I think it's brilliant
The last two Northern Superchargers games have been pure entertainment.
The last two Northern Superchargers games have been pure entertainment.
The Hundred - English cricket's new thing starts in 2020
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
Some hitting from southern Brave 160 off 80, and Adam Milne only went for 8 off his 20
Brave seam attack is top notch, Garton and Overton at the powerplay and Mills and Jordan at the death. I like Phoenix a lot but can't see them getting there.
Didn't help we only had Milne who troubled the Brave at all
What a way to get out!
Liam Livingstone is on fire
Incredible passage that
Ah bloody hell, we almost watched something special there from Livingstone. Instead that run out from David was insane
This feels like it's all on Ali
What a maverick Liam Livingstone is . We get to see him do this for Lancs next week in the blast . Such a shame about how it ended
Think that’s the game there.
Yeah that's it, it's a well deserved win for the Brave. Best side in the comp and Mills has been too good
Mo looked completely out of touch whilst Livingstone somehow came just out like this was a school attack
Good tournament. I still would prefer them to use franchise teams in a T20 format but I enjoyed it.
Mills surely will be in contention for the T20 WC given his record in this tournament.
Mills surely will be in contention for the T20 WC given his record in this tournament.
My only complaint is that the tournament started off with the England players involved and then they obviously went off to play with the test team. Surely it would be better to schedule it the other way around.
It's always the problem with cricket (and rugby). There's no international break, you just lose your England players.
Definitely. Just feels like it’s something they can work on next year to find a gap in the schedule. I’m not surprised that the winning team had a captain that isn’t playing internationals.
I fully agree, if it the 100 had as much player availability as the IPL it would be insane. It was class as it was with a lot of domestic players.
Honestly it had more to do with the Brave's bowling attack, it would have been nice to have had the likes of Bairstow, Buttler and so on but I think the Brave would have won regardless.
I'm not sure a gap in the schedule can be found as with the IPL, main reason being how short the British summer is.
I think the point is still relevant, as their bowling attack featured two (I’m including Mills) England one day players. I don’t know if that was in the thinking when putting the squad together, but imagine if those players weren’t available.
I don’t think they need a full month gap, just switch it around so that the top players are available at the business end of the tournament, rather than the first three games.
It also included Craig Overton who was in the test squads so did miss much of the tournament anyway. Their bowling attack had 3 players who have been involved in England squads this summer (Overton, Jordan and Garton) as well as another who definitely will go to the WC (in Mills). They also never had access to their England star in Jofra Archer who was injured the entire time.
I think having the top players available at the business end definitely makes sense next year. It was just first two and the knock out stages this time around but given they wanted to start the tournament with a bang, makes sense why they did it that way.
Livingstone has been fantastic. Surely a lock for England?
Such a clean hitter
Such a clean hitter
As a fan of County cricket, especially the county championship, and emphasis on County, not City, then my issue with The Hundred was always the fact it was deliberately, and openly, a first step to trying to move the sport away from what it is and to make it 'relevant' to a new audience in this short concentration span era. But at what cost, is my concern? Am I bothered about cricket becoming 'relevant' to certain demographics if, in order to do so, it stops being the sport that I love by dumbing down to an unacceptable level?
It was always going to be a 'PR success' in the short term with it's dumbed down presentation and it's clever points about which demographics it was deliberately aiming at and which demographics it was trying to move away from (the current fans who actually attend County matches).
I'm sure it'll do a lot for the women's game which lacks the fans and tradition at domestic level anyway so it was more important it attracted fans to any kind of format. But the men's county game has tradition, and, short term, the way it treated the counties and the 50 over format - taking all the best players and main grounds, and leaving them with shadow squads, outgrounds, and no publicity whatsoever - was hugely disrespectful. And, long term, it feels a big first step towards the much mooted, and feared, reduction to just 6 or 8 sides, playing at the bigger grounds, and the disappearance of the smaller counties.
