I have been won over. I was doubtful at first whether we needed yet another format, but there’s no taking away from the brilliance of the players involved, and the spectacle. And the main thing for me, is the number of young children being introduced to cricket, a lot of them for the first time, which can only be a good thing for the game in the long term.
With Rashid Khan to complement it in t20. Serious attack. They take on Yorks in the firs t20 QF on Tuesday.
For me i was interested at the start, lost interest in the middle then regained interest towards the end. However I do think it makes a big difference being able to, even loosely, form an allegiance to a team. I know plenty of Somerset fans who have felt completely left out of The Hundred and have not enjoyed it as a result
Yes and I am one of those. I must admit it grated a bit reading the Hampshire fans on here claiming the Brave as their own just because they play at the Ageas Bowl and have Vince as captain. Somerset players are scattered around the different franchises, including the Brave, which made it even harder to pick a team to support. I suppose I was initially torn between supporting the Brave and the Fire as the two teams closest to where I live, and plumped for the Brave when it was obvious the Fire were useless without Bairstow! I do understand why only the Test grounds were chosen to host teams, but as you say, it does make it hard for fans of other counties. I suppose we’ll have to learn to live with it. I do question, though, why Sophia Gardens, with a capacity of just over 2,500, gets the gig over Taunton, which seats 8,500, or Bristol County Ground, which holds 15,000. Ho hum.
It will be back at full capacity next season. Seems a bit pointless moving a franchise for one season, particularly moving one called "Welsh Fire" to England!
But you see my point, surely? The whole Welsh business was nonsense when you look at where their players actually came from!
Why wouldn't us Hampshire fans claim the SOUTHERN brave as our own? I class myself as Southern. Hampshire had players playing around the country but I wasn't cheering for other teams. Obviously it's crap that a few cities missed out and maybe going forward more teams could be added in?
No problem with Hampshire fans adopting the Brave, it was just that fans of 10 of the 18 counties including my own were left without an obvious home, that was my point.
There have been whispers for a while about teams based in Bristol and Durham being added in the roster in the next few years. But whilst I understand that would help make it more accessible, I would currently be against such a move. I wouldn't want the quality diluted. Even with just the eight men's sides, you could look towards the Fire bowling attack or the Spirit batting line-up as being weaker than ideal. Adding further sides just makes that worse. I would much rather than just see the Fire move to Bristol. Of the eight host counties, Glamorgan are one of the two weakest alongside Middlesex. But at least Middlesex (or, rather, the MCC) can offer up Lords. Glamorgan can't really offer the competition much at all - hence the lack of Welsh connection. Gloucs and Somerset can offer far more. (I know they've just won the one-day cup. But that doesn't say too much. In fact, if anything, it says that they still had many of their players available because the 100 didn't want them.)
I don’t see a problem with having more franchises in normal times. This year many top players suffered from travel restrictions, which hopefully won’t be an issue next year. Having said that the IPL only has 8 teams serving 1.4 billion people, so perhaps we shouldn’t be greedy! I would definitely agree with moving the Fire to Bristol, in fact I seem to recall the original name was the Western Fire, which would make a lot more sense anyway.
Just been thinking more about the question of who we'll look to retain next season. As I alluded to yesterday, my interpretation of the rules (which may be incorrect) is that the maximum of ten which each side can retain is any player who was at some point part of their squad for 2021 - ie anyone who was retained from 2020, or recruited through the 2021 draft, or recruited as a replacement player. That would mean we could retain the likes of Russell or Warner, despite neither actually playing for us in 2021. But we couldn't retain someone like Shahdab, because we released him after 2020. Putting aside possible issues regarding salary band negotiations, I am thinking: Players who I think we would want to retain: Vince, Davies, Jordan, Garton, Mills, Lintott Players who I think we would not want to retain: Conway, CDG, Waller, Atkinson, Lenham, Rawlins Players who I'm not sure on: Dawson, Briggs, Overton, QDK, Russell, Warner, Stoinis, Stirling, Whiteley, David With Dawson, Briggs and Overton, my gut feeling is that we would prefer to keep them (but at a much lower salary band for Dawson), however with the 10 player limitation it might not be possible to retain all three (depending on what we decide with the overseas). And as for those overseas players, I suspect it will heavily come down to availability. At the moment, we don't even know the dates for the 2022 Hundred, let alone what the world will look like then. At the moment, if it is played at roughly the same time as this year, and the international schedule remains as currently expected, and covid plays little or no part, then players from South Africa, WI and Pakistan will be hard to come by (particularly SA, because they are touring side here next summer). But players from Australia and NZ should be freely available. But then again, in the case of someone like QDK for example, we might want to retain him regardless of availability - because by retaining him for 2022, we then open up the opportunity to retain him again for 2023 etc. You can always retain a player, and then call up a replacement for them later (albeit you would miss out of being able to replace them with anyone who is picked up in the 2022 draft). Whereas the moment you don't retain someone, they then become available to join someone else in the future. Which teams will be thinking long term, and which will be thinking short term?
Notts are saying that he'll be available for all four matches, including that one. I'm also dubious about the media, and Notts themselves, calling it a loan. The club was pretty clear that Sam's time with us was ended by mutual consent - so how can we loan out someone who isn't contracted to us any more? Hence if it isn't actually a loan, that would make sense as to why he'd eligible.
