The Cricket Thread
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Lynn needs to take a leaf out of his book here. Don't panic - no need to try and smash Shamsi out of the ground. See him off and can accelerate later.
Much like Phoenix last night, The Invincibles fielding has gone to pot at the back end of the innings.
Excellent. 2 great results today, not just for The Brave, but The Hundred as a whole. It is wide open now.
I still don't get why they couldn't have used the existing County T20 format to try to 'bring the game to a new generation', start showing on TV etc. I guess people might make the argument that it needs ALL games to be on TV so everything can be followed by the newbies, but I don't think that would necessarily be the case. I know it's difficult to compare it with football, but the Premiership doesn't have ALL games live on Sky as they happen, with the exception of the pandemic period obviously, which has been a one-off.
I expect it will be like the T20 was when it first started, people think "It's new, so it must be exciting!". Then after a few seasons it'll be 'Oh, it's just another Hundred match', attendances will start dwindling and they'll have to invent an even shorter format game and new tournament to try to bring them back again.
It seems that perhaps I might be in a minority, but I just don't get the appeal of franchise sport/cricket: can you imagine the uproar if they said that the Premier League was now going to be 10 teams, Man City and Man United forming one team, Liverpool and Everton forming a team called 'Merseyside' etc. etc. !! I support Hampshire (and Saints), not some players randomly thrown together who are only there because of the big pay-day, not because they've grown up dreaming of playing these sorts of games, for these sorts of teams.
Perhaps people felt the same when the county format was first formed, I don't know, but at least that has a historical link and root of how the whole country is divided up so it makes sense to have a team for each area.
Rant over(!), looking forward to another trip to the Bowl tomorrow to see if we can dodge the showers and beat Lancashire. Having said all the above, it is nice to see some different faces getting in the team though...
I expect it will be like the T20 was when it first started, people think "It's new, so it must be exciting!". Then after a few seasons it'll be 'Oh, it's just another Hundred match', attendances will start dwindling and they'll have to invent an even shorter format game and new tournament to try to bring them back again.
It seems that perhaps I might be in a minority, but I just don't get the appeal of franchise sport/cricket: can you imagine the uproar if they said that the Premier League was now going to be 10 teams, Man City and Man United forming one team, Liverpool and Everton forming a team called 'Merseyside' etc. etc. !! I support Hampshire (and Saints), not some players randomly thrown together who are only there because of the big pay-day, not because they've grown up dreaming of playing these sorts of games, for these sorts of teams.
Perhaps people felt the same when the county format was first formed, I don't know, but at least that has a historical link and root of how the whole country is divided up so it makes sense to have a team for each area.
Rant over(!), looking forward to another trip to the Bowl tomorrow to see if we can dodge the showers and beat Lancashire. Having said all the above, it is nice to see some different faces getting in the team though...
The ECB have spent years trying to revamp the existing t20 competition. But the counties themselves, particularly the smaller ones, have been against it. Just going down from 16 group games to 14 group games was difficult to get agreed.
I can completely understand why the counties want to keep the t20 competition as it is though.
But for terrestrial TV, casual fans, and many overseas players, there are issues with the length. Be that the length of an individual match, or the length of the competition as a whole.
I also think it has a lot to do with putting the men and women on an even level. The KSL was very successful yes, but those teams were different to the eighteen counties. Different names, different colours. So creating new teams for them, who would also be taken on by the men, allows for that togetherness. All under the same umbrella.
Without any doubt, in an ideal world I'd have rather been watching "Hampshire" than "Southern Brave" yesterday. But ultimately it's cricket (and, so far, very entertaining cricket) being played at the Bowl. And that's enough to get me down there.
You make some good points and, of course, there are always arguments on both sides of things, I realise that. It does make me laugh though that I have heard numerous complaints over fixture congestion for so long and the ECB's bright idea is to add yet another competition in to the domestic calendar! Rather than kick up a fuss about it the players are all suddenly keen to take part, I wonder why? (although who can blame them I suppose).
I haven't bothered watching a single game thus far. I know that will leave me open to criticism from people saying "How can you knock it if you haven't tried it (seen it)?" but the truth is, I have seen it - we all have, hundreds of times. It's just yet another T20 match but with a handful of overs (sorry, 'balls') taken out, still people trying to smash it for 6 every ball, nothing's changed really.
I still think they could have shared coverage of the existing county competition between Sky and BBC. I get the point about the timings, but I would have open to the umpires being much stricter again with over rates, penalties etc. or even the reinstatement of a clock counting down in full view of the TV and ground audiences to make it