• 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 2025


Voice of fair play said:
You should mention that to @Steak Pie who has suggested several times that having kids sent on a bus to watch county championship games is the way to engage them in the game.

As the short format T20 or otherwise is just ‘Big Mac and fries’ apparently
Click to expand...
I reckon a day actually watching some live cricket would do you the world of good.

As you've said yourself, you want the same players, playing for the same teams, in replica tournaments all over the world.

The Mcdonaldsification of cricket.
Parkside said:
I accept that other posters are fully entitled to views which don't concur with mine I wholly recognise posters objection to cricket being monopolised during high summer by a format designed to occupy the minds of youngsters hence the cynical terminology. I organised coach trips for children to attend Gillette cup games and later games v tourists. I can assure you they thoroughly enjoyed the experience.
My club organise small aside games for the youngsters to participate in rather than encouraging them to sit on their backsiides watching participants with adverts for unhealthy snack foods on their outfits.Each to his own,of course.
Click to expand...
Would like that multiple times if I could.

However the cult of the 16.4 don't want to listen.
Fleagle said:
This particular obsession of yours is both factually wrong and wrongheaded anyway.

The last two tests were during the school holidays. I will lay you a pound to a penny, having been to two days of the last one, that there were hardly any kids at either of them. Not noticeably more than at the first three anyway, Understandable given the format and the price. There will also, by the time the competition you hate has finished, have been a county championship round and eight 50 over matches. The latter, in my experience, attracts plenty of kids (as does the Hundred of course). The former, not so much.

The two main school holiday formats, the one-day cup and the Hundred, are those that the kids go to in largest numbers. I’m a long form time cricket fan. It’s the purest form of the game, and the most subtly exciting when it works in my view. But you’ve let your hatred of the short form cloud your reason if you think it should be the focus of the school holidays.
Click to expand...
And on TV? Also none as for the most part they were at school.

The One Day Cup is a half decent competition, which is staggering given that it's mostly second XIs playing at out grounds.

Hatred of short format? What? I attended the very first Blast tournament and then every single one since, until this year. If you think thats the reason people hate the 16.4 and the sell off of the English summer, then what are we even doing here?
 
Last edited:
Steak Pie said:
I reckon a day actually watching some live cricket would do you the world of good.

As you've said yourself, you want the same players, playing for the same teams, in replica tournaments all over the world.

The Mcdonaldsification of cricket.

Would like that multiple times if I could.

However the cult of the 16.4 don't want to listen.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that they note the counter arguments that are posted,that they don't respond suggests that they accept them as truths but won't acknowledge them as such.
I'd hope that all who post on here would accept what is the best way forward for English cricket l o nd term
Long term
That should overrule short term fixes regardless.
 
Last edited:
The Oval Invincibles are absolutely insufferable like, the two Currans and Billings are odious

Edit: that last 5 balls was a disgrace, took about 25 minutes
 
Tuesday 26th August

Women 3pm
Northern Superchargers Women v Manchester Originals Women
Headingley, Leeds

Men 6.30pm
Northern Superchargers Men v Manchester Originals Men
Headingley, Leeds
 
Steak Pie said:
And on TV? Also none as for the most part they were at school.
Click to expand...
The fourth and fifth tests were on TV during the school holidays. Sadly, as far as live cricket goes, behind a paywall. But that’s an ECB decision that long predates the Hundred. The Hundred is in tv of course. The championship and one-day cup aren’t, except via you tube, but they never were except for the Gillette final in its glory days.
Steak Pie said:
The One Day Cup is a half decent competition, which is staggering given that it's mostly second XIs playing at out grounds.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. And it shows there is an appetite for something more traditional.
Steak Pie said:
Hatred of short format? What? I attended the very first Blast tournament and then every single one since, until this year. If you think thats the reason people hate the 16.4 and the sell off of the English summer, then what are we even doing here?
Click to expand...
Apologies for that. Your hatred for the current shortest form then.

But short form of some kind will always be the gateway drug. I’m an old git who consumed most of his early professional cricket via the John Player League on BBC2 on a Sunday. Which also fiddled with the laws in multiple ways to condense the format and which the then old gits said was a monstrosity that would ruin proper cricket. I got hooked on test cricket even more remotely. The earliest series I can remember was followed on the radio. And for what it’s worth, didn’t actually involve six ball overs, a point so irrelevant to me at the time that I had to look it up just now to check. Which throws the six ball over obsession inherent in the rather childish persistence with referring to the 16.4 into some perspective I think.

Children can be won over by any format because they don’t carry the baggage. Just as I didn’t in 1970. And looking at the average age of my club’s first XI they bloody well need to be, and sharpish. What we were doing wasn’t working. And no amount of wishing that it was was going to make it so.
 
