• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

The Hundred 2024

Voice of fair play said:
That’s fair enough, we fundamentally have a different view, which is fine, my view is I think white ball short format is extremely skillful, batsman can now hit 360 degrees around the wicket have developed more shots than ever before, bowlers have more variation in the balls they bowl than ever before, and T20 short format cricket has taken fielding to a whole new level.

I also think have watched cricket as you have for countless years the influence of white ball cricket has made test cricket a better watch than ever.

Personally I like all formats of the game and in cricket there is good and bat games in all of them, I don’t see the need to have a go at red ball cricket because I prefer white ball, however there is plenty the other way round imo.

The county championship for example has seen one end to the other end of the spectrum, the last round seen some brilliant games and one of the best ever which is great, however some of the earlier ones when using kookaburra ball was so in favour of the batsman it was a very bad watch.

The issue I have is when they is poor red ball games, you don’t see any snobbery or derogatory comments towards it’s just accepted there will be good and bad games.

Where in T20, IPL and hundred games there is this imo underlying snobbery looking down at them formats and believe ‘ hit and giggle’ is used as a ‘ derogatory’ term towards it and does not do justice to the skills developed in that game that I alluded to above

Whether traditional cricket supporters like it or not short format cricket in the last 15 years has took off and the public worldwide enjoy it, hence the reason for a lot of it.

Best way forward imo is to embrace both formats and accept both have a place in the game not constantly look down at one which imo happens.
Click to expand...
Yes,long diatribe, so we have differing views on the skill sets involved in different formats - no problem. Again you've ignored my basic questions. What's offensive or derogatory about the term "hit and giggle"- The ball is hit hard and far and the crowd cheer it. How is it snobbish and childish to dislike a particular form of the game?So the short form is not viewed as traditional or proper cricket. Why,how, is it snobbish or childish to have that view? Justify your offensive comments.
What exactly is wrong with having a dismissive view of a particular form of the game?
 
Last edited:

Parkside said:
Yes,long diatribe, so we have differing views on the skill sets involved in different formats - no problem. Again you've ignored my basic questions. What's offensive or derogatory about the term "hit and giggle"- The ball is hit hard and far and the crowd cheer it. How is it snobbish and childish to dislike a particular form of the game?So the short form is not viewed as traditional or proper cricket. Why,how, is itsnobbish or childish to have that view? Justify your offensive comments.
What exactly is wrong with having a dismissive view of a particular form of the game?
Click to expand...
I thought I did answer it mate, my perception when I have seen this term on several different boards/websites over a number of years is that in the majority of times it has been used in a snobbery derogatory way towards shorter formats.
It’s getting a bit silly now but using words like ‘proper’ and ‘ hit and giggle’ suggests the proper is more important and more skilled than the ‘hit and giggle’.

I simply don’t see it that way and find them both skilled on a level footing just different format.
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
I thought I did answer it mate, my perception when I have seen this term on several different boards/websites over a number of years is that in the majority of times it has been used in a snobbery derogatory way towards shorter formats.
Click to expand...
You'd make an excellent politician. Answer the question. How is it snobbish and how is it derogatory to describe that form as "hit and giggle?".
That's very objectionable terminology.
I'll sink to your level -Because people don't agree with your view you throw your toys out of the pram.
They give kids cards with 4 and 6 on to wave and cheer when it happens- hows that not hit and giggle?
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
You'd make an excellent politician. Answer the question. How is it snobbish and how is it derogatory to describe that form as "hit and giggle?".
That's very objectionable terminology.
I'll sink to your level -Because people don't agree with your view you throw your toys out of the pram.
They give kids cards with 4 and 6 on to wave and cheer when it happens- hows that not hit and giggle?
Click to expand...
It’s not a question of throwing toys out of pram for people not agreeing with my views on T20/short format as that has been clear for years some will not share them views so I have given up trying to persuade some to share the view that it entertaining and highly skillful.

However that still my geninue view that T20 is a great game, very entertaining skillful and good for getting new people interested in the game, and the longer game has benefited for it so put that across and don’t criticize others who prefer the longer game.

Back to your question ;)

On many websites/boards I have read over the years, when people have used the terms I have alluded to like hit and giggle it’s also been accompanied with such words, as people only have a low attention span to watch shorter formats and that ‘real’ cricket fans appreciate the longer game.

Personally and my opinion is that I think that derogatory.

I suppose put in the simple terms you have put it, it is not derogatory, but I suspect you know it is used in a wider context
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
As much as I can take you point in first paragraph, especially the unfair geographical spilt of the competition

The second paragraph is simply not accepting that world cricket both wants and needs short format cricket.

