With all the best players now competing in the Hundred, it's effectively a reserves competition. Before the Hundred, yes I wanted us to do well. I went to the last final at Lords before it moved. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather we did well but it's miles behind the CC and the T20 Blast now for me in importance.
I know we all have our differing views on the 16.4/16.4, but the bottom line is that it just feels unnecessary for me, I don't feel any affinity or attachment to any side, even one playing at the Ageas. Hands up how many people were thinking, in the latter stages of the T20 final, "This is dull, what a rubbish standard, I wish we had some Sussex and some other county players to add into this Hants team to liven it up a bit..." In my view, we don't need franchises, we've already got our own thank you, and it's called Hampshire Cricket.
Very few, if any, 100 supporters I've met don't like the Blast. They either like the Blast too, or are new enough to cricket to have not yet experienced it. It's quite possible to like and enjoy both competitions. I do. In my experience, the only people who try and make it into some sort of Blast vs 100 debate are those who are against the 100. And yes, if all your interest is mens cricket, then arguably the 100 isn't necessary. But whilst Hampshire Cricket, like every county, does have a women's cricket team, it's essentially in name only. You could argue that 18 counties is too many in men's cricket, but it certainly is in women's cricket. It's hardly a surprise that the women's game has improved so much since franchises came in (first the KSL, and now the 100, CE Cup, and RHF Trophy).
Different, yes, exciting - on occasions. But the shorter you make the format all it means is less time playing yourself in and basically just slogging for fours and sixes every ball. It takes away more of the nuances of the game and stacks things so heavily in the batter's favour. I would question why it's more exciting. Any one day game, even a 50 over game, has the potential to come down to the last over or even the last ball, a team needs 8 to win off the last over with 1 or 2 wickets left etc. It's no more exciting, potentially, than any other one-day game, with the exception that (certainly compared to 50 over cricket) it cuts out some of the innings building in the middle stages. You could say it's a bit more exciting because it's new. Well yes, look what they did to T20 when it was new, played so many games that the novelty wore off to a certain extent. I'm sure that in 5-10 years time, the general feeling will be "Oh, it's that Hundred again. Wouldn't something a bit shorter be more exciting, I'm bored of this now".
The IPL hasn't lost popularity, nor has the Big Bash. Don't see why the Hundred will either. Franchise cricket attracts the very best cricketer's from around the world. It will stay popular.
It's that money factor again, isn't it? People don't flock to these franchises because they've always dreamt of playing this or that, it's because there's a bit of cash behind it. I do accept, though, who can blame them? Then you get a team winning it with a key player who then says "Oh sorry lads, loved playing with you all but franchise x has offered me £10k more so I'm off this year". If only they could have found a way to push some of this new-found money into the Blast, marketed it more and reached an agreement with the TV companies to put that on free-to-air channels etc. instead, perhaps being more strict over over-rates to fit games in on time. The Ladies could then play their franchises if they want, as there's fewer professionals in their game to go round anyway, alongside the T20s which could have increased their profile.
I agree players go for the money. But fans don't care about that. They want to watch balls fly out of the ground and stumps go cartwheeling out of the ground.
I often think of the analogy of it happening in football, with Everton and Liverpool forced to play in a new league called Merseyside FC etc. etc. and the players they give up have to miss Premier League games. It just wouldn't happen, the whole country would be up in arms but, seemingly, in cricket, I will just have to accept that my team, Hampshire, will be decimated along with other counties for one of the annual competitions that we've always played in and won plus been in the final of recently. As I stated above, the reason this wouldn't happen in football is due to the money already being there in the game, I just wish the TV companies could have been attracted to the Blast instead but apparently they wanted something new. A great shame in my opinion, but everyone's entitled to their own view of course.
For me it is all about the concentration of quality. That's where the excitement is. Look at the results of Surrey's first half of the Blast, before they lost players to England: Beat Glamorgan by four wickets, with 0.1 overs remaining Beat Gloucs by 37 runs Beat Hants by 72 runs Beat Kent by 32 runs Beat Sussex by 7 wickets, with 3.3 overs remaining Beat Middlesex by 20 runs Beat Middlesex by 7 wickets, with 4.9 overs remaining Other than the first game, there is nothing exciting there. Thrashings are the opposite of exciting. And it's nothing to do with the rules of the Blast or the way it's played. It's solely because Surrey were just so much stronger. But that isn't the case in the 100. A very similar side to Surrey (ie Oval Invincibles) couldn't even get a top three qualifying place last season, so strong is the opposition in general.
This. The reason why franchise cricket is so successful is the auctions/drafts. This means all teams are fairly well matched and results in a lot of close games. And thus provides exciting cricket.
Money is killing sport . You don’t get something for nothing . I will bet that in a few years from now , the cricket 100 / t20. Or whatever will be exciting , but there will be no fans in attendance because nobody will be able to afford to go . Any people there will be corporate yes people who don’t care a flying fig about cricket ! I fear for test cricket !
It's far more expensive to go to test cricket than the Hundred. The Hundred is reasonably priced to attract new fans to cricket.
For me, the excitement comes mainly from following my team, through the ups and downs. Somebody could show me 5 last ball finishes from games in India, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa and it wouldn't be that thrilling, in truth, as there is no emotional attachment there. So some Indian team beat another one, what's that got to do with me? That's what I don't get about the IPL either. I guess what it boils down to for me, and it will be different for each person, is that I can enjoy watching any game of cricket, yes, but the things that hooks me and makes me particularly interested is the emotional connection and interest I have with the game, be it a Hampshire game or some other game that has a knock-on effect on Hampshire's standing in the league. These franchises, including the IPL, just don't do that for me. It might be a close game and finish between 2 good sides, but not between sides I've got anything to do with so don't really care at the end of the day. I guess the idea is to draw in newbies so if it's a success in that respect and they stick with the game then fine. The newbies, by definition, won't have any emotional ties already, they will be making their new ones now. However, the annoying thing is that it's being done to the detriment of an existing competition between clubs with an existing loyal fan base who want to see their best players representing them.
