[Cricket] The Hundred

[Sid in the Sharknado]

I see that The Hundred has done exactly what it set out to do – bring new people into the sport – but the flip side is that it's managed to irritate some cricket purists. Which is pretty much what I've said all along – if you're set in your ways about test match and four-day county cricket, then you're probably not the target audience.

I suspect the ECB are delighted with any criticism along the lines of "it's not cricket" or "it's all childish nonsense", since it allows them to brush any complaints about the details, cost and wider affect on the game aside as being moaning from people who can't deal with the modern world.

I'm delighted for anybody who has got into cricket for the first time through this, but I remain of the view that the same result could have been achieved at much lower cost by changes to the existing T20 blast and broadcasting deal.

I'm also inclined to think that its success highlights that the ECB have been at best blind and at worst straightforwardly lying for all of the preceding years when they've insisted that exposure on one of the main channels isn't important any more.

 

[stewart12]

I agree that I think it was worth at least TRYING to get some of the domestic t20 on terrestrial TV before trying something this drastic

if that didn't work out, then fair enough but at least give it a go

 

[Chicken Run]

I suspect the ECB are delighted with any criticism along the lines of "it's not cricket" or "it's all childish nonsense", since it allows them to brush any complaints about the details, cost and wider affect on the game aside as being moaning from people who can't deal with the modern world.

I'm delighted for anybody who has got into cricket for the first time through this, but I remain of the view that the same result could have been achieved at much lower cost by changes to the existing T20 blast and broadcasting deal.

I'm also inclined to think that its success highlights that the ECB have been at best blind and at worst straightforwardly lying for all of the preceding years when they've insisted that exposure on one of the main channels isn't important any more.

I’m with you on jazzing the current T20

Derby Destroyers
Newcastle Nemesis
Essex Express,
Nottingham Outlaws
Birmingham Bears
Worcester Wolves

Gloucester Dockers
Southampton Saints,
Leicester Midlanders
London Sabres (Midx)
West Country Wild Cats (Somerset)
London Monarchs (Surrey)
Cardiff Dragons
Canterbury Spitfires
Manchester Magic
Northampton Cobblers
Brighton Seahawks
Leeds Lightning

Only played in the city grounds, 9 teams in two drawn groups, each team plays 8 home and 8 away, top 4 in each go through to quarter final, then semi, then final is best of three games over August bank Holiday weekend with half the games on terrestrial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Apparently Surrey and Lancashire are now after Jordan and Salt respectively:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...rs-from-smaller-counties-1274104?platform=amp

Outstanding.

 

[amexer]

Whether you like it or not hard to create interest with the amount of marketing thrown at it. As well as on TV on main news every channel including radio. Never hear about domestic cricket so much so often would not know when games are on let alone up to date scores

 

[sagaman]

Main issue is ECB is running the game with counties having no representation on the Board. This change was pushed through a few years ago.

No doubt the 100 was going to succeed with cheap prices and massive marketing in the school holidays

The ECB has done little to market the existing domestic competitions.

Absolutely absurd that Sussex had only two days cricket at-home in August during school holidays

The tapping up of 100 cricketers from the host counties is more evidence of the polarisation of the county game, like the Premier League in football.

Sussex, like Brighton, will have to be smart to compete with those with bigger pockets.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I suspect the ECB are delighted with any criticism along the lines of "it's not cricket" or "it's all childish nonsense", since it allows them to brush any complaints about the details, cost and wider affect on the game aside as being moaning from people who can't deal with the modern world.

I'm delighted for anybody who has got into cricket for the first time through this, but I remain of the view that the same result could have been achieved at much lower cost by changes to the existing T20 blast and broadcasting deal.

I'm also inclined to think that its success highlights that the ECB have been at best blind and at worst straightforwardly lying for all of the preceding years when they've insisted that exposure on one of the main channels isn't important any more.

But isn't that part of the problem? People like the current T20 format and it already existed before The Hundred came along. To get new fans into the game, there needed to be something completely different to anything that was out there, WITHOUT messing about with the formats that were already established.

From what I can see there are so many marked differences between The Hundred and T20. 'Proper' cricket fans wouldn't accept a revamped T20 and 'new' fans would pass it off as 'just boring cricket'. Hence a brand new type of cricket was needed – and seems to have worked.

I don't know enough about the broadcast deals, but I would guess changing it wouldn't be very straightforward...

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

But isn't that part of the problem? People like the current T20 format and it already existed before The Hundred came along. To get new fans into the game, there needed to be something completely different to anything that was out there, WITHOUT messing about with the formats that were already established.