Fleagle said:
But short form of some kind will always be the gateway drug. I’m an old git who consumed most of his early professional cricket via the John Player League on BBC2 on a Sunday. Which also fiddled with the laws in multiple ways to condense the format and which the then old gits said was a monstrosity that would ruin proper cricket. I got hooked on test cricket even more remotely. The earliest series I can remember was followed on the radio. And for what it’s worth, didn’t actually involve six ball overs, a point so irrelevant to me at the time that I had to look it up just now to check. Which throws the six ball over obsession inherent in the rather childish persistence with referring to the 16.4 into some perspective I think.

Children can be won over by any format because they don’t carry the baggage. Just as I didn’t in 1970. And looking at the average age of my club’s first XI they bloody well need to be, and sharpish. What we were doing wasn’t working. And no amount of wishing that it was was going to make it so.
Click to expand...
I assume you are referring to 8 ball overs which were the norm in Australia,and New Zealand, when I first followed Ashes series on the radio. Checking I find it remained so until the late 1970's when it was unified worldwide back to 6 ball overs.
I'd argue short form cricket has always been the more popular amongst both young and old, it was the curmudgeonly professional players who undervalued it when it was introduced at professional level. The moniker 16.4 references the contradiction that the claim that 20 overs is too long then unnecessarily lengthening the newest format by adopting 5 ball overs which gives the same number of change of ends as T20. The reference is only childish to those for whom that the nuance goes above their heads.
T20 would have easily fitted into a much smaller time frame if the tardiness of over rates was addressed. I remember when the local evening Saunders cup tournament was 30overs a side completed before dusk fell.
The contempt is not so much for the 16.4 format but for the long term consequences of Franchise cricket There was an excellent well-researched and informative study of it in May's edition of the Cricketer which those who continue to stick their head in the sand on the issue would do well to access
 
Parkside said:
I assume you are referring to 8 ball overs which were the norm in Australia,and New Zealand, when I first followed Ashes series on the radio. Checking I find it remained so until the late 1970's when it was unified worldwide back to 6 ball overs.
I'd argue short form cricket has always been the more popular amongst both young and old, it was the curmudgeonly professional players who undervalued it when it was introduced at professional level. The moniker 16.4 references the contradiction that the claim that 20 overs is too long then unnecessarily lengthening the newest format by adopting 5 ball overs which gives the same number of change of ends as T20. The reference is only childish to those for whom that the nuance goes above their heads.
T20 would have easily fitted into a much smaller time frame if the tardiness of over rates was addressed. I remember when the local evening Saunders cup tournament was 30overs a side completed before dusk fell.
The contempt is not so much for the 16.4 format but for the long term consequences of Franchise cricket There was an excellent well-researched and informative study of it in May's edition of the Cricketer which those who continue to stick their head in the sand on the issue would do well to access
Click to expand...
Are there not less change of ends in a 100 ball game than T20?
 
Parkside said:
I assume they change ends after 5 balls as opposed to the normal 6- so 19 change of ends in both.
Click to expand...
They bowl 10 balls off each end before changing - it can be a different bowler deliver the first 5 to the second set off 5 off the same end but they do not swap every 5.

50 balls from each end per innings
 
mackemmover94 said:
They bowl 10 balls off each end before changing - it can be a different bowler deliver the first 5 to the second set off 5 off the same end but they do not swap every 5.

50 balls from each end per innings
Click to expand...
I knew there was the option of bowler delivering 10 without change. Generally though 19 changes of bowling.Still seem to take an inordinate time to bowl each set of 10.
 
Parkside said:
I assume you are referring to 8 ball overs which were the norm in Australia,and New Zealand, when I first followed Ashes series on the radio. Checking I find it remained so until the late 1970's when it was unified worldwide back to 6 ball overs.
Click to expand...
Sorry yes, thought I said, but I didn’t, that I was blooded on Illingworth’s 70-71 Ashes. Which it suddenly occurred to me when I was posting probably had eight ball overs. Something that passed me by at the time, which was kind of the point. I just took it in my stride as normal. So will people that age now with different formats.

Indeed, the championship has had four, five, six and eight ball overs through its life. There’s no magic number. It’s an utterly preposterous reason to dislike it. And the whole “16.4” thing is too childish for words. Like those who insist on saying Kier Stalin on Nigel Fagash in political contexts. A 10-year-old might find it funny the first time. That’s about it.
 
Fleagle said:
Sorry yes, thought I said, but I didn’t, that I was blooded on Illingworth’s 70-71 Ashes. Which it suddenly occurred to me when I was posting probably had eight ball overs. Something that passed me by at the time, which was kind of the point. I just took it in my stride as normal. So will people that age now with different formats.

Indeed, the championship has had four, five, six and eight ball overs through its life. There’s no magic number. It’s an utterly preposterous reason to dislike it. And the whole “16.4” thing is too childish for words. Like those who insist on saying Kier Stalin on Nigel Fagash in political contexts. A 10-year-old might find it funny the first time. That’s about it.
Click to expand...
In your view it's childish. It's intended as an expression of light-hearted contempt as,I suspect,are the Stalin and Fagash misnomers. I should be surprised that you allow something so trivial to get you irate 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top