To cricket fans who mostly follow the internationals and T20's, or non-cricket fans who'll watch a little bit of it just as entertainment in the sporting calendar alongside other events in sports they don't really follow like Wimbledon, Ryder Cup, Olympics, Summer football tournaments, etc - then I'm sure the positives are all that matter and the negatives dismissed as 'traditionalists resistant to change'. But risking losing over half the counties is a huge sacrifice to make for improved 'relevancy' for who remains, and shouldn't be dismissed as fuddy-duddy traditionalist views.
It was always going to be a 'PR success' in the short term with it's dumbed down presentation and it's clever points about which demographics it was deliberately aiming at and which demographics it was trying to move away from (the current fans who actually attend County matches).
I'm sure it'll do a lot for the women's game which lacks the fans and tradition at domestic level anyway so it was more important it attracted fans to any kind of format. But the men's county game has tradition, and, short term, the way it treated the counties and the 50 over format - taking all the best players and main grounds, and leaving them with shadow squads, outgrounds, and no publicity whatsoever - was hugely disrespectful. And, long term, it feels a big first step towards the much mooted, and feared, reduction to just 6 or 8 sides, playing at the bigger grounds, and the disappearance of the smaller counties.
To cricket fans who mostly follow the internationals and T20's, or non-cricket fans who'll watch a little bit of it just as entertainment in the sporting calendar alongside other events in sports they don't really follow like Wimbledon, Ryder Cup, Olympics, Summer football tournaments, etc - then I'm sure the positives are all that matter and the negatives dismissed as 'traditionalists resistant to change'. But risking losing over half the counties is a huge sacrifice to make for improved 'relevancy' for who remains, and shouldn't be dismissed as fuddy-duddy traditionalist views.
Last edited:
The Beast
Yeah I started noticing him 2-3 editions of the BBL ago. Great selection issues for England. Incidentally, and a little off topic, but it feels like Malan has been out of form for over a year now.
Perfect time for him to be picked for the test teamThe Beast
Yeah I started noticing him 2-3 editions of the BBL ago. Great selection issues for England. Incidentally, and a little off topic, but it feels like Malan has been out of form for over a year now.
Yeah could get some time in the middle under his belt.
I don't think a reduction in the number of sides is possible for first class or 50 over cricket in the same way. They will never be packagable for terrestrial TV at domestic level. I doubt Sky could even be convinced to air Birmingham vs Manchester in a 4 day game.
Hopefully not.
But it's a valid worry. There's nowhere near 18 counties in domestic cricket in other countries and it's long been mooted that a reduction here is seen as the way to go. If you Google it, there's plenty of articles about the ongoing concerns from the smaller counties.
There was another one just six days ago on Cricinfo...
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...s-court-players-from-smaller-counties-1274104
... That one focuses more on the extra money being brought in by the hosts of the sides in The Hundred, compared to the other smaller counties who are left out, creating a two tier system with players wanting to be at those clubs linked to the money generated by The Hundred. But again acknowledges how, long term, it leaves the smaller counties future up in the air.
It's a big issue that should be an important part of the discussion but is mostly, and deliberately, going under the radar. That's not a surprise as money talks, and, short term at least, The Hundred was always going to be a PR success - especially for giving a boost to the Women's game, which always guaranteed huge PR benefits in the media. But, long term, pushing the sport down a route that likely helps boost the remaining teams but at the likely expense of 6-8 of the established teams being pushed out completely, is something that should have the ethical side of it debated just as much as the financial side.
Yeah I know a fair few years ago (before the 2 division system) there was a lot of talking to switch to less teams, largely using the Australian model as the reference as they were dominating internationally at the time and their domestic system was strong with loads of quality players playing for just 6 or however many state teams it is they have. That's gone a bit quiet given their current Test side though!
Gotta say I think the reasoning is solid and there would be some benefits to having less sides, but I also follow a few of the smaller county sides having moved around a bit and wouldn't want any of them to disappear (Somerset, Gloucestershire and Derbyshire). I have a few mates who played grade cricket in Australia, and they all say that 1st tier grade cricket (below first class level) is actually higher standard than the weakest county sides, given how competitive it is to get into the state sides.