It’s about getting the balance right and accepting that.

Childish, snobbery jibes towards it just totally counter productive
Click to expand...

Show me where I'm not accepting that the world likes hit and giggle cricket? My reasons for despising the 16.4 are well documented, doesn't matter how many times you ignore them.

Mostly because you're so precious about it. I quite enjoy watching people tying themselves up in knots trying to justify to existence of the 16.4.
 
Voice of fair play said:
It’s getting a bit silly now but using words like ‘proper’ and ‘ hit and giggle’ suggests the proper is more important and more skilled than the ‘hit and giggle’.
.
Click to expand...

It’s only you who considers it silly, but the term ‘proper cricket’ has long been established by journalists, pundits, the media, etc as a phrase to mean red ball, white clothing, long format cricket.

I’ve never known anyone else to get so upset.
 
Voice of fair play said:
It’s not a question of throwing toys out of pram for people not agreeing with my views on T20/short format as that has been clear for years some will not share them views so I have given up trying to persuade some to share the view that it entertaining and highly skillful.

However that still my geninue view that T20 is a great game, very entertaining skillful and good for getting new people interested in the game, so put that across and don’t criticize others who prefer the longer game.

Back to your question ;)

On many websites/boards I have read over the years, when people have used the terms I have alluded to like hit and giggle it’s also been accompanied with such words, as people only have a low attention span to watch shorter formats and that ‘real’ cricket fans appreciate the longer game.

Personally and my opinion is that I think that derogatory.
Click to expand...
The shorter form obviously requires a lower attention span and That's part of its appeal to those who find the longer form boring. T20 is a contrived form of traditional cricket -real being used in this context meaning traditional. I fully appreciate that you need a faster moving game to attract youngsters. Kids have a lower attention span than adults and That's why T20 was designed. That's fact and not derogatory. Many acquaintances tell me cricket is boring-I don't take the comment as derogatory. You,however,feel justified in labelling people snobbish by expressing distaste for a form of cricket which is designed specifically for to appeal to youngsters.
Withdraw your snobbish accusations
 
Last edited:
Steak Pie said:
Show me where I'm not accepting that the world likes hit and giggle cricket? My reasons for despising the 16.4 are well documented, doesn't matter how many times you ignore them.

Mostly because you're so precious about it. I quite enjoy watching people tying themselves up in knots trying to justify to existence of the 16.4.
Click to expand...
I am not precious about 16.4 or The Hundred or whatever you want to call it.

In fact I prefer T20 always have always will.

What I do strongly believe in though is a flagship short format tournament in this country in the summer peak time.

Would actually prefer T20 as can relate to that better
 
Agreed, the main problem with this format is that it's trying to attract attention and new supporters to a sport that is already reasonably complicated. So how do they attract new eyeballs? Coloured kits, city names and shorter time required to watch - all understandable (New spectators are not going to be hung up about counties, they're far more likely to feel connected to a city, re football).

A big problem is that when new spectators try to watch further cricket, they have to learn a whole new bunch of oddities about the format (overs not sets, new format for econ. rates, RRR and the like). So while getting people attracted to a complicated sport is difficult enough, they haven't half made it harder by bringing a brand new format, certainly more complicated than the jump between T20 and First Class.
 
no_salmonpants said:
Agreed, the main problem with this format is that it's trying to attract attention and new supporters to a sport that is already reasonably complicated. So how do they attract new eyeballs? Coloured kits, city names and shorter time required to watch - all understandable (New spectators are not going to be hung up about counties, they're far more likely to feel connected to a city, re football).

A big problem is that when new spectators try to watch further cricket, they have to learn a whole new bunch of oddities about the format (overs not sets, new format for econ. rates, RRR and the like). So while getting people attracted to a complicated sport is difficult enough, they haven't half made it harder by bringing a brand new format, certainly more complicated than the jump between T20 and First Class.
Click to expand...
It was a massive mistake imo, changing an already winning formula that had took off around the cricketing world.

They could easily have left it at 20 overs and called it something else.
 
Some numbers that you may find interesting.

The 16.4 game is being shown for free on YouTube right now, via the Sky Sports Cricket page. Currently watching 823.

The Metro Bank One Day Cup Games currently on YouTube:

Surrey v Yorkshire - 6,101 viewers
Glamorgan v Gloucestershire 3,362 viewers

Make of that what you will.
 
Utter shite teams again. Usual blast sloggers and run of the mill players. Welsh teams colours is an assault on the eyes as well
 
Something you may find interesting...

Prolific thread starters who pretend to follow certain sports and spam the fuck out of the thread they started....

23/4......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top