

[brandon]

I am not ignoring it, we have done it to death.

I respect and understand your view and if it was just kept at that would not be continuing to post as see your point and where you coming from.

You are ignoring it, you do it all the time and you are NOT respecting his view because of the following:

What I don’t understand is the constant pettiness on these threads such as people saying it ‘hopes it rains’ ‘ taking the piss’

Constantly looking at every possible angle to have a go whether it’s about the quality, sponsors, attendance, whatever they can think off to have a go.

You don’t understand it because you don’t WANT to understand it.

SEVERAL posters, myself included, have painstakingly and very patiently explained, in the finest of details, time and time and time again, exactly WHY certain people say those things about it.

However you’re still here telling us you don’t understand it, all the while proving my first statement (and also the statement from @Steak Pie) that you simply ignore the bits you don’t want to see.

But totally respect other people’s views and preferences

No you don’t, as the above proves, it’s no good carping on about what people are saying one minute, then in the next paragraph trying to tell us you ‘respect’ people’s views and preferences.

and would not dream and have not seen anyone else do it, going on a Durham thread in the CC or one day cup and take the piss if they were out for a low score, or take the piss out of a player if he did not do well.

The MASSIVE difference being, >95% of posts on a Durham match thread are from people who support Durham - whereas who on here genuinely has a team in the 16.4? I couldn’t tell you one person’s 16.4 team on here. However I can tell you that there’s a few on here who follow other counties - Derbyshire, Surrey, Yorkshire, etc.

Why do many a poster than take every opportunity to criticize the quality which after watching nearly every match myself as been exceptionally good this season.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I find the propaganda of it all hilarious, when someone does something that is fairly ordinary and which happens in most cricket games (across all formats) and the commentators go on berserk as if it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The sort of shameless over-promotion that even Lord Haw Haw would be embarrassed by.

You’re guilty of it yourself of course, when you say “nearly every match has been exceptionally good this season”…

What do you class as “nearly every”? Can you put a percentage on it? Or a fraction?? Looking at the scorecards, I’d argue you’d be lucky if 60% of the games were ‘exceptionally good’. Even the final was an anti-climax if the standard is ‘down to the wire’ or a ‘close finish’.

Maybe I am slightly biased because I love short format attacking positive cricket and always have since I fell in love with the game watching 20 over club cricket on summers nights.

Really though? I grew up playing those games and 100 used to be deemed a decent score. 120 was great and 140 was considered an absolute slogfest. Hardly ‘attacking positive cricket’.

Of course 118-7 plays 115 all out would be an absolute epic, but we’re back to ‘close finishes’ as opposed to ‘attacking positive cricket’.

What is stopping more ppl attending county cricket at Durham, location, price or other things? For me one would be no England players playing more often and instead rested

You’ve missed the glaringly obvious reason of course… probably intentionally.

 

[Voice of fair play]

You are ignoring it, you do it all the time and you are NOT respecting his view because of the following:



You don’t understand it because you don’t WANT to understand it.

SEVERAL posters, myself included, have painstakingly and very patiently explained, in the finest of details, time and time and time again, exactly WHY certain people say those things about it.

However you’re still here telling us you don’t understand it, all the while proving my first statement (and also the statement from @Steak Pie) that you simply ignore the bits you don’t want to see.



No you don’t, as the above proves, it’s no good carping on about what people are saying one minute, then in the next paragraph trying to tell us you ‘respect’ people’s views and preferences.



The MASSIVE difference being, >95% of posts on a Durham match thread are from people who support Durham - whereas who on here genuinely has a team in the 16.4? I couldn’t tell you one person’s 16.4 team on here. However I can tell you that there’s a few on here who follow other counties - Derbyshire, Surrey, Yorkshire, etc.




I can’t speak for anyone else, but I find the propaganda of it all hilarious, when someone does something that is fairly ordinary and which happens in most cricket games (across all formats) and the commentators go on berserk as if it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The sort of shameless over-promotion that even Lord Haw Haw would be embarrassed by.

You’re guilty of it yourself of course, when you say “nearly every match has been exceptionally good this season”…

What do you class as “nearly every”? Can you put a percentage on it? Or a fraction?? Looking at the scorecards, I’d argue you’d be lucky if 60% of the games were ‘exceptionally good’. Even the final was an anti-climax if the standard is ‘down to the wire’ or a ‘close finish’.


Really though? I grew up playing those games and 100 used to be deemed a decent score. 120 was great and 140 was considered an absolute slogfest. Hardly ‘attacking positive cricket’.

Of course 118-7 plays 115 all out would be an absolute epic, but we’re back to ‘close finishes’ as opposed to ‘attacking positive cricket’.


You’ve missed the glaringly obvious reason of course… probably intentionally.

Don’t who you used to watch mate, or play but the team I used to watch in the late 80s and earlier 90s as a youngster would piss all over 100 and was not a good score.

And seen them make and knock off over 140 many many times

 

[brandon]

"while the women's average viewers per match on Sky Sports has grown 20 per cent to 132,000" - a country of 66 million and this is costing the game an absolute fortune.... 132k average isn't very good is it?

Let’s be honest, it’s f*cking abysmal.

You shouldn’t lose all sense of objectivity. It’s pretty good by the only real benchmark we can use given that it’s more than the WSL.

Using a shite benchmark to hype up a pretty shite number isn’t suddenly gaining a sense of objectivity either…

Clarky got a winners medal.

I hope he got an equal share of the winners bonus too

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

Let’s be honest, it’s f*cking abysmal.

It is but the worry is, this is costing an absolute fortune.

 

[Parkside]

Personally I think you have took things out of context and took my posts as a criticism of Durham when it was nothing of the sort.

I have no doubt Durham will be doing everything it possibly can to increase participation, and have no criticism of them in the slightest, but there is certainly an argument with all other modern interests nowadays that something bigger needs to be done to get more interest in the game at a younger age and attract families to the game which the hundred is doing and trying to do while at the same time agreeing with you that it not widespread enough and only currently aimed and where more population is.

You're repeating the misguided propaganda from the media. The Hundred is not doing anything that T20 hasn't being doing for years. Have you ever been to a T 20 game? Plenty of families there. Do the Hundred players incidentally stay on the field for autographs and selfies as the T20 does?
This argument has become tedious because you constantly refused to answer the question "What can the Hundred do that the T20 wasn't doing?"That's the whole crux of the Hundred debate.

 

[brandon]

Is it worth the money they're throwing at it though for 120k viewers?

Absolutely not. £450+ per viewer. Canny money if you can get it.

400,000 average viewership.

That’s less than 3% of paying Sky/NowTV subscribers.

Ah that’s better value, £15 per viewer.

 

[Voice of fair play]

You're repeating the misguided propaganda from the media. The Hundred is not doing anything that T20 hasn't being doing for years. Have you ever been to a T 20 game? Plenty of families there. Do the Hundred players incidentally stay on the field for autographs and selfies as the T20 does?
This argument has become tedious because you constantly refused to answer the question "What can the Hundred do that the T20 wasn't doing?"That's the whole crux of the Hundred debate.

I have already explained mate several times that I prefer T20 to the hundred.

But that I think for a short format tournament to be fully successful it’s needs to be in a designated window in peak time where each match is an event and all the focus on that game of the day

That’s what happens in every other major cricketing country in their flagship short format tournament, agreeably that would be ideally county based but don’t think you could do all the above with as many teams as 18.

T20 instead of 100 balls is fine with me

 

[Parkside]

I have already explained mate several times that I prefer T20 to the hundred.

But that I think for a short format tournament to be fully successful it’s needs to be in a designated window in peak time where each match is an event and all the focus on that game of the day

That’s what happens in every other major cricketing country in their flagship short format tournament, agreeably that would be ideally county based but don’t think you could do all the above with as many teams as 18.

T20 instead of 100 balls is fine with me

You think! You're fully entitled to but any statistical evidence to give it credence? Obviously IPL is totally different criteria but is there any evidence that other short ball tournaments are highly successful, lucrative and effective in attracting a new following?. BigBash is losing popularity,WIndies is a non event, S Africa and America are too young for any valid judgements.

 

[brandon]

Again though you have to compare apples with apples

Good idea…

It exceeds the domestic viewership average for Championship matches and the “regular season” average for all other sports on Sky.

When are you going to find some apples though? Cause with the greatest of respect that isn’t it. County Championship games take place predominantly during school/office hours and the 16.4 takes place predominantly during peak times in the school holidays - you have to acknowledge that distinction.

 

[Voice of fair play]

You think! You're fully entitled to but any statistical evidence to give it credence? Obviously IPL is totally different criteria but is there any evidence that other short ball tournaments are highly successful, lucrative and effective in attracting a new following?. BigBash is losing popularity,WIndies is a non event, S Africa and America are too young for any valid judgements.

Well the fact that every other country has decided that is the way to go is a kind of indication it’s the preferred method in the sense of each tournament been in a designated window to ensure full focus on it
And the very fact they spouting up in different countries in the last few years, would kind of suggest the format is thought to be attractive to fans, or else it would not be happening surely?

 

[NorthCountryBoy]

Absolutely not. £450+ per viewer. Canny money if you can get it.


Ah that’s better value, £15 per viewer.

The fingers can be read in a few ways. Firstly, like Dobell says, the £ loss figures need to include the county ‘bribes’ that the ECB conveniently ignore.

But also, anything like this will make a loss initially when you’re building the brand. So it shouldn’t be hammered for that alone, the IPL, Big Bash etc had the same. I always said/ thought it should be judged 4/5 years in for that reason. So not far off now.

Whichever way it’s looked at though the BBC numbers will make or break it, not how many watch womens’ daytime games behind a paywall. The BBC figures were crap last year, be interesting to see what the final got this time. The second half of the men’s final didn’t clash with Nunez twatting the Mags so it had a good slot.

 

[Parkside]

Well the fact that every other country has decided that is the way to go is a kind of indication it’s the preferred method in the sense of each tournament been in a designated window to ensure full focus on it
And the very fact they spouting up in different countries in the last few years, would kind of suggest the format is thought to be attractive to fans, or else it would not be happening surely?

Aye,every other country hasn't got 18 teams. 6 is the norm so it's easy to have only 1 game an evening.The PFG(Professional Games Committee) are having a series of meetings and are reporting recommendations to all the counties. God luck to them on that. Like all sports nowadays you're at the behest of the main stakeholder which is not fta tv. It's not the panacea to increase participation in the game. Exact opposite I suspect. People who have sky subscriptions are already converted.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Aye,every other country hasn't got 18 teams. 6 is the norm so it's easy to have only 1 game an evening.The PFG(Professional Games Committee) are having a series of meetings and are reporting recommendations to all the counties. God luck to them on that. Like all sports nowadays you're at the behest of the main stakeholder which is not fta tv. It's not the panacea to increase participation in the game. Exact opposite I suspect. People who have sky subscriptions are already converted.

Aye it’s a difficult one all round with vested interests throughout, I suspect a amicable solution to suit all parties will never be reached.

 

[Monument View]

I’m just glad that this overhyped visually ugly pile of Americanised awfulness is over.
Who won? Skipjack Tuna or Hoolahoops

 

[Paddy O'Dors]

The Sky cricket channel is now called SkyHundred. Is that a permanent thing? Or just for August?

 

[brandon]

I am really not mate

You are. A Durham cricket fan put it to you that you were coming across as condescending to Durham cricket fans and I second that. It isn’t for you to decide whether you are being condescending or not, in fact, your denial only serves to further enforce his point.

 

[Voice of fair play]

You are. A Durham cricket fan put it to you that you were coming across as condescending to Durham cricket fans and I second that. It isn’t for you to decide whether you are being condescending or not, in fact, your denial only serves to further enforce his point.

If you think a non Durham fan having a priority other than Durham is condescending then nothing I can do.

Durham fans will have priorities that understandably centre around Durham.

Non Durham fans like me won’t, that’s non condescending in the slightest

 

[Parkside]

Aye it’s a difficult one all round with vested interests throughout, I suspect a amicable solution to suit all parties will never be reached.

A chink of light in the TV coverage. The 2nd and 3rd T20s v NZ are live on BBC1 and BBC2 respectively and both on BBCI player.