My brother, who's a Lancashire member and goes to county games etc had what struck me as an interesting perspective on it.
He liked the women's matches and accepted the Originals as "Manchester." Basically because he didn't know the women players. Whereas with the men, he reckoned there was a disconnect between the players and the city or the county - because he knows who does play for Lancashire etc.
I do wonder if other county watchers felt the same. If that is a problem, perhaps it's one that's fixable with more cooperation/care. It would be a shame if the hundred damages the county structure rather than adding new cricket fans and encouraging kids to play.
I am not sure how comparisons with Australia are valid here. Oz has a population less than half of what we have in England and Wales. They have massive area states and no counties close to one another like we do.
I can see that county cricket has unfortunately lost it's allure in the Sky Sports era and will have died soon enough frankly (without the financial boost from T20) as the money is simply not there. The hundred and T20 are the future of cricket I'm sorry to say, at least in terms of financing the game. The question is really, how long before Test cricket starts to stall because the quality won't be on show if all the cricketers do is play half dayers? The county game is vital, but how to fund it?
I can see that county cricket has unfortunately lost it's allure in the Sky Sports era and will have died soon enough frankly (without the financial boost from T20) as the money is simply not there. The hundred and T20 are the future of cricket I'm sorry to say, at least in terms of financing the game. The question is really, how long before Test cricket starts to stall because the quality won't be on show if all the cricketers do is play half dayers? The county game is vital, but how to fund it?
Last edited:
I think your brother makes a very good point about the men's version. As a long time fan of the county game it is weird to see new teams created for just one competition, and all the players from each county mixed up and representing any of the random teams. It did create a disconnect for me and felt like a glorified friendly tournament and completely detached from the County circuit - especially as the counties (or the battered remains) were still carrying on at the same time.
I differ from him on the women's version. There's a reason I, and probably he, 'didn't know the women's players' before the tournament. And that was apathy. As the opportunity to know the top players has been around for years if the interest was there to find out. That lack of interest in the women's version extended into The Hundred for me, so I didn't really watch many of them and, when I did, just found them inferior versions of the mens matches - slower average bowling speeds; batters not able to hit as far so boundaries brought in, and less fielders allowed out during power plays, than in the men's version as a way to try and get comparative scores. They might end up in just as close finishes by the end, but my interest isn't there to sit through all the rest just to see which of the teams I don't support wins as I'm not someone who really enjoys (versions of) sports that I don't have a genuine interest in / knowledge about.
Your last paragraph sums up the two sides of it perfectly for me. I think The Hundred will achieve some of the latter - especially for the women's game - but I think it's definitely going to be at the cost of the former. I don't see how it can't be. Because The Hundred is so openly aimed at a different demographic that I honestly don't think the organisers really expect that, long term, those targeted audiences will eventually change and become huge fans of 4 and 5 day matches and the 18 team County system. I'm sure the long term view is that it's Cricket that has to change to appeal to those new demographics and that much more of it has to become like Twenty20 and The Hundred and city teams and far less of the domestic season about the 18 counties and 50 over competitions / 4 day cricket, etc.
Yep. Very good post. Sadly.
It does feel like the only way to keep Cricket in any way 'alive' and 'relevant' in the media and public, in a vastly changing society, is to dumb the majority of it down to a level that's barely recognisable from the traditional 4 and 5 day format.
Society has changed to such a level that the 'traditional' view of county cricket, and it's stereotypical demographic of old, is seen as an anachronism. And if it's to receive positive PR and be regarded as a 'relevance' in the 21st century, it's got to aim at different demographics.
The Hundred did that, so was always going to be, short term at least, a PR success. But it's how far they take it that is the key for me. If they use them sparingly, as a way of financing the 'traditional versions', then that's an acceptable compromise. But if it's seen as that's where the market now is, and the majority of Cricket becomes short and full of gimmicks as the long formats are 'too boring' for those demographics, then that's just changed the whole sport too much and the Cricket that I loved would have just disappeared.