From what I can see there are so many marked differences between The Hundred and T20. 'Proper' cricket fans wouldn't accept a revamped T20 and 'new' fans would pass it off as 'just boring cricket'. Hence a brand new type of cricket was needed – and seems to have worked.

I don't know enough about the broadcast deals, but I would guess changing it wouldn't be very straightforward...

That depends how you're defining "proper" cricket fans. There are some people who make a big deal out of the format changes, but I would assume that by and large they aren't the sort of people who are likely to go to T20 matches anyway.

Based on the conversations I've had with friends and random people I've met at championship games (in the latter case, the sort of people who come out with lines like "you don't see that sort of really fine leg glance much in County cricket" or "they've got gully far too close there"), the number of balls and other format changes don't really bother them, beyond finding it a bit gimmicky. The complaints are almost all around the mess the ECB have gotten into over many years, how much it costs and taking cricket away from the smaller counties.

I don't know the detail of the broadcast deal either, but they will have had to get Sky to agree to show the new competition and persuade the BBC to show it anyway, so they had that problem with The Hundred as well. As I understand the bulk of the value in the deal comes from the England mens team matches, in particular the test matches which bulk out the schedule, rather than the T20 matches, so I would have thought they could have come to some arrangement to share a number of T20 matches with the BBC in the interest of growing the audience.

Most of the other changes in terms of bringing the game across to a wider audience are things they should have been doing the years. Having matches like Yorkshire v Lancashire on a Friday night for after work drinking crowd, and some other matches on other days aimed more at families, makes complete sense.

 

[amexer]

But isn't that part of the problem? People like the current T20 format and it already existed before The Hundred came along. To get new fans into the game, there needed to be something completely different to anything that was out there, WITHOUT messing about with the formats that were already established.

From what I can see there are so many marked differences between The Hundred and T20. 'Proper' cricket fans wouldn't accept a revamped T20 and 'new' fans would pass it off as 'just boring cricket'. Hence a brand new type of cricket was needed – and seems to have worked.

I don't know enough about the broadcast deals, but I would guess changing it wouldn't be very straightforward...

May have wanted a bigger audience. However thought 20/20 games were all sold out.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Been reading this debate with interest on the way home from work. A few points.

1) Yes, I dislike The Hundred. First and foremost what I dislike about it is the franchise system. There's so many things wrong with it I barely know where to start but we'll go for the fact that it really doesn't make the games accessible at all unless you are a middle class kid who lives in a big city or is happy to travel 70 odd miles each way for two hours play, a DJ and some fireworks. The lifeblood of the county game is being hung out to dry. What about kids in Taunton, Worcester, Canterbury, Gloucester, Northampton and, yes, Hove? These places and their festival ground cousins? Without them there'd be no cricket in this country. And when the very small number of kids who do get to go to a game arrive they are bombarded non stop with advertising for terrible salty, processed snacks. No different to tobacco companies sponsoring snooker back in the day, and in twenty years it'll be viewed the same way.

2) Yes, I also dislike the short form of the game. I'm a purist. For every two brilliant catches there was a dropped dolly, For every 90mph yorker that his the stumps there were dozens of wides and slow long hops. For every game full of sixes there was a boundary rope that had been brought in or a pitch made up close to a square boundary. I don't want to see a fast bowler praise for "taking the pace off it". I want him to stick it up the batsman's nose with 5 growling slips behind waiting for the snick. I don't want to see spinners reduced to run reducers. I want to see them happy to concede a few fours if it means they get a wicket with one no one picks. As much as this form of the game may attract those who have not been into it before, it alienates the huge core audience. I will put one bug caveat into that though - it has done marvels for the women's game by the looks of things and good on it for that. But it's no good moaning without a few suggestions. So:

3) Why do we need only eight franchises with two of those in London. Expand to ten and cut one London team. Let them play at Lords and the Oval in turn if Slurrey and Middlesex get annoyed, It's not about the counties anyway, right? And perhaps split grounds for the others too. Hove and Southampton. Leeds and Durham. A West Country franchise that could go to one of the grounds mentioned above. That sort of thing. And finally:

4) Yes the County Championship needs to mend itself. I'd certainly start by regionalising the four day game into South and North divisions with the winners playing each other for the title and sharing it if it was a draw. Games running from 12-8 Friday to Monday wherever possible in the lightest summer months with use of pink ball and lights. It's all there. More local derbies, more opportunity to go. And pause it totally when The Hundred is on so the favoured players can be seen playing the real game with proper technique. It would cause a few scheduling headaches of course but regionalised with only one game against an opponent, it's not impossible.

And relax...........

