• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

The Hundred 2023

Aidan11 said:
5 options on the table including keeping the Hindered as it is.

Smacks of desperation. Invent a tournament that a small minority might enjoy but the majority of cricket fans will hate. Take a gamble by throwing huge sums of money at it and bribing the counties with an annual £1.3 m sweetener. Keep the £1.3 million per county separate from the Hundred accounts so that it doesn't look like it is haemmoraging money (which it is).

It is scary how big the ECB have funked up on this. And they know it but obviously they can't admit it cos they'd be slaughtered.

However they need to come up with something that will build up the financial reserves again. But here's a hint for the ECB...NONE OF THOSE IDEAS SHOULD INVOLVE THE HUNDRED.

FFS I know people at the top in any profession can make some howlers but this is scary. They are in danger of wiping out professional cricket in Britain.
Click to expand...

Wiping out professional cricket… ha’way mate.

I’m no fan of the comp but the losses are basically what they planned, and what India and Australia went through to build successful comps.

Be great if they move to the two division county model it always should have been. If that’s 100 ball cricket then fair enough.
 

Dan..Dan..Dan..Dan said:
'Expansion', this can piss off as well.

You must be logged on to see external links

​

Click to expand...
In reality, the 18 team expansion is the most palatable of the five options for traditionalists as it is the only one that involves an open competition (two divisions with promotion/relegation) based on the 18 counties. If we got that, I could live with five ball overs, frankly, especially as it would be easy enough to change that last minor detail in due course.

All the other options are closed competitions based much more closely on the current model, having a closed 8 or 10 elite, and just fiddling about with whether you retain the status quo with the ECB running it, get a central external investor in, or sell off the individual teams as franchises. These options all seem worse.

More concerning still, it is quite obvious that the PCA objections, based as they are on the perceived scheduling difficulties of a two division 18 team competition in the current calendar, apply regardless of whether it’s based on 100 balls or 120. This does not feel like good news for those of us who would like to support radical change underpinned by restoration of the primacy of the counties. We don’t appear to have the PCA on our side at least.
 
Considering that most under 18s are bored witless with 12 overs an hour 50/50 and 20/20 nowadays.

While the hundred still enforces the over rate and strict timelines then yes it is taking over from t20.

Get used to it.

Over rates destroying the game.
 
No doubt they will want this to replace the one day cup.

It seems now the players don't want it, the fans certainly don't want it and no other countries are interested in it so why do they persist?

I can only assume it's contractual obligations keeping this going. The majority of true cricket fans hate it and the ECB can't rely on casual fans turning up each season.

I guess they'll end up learning the hard way but by then the damage to the domestic season in general may be irreparable.

Shafting the Ashes to end by mid-season was an absolute joke.

It doesn't work now and it won't work in the future. ECB need to wake up.
 
Silly Point said:
Don't we already have a short format competition with 18 teams? With proper rules and entities that have existed for over a century and don't exist solely to advertise junk food?
Click to expand...
Well we do, yes, but since none of the five options are going back to that and pretending the last five years never happened, much as I wish we could, I’m with the one that gets closest is what I’m saying.

Indeed, isn’t the eighteen county option almost what everyone said they should have done instead of the Hundred in the first place? 18 county, two division with promotion/ relegation, clear slot in the calendar, proper ECB support, partly on terrestrial tv. If we can get all of that out of the wreckage, even if the price is five ball overs that’s a win for me.
 
Fleagle said:
In reality, the 18 team expansion is the most palatable of the five options for traditionalists as it is the only one that involves an open competition (two divisions with promotion/relegation) based on the 18 counties. If we got that, I could live with five ball overs, frankly, especially as it would be easy enough to change that last minor detail in due course.
Click to expand...
That's how they con people. Provide five options, ranging from 'a bit shit' to 'absolute rancid sewerage', and surprise suprise, they'll get the least shit one pushed through because 'it was the most popular' and we'll all be very grateful. Let's tug our forelocks to the great and mighty ECB. Fucked if I ever will. Bastards. Comedy cricket for the hard of thinking. I'd love to see how many youngsters who are attracted to this format are actual supporters of the game in five/ten years time when they are adults and will have to pay for their own tickets rather than parents buying them/getting them cheap.
 
Last edited:
The idea to expand to 10 teams with an 8 team Div 2 sounds like great progress. Play off between Div 2 winner and Div 1 wooden spoon to go/ stay up.

From 2028 they can then rework it into a T20 too, apparently.

The bit I don’t like are potential ground criteria on entry to Div 1. Really restrictive on the smaller counties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top