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Completely disagree. Cricket has been a closed 18 county shop for too long. In 2003 when T20 started, should have been wrestled off the counties then as a separate competition so that they continue to concentrate on the Championship and One Day competitions.

England, India and Australia basically keep Test cricket alive - just. And it needs all 3 countries to continue to produce quality test players so that the format remains relevant.

Unlike India and Australia, we didn't set up a separate limited period T20 competitions with a limited number of teams. We allowed it to balloon and counties have placed it ahead of producing test quality players and they agree schedules to prioritise the format.

The Hundred is an experiment in running a competition outside County control, that it can run parallel with other competitions, and players can come and go to and from counties and back again to it.

The money can still be filtered into and subsidise the county's but they need to be guardians of the longer formats of the game. The future of Test and One Day cricket is effectively in their hands. If we allow them all formats, then it will be the death of the long format because why would a county not prioritise T20 when it makes them all the money? It's basically a conflict of interest.

I'm not a massive fan of T20 or The Hundred, but for the sake of producing top quality longer format cricketers, think we need this kind of drastic action.

Seems like the penny has dropped for Agnew too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/60016410

Other way round to what I was suggesting, but nevertheless, The Hundred was undoubtedly an experiment in running a competition outside county control. No doubt this will be devastating to those county fans who crowd into grounds to watch the County Championship, but Test cricket dying a death will also be devastating. Having an 8 or 10 team elite first class championship sounds a really attractive prospect to me, leaving the other comps to the counties, which is what they make their money from anyway. If you can get some money into it, the players will want to play, people will want to watch.

 

[Gwylan]

Seems like the penny has dropped for Agnew too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/60016410

It's a bonkers suggestion. We'd have five different tournaments: Agnew's new franchise competition, the Hundred, the Blast, the 50-over cup and Agnew's new 3-day CC event. How on earth will a multitude of different formats help cricket?

And where are the players to come from? Ten teams in Agnew's franchise - say 16 per team = 160. Then 16 in the 18-team CC =288 (throw in the players who play only white ball cricket - that's Wright. Bopara, Mills and Beer in Sussex, so let's say 70 in all) and that's more than 500 cricketers ... and that's before we have Second XIs and youth players).

The Sheffield Shield and the County Championships are almost identical in their reach: roughly one team per a population of 3.5m. At the moment, Australians tend to do a better job of identifying the right players but the CC has served England well in the past, it's just lost its way a bit

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

It's a bonkers suggestion. We'd have five different tournaments: Agnew's new franchise competition, the Hundred, the Blast, the 50-over cup and Agnew's new 3-day CC event. How on earth will a multitude of different formats help cricket?

And where are the players to come from? Ten teams in Agnew's franchise - say 16 per team = 160. Then 16 in the 18-team CC =288 (throw in the players who play only white ball cricket - that's Wright. Bopara, Mills and Beer in Sussex, so let's say 70 in all) and that's more than 500 cricketers ... and that's before we have Second XIs and youth players).

The Sheffield Shield and the County Championships are almost identical in their reach: roughly one team per a population of 3.5m. At the moment, Australians tend to do a better job of identifying the right players but the CC has served England well in the past, it's just lost its way a bit

I don't think he's suggesting this elite CC would be limited to domestic cricketers. The way you could improve our own talent would be to have top players from around the world included in it. Rather than 18 teams playing each other with a load of average county bowlers and batsmen, you'd have half the number and they'd all be the best in the longer form. I think he's then suggesting the 3-day competition for the counties would be a testing ground for all those academy players, reserves, 2nd XI players etc. that could benefit their development in playing first XI games. They then can get picked for the elite level CC - a pyramid of talent rather than the flat line we have now.

Can you really say 10 spectators and a dog at County games is the way forward?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It's a bonkers suggestion. We'd have five different tournaments: Agnew's new franchise competition, the Hundred, the Blast, the 50-over cup and Agnew's new 3-day CC event. How on earth will a multitude of different formats help cricket?

And where are the players to come from? Ten teams in Agnew's franchise - say 16 per team = 160. Then 16 in the 18-team CC =288 (throw in the players who play only white ball cricket - that's Wright. Bopara, Mills and Beer in Sussex, so let's say 70 in all) and that's more than 500 cricketers ... and that's before we have Second XIs and youth players).

The Sheffield Shield and the County Championships are almost identical in their reach: roughly one team per a population of 3.5m. At the moment, Australians tend to do a better job of identifying the right players but the CC has served England well in the past, it's just lost its way a bit

It is indeed a ludicrous suggestion. I'd imagine he was pissed when he came up with it.

I also struggle to see any particular merit in it, when essentially (aside from refusing to play at any non-test grounds) its no better than a rebranding of the first division, no doubt bankrolled by Hundred-sized marketing and PR budget, and the help of the TV companies.

To achieve his stated aim, what is different between that, and just having a County Championship, with three six team divisions? Play each other home and away = ten games. Play those in the dry part of summer, throw your magic-money-tree marketing budget at it, show games on terrestrial TV, give away tickets to get a crowd in. It would be akin to the PL in football - a small group of Test-ground counties will dominate, hoover up the best players, and the cash, but at least the integrity of a league structure remains, and no County is disenfranchised.

 

[Giraffe]

Once you lose the County alliance I think you kill a lot of interest. I showed no interest in The Hundred because Sussex were not in it.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

It is indeed a ludicrous suggestion. I'd imagine he was pissed when he came up with it.

I also struggle to see any particular merit in it, when essentially (aside from refusing to play at any non-test grounds) its no better than a rebranding of the first division, no doubt bankrolled by Hundred-sized marketing and PR budget, and the help of the TV companies.

To achieve his stated aim, what is different between that, and just having a County Championship, with three six team divisions? Play each other home and away = ten games. Play those in the dry part of summer, throw your magic-money-tree marketing budget at it, show games on terrestrial TV, give away tickets to get a crowd in. It would be akin to the PL in football - a small group of Test-ground counties will dominate, hoover up the best players, and the cash, but at least the integrity of a league structure remains, and no County is disenfranchised.

Because the counties don't give a shit about the county championship. Period. They don't. Let's not pretend it's anything but an inconvenience shunted to the either end of a season. No crowds, no TV audience. It's dead. I understand those of you who are loyal and have grown up with it cannot let go, but it's a dead duck.

We need a structure that can produce Test level cricketers. 18 teams whether 3 leagues, or 2, or 1, isn't doing the job because those 18 teams also have other priorities. That's why something needs to be broken and split apart. It's not rebranding, it's changing the control and governance - that is the important bit, can anyone honestly say over the last 20 years the counties have protected and enhanced the first class game?

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Once you lose the County alliance I think you kill a lot of interest. I showed no interest in The Hundred because Sussex were not in it.

Yes, because the crowds absolutely flood into the County Championship games, and the TV lap up televising CC matches. I bet there is a lot of cricket fans who couldn't even tell you who won the CC last year without looking it up.

The suggestion isn't to lose the County alliance. But 18 teams make too many decisions in their own interests, not for the game, not for the Test team. An elite CC controlled and governed for the sole purpose of producing test players would be a step forward imho. It would only need a couple of televised games and crowds over 100 to be more popular than the current format...

My main team is the England Test team period. I like county cricket, but my focus is Test matches.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Because the counties don't give a shit about the county championship. Period.

I have to disagree with that, give us a chance of winning a championship anyday please. People at the top (ECB) are just about making money for a few, and no focus on grass roots cricket. Our summer is limited and the more they do not play 4 day cricket in the key months, the less we produce players that are good at 5 day cricket. Short form cricket should be slotted in as and when to accommodate the longer form.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

I have to disagree with that, give us a chance of winning a championship anyday please. People at the top (ECB) are just about making money for a few, and no focus on grass roots cricket. Our summer is limited and the more they do not play 4 day cricket in the key months, the less we produce players that are good at 5 day cricket. Short form cricket should be slotted in as and when to accommodate the longer form.

I'm sure you would, you think Sussex are going to be prioritising the CC anytime soon, seriously? What was it last season, played 15 won 1. Who even knows without looking it up?

As I keep saying, I know there is a generation that remembers when the CC meant something, Counties are like their football team, but it's a memory, it's nostalgia, they're not interested, ticket buying fans aren't interested. County members who even get into CC games for FREE aren't going in any kind of numbers.

The 18 counties aren't going to start shunting their big revenue spinning comps out the way for the CC. There is the problem.

 

[keaton]

Yes, because the crowds absolutely flood into the County Championship games, and the TV lap up televising CC matches. I bet there is a lot of cricket fans who couldn't even tell you who won the CC last year without looking it up.

The suggestion isn't to lose the County alliance. But 18 teams make too many decisions in their own interests, not for the game, not for the Test team. An elite CC controlled and governed for the sole purpose of producing test players would be a step forward imho. It would only need a couple of televised games and crowds over 100 to be more popular than the current format...

My main team is the England Test team period. I like county cricket, but my focus is Test matches.

The problem is all the ECB decisions do nothing but chuff stuff up even more.

Why are people going to be interested in 4 day games not involving counties ? Who is going to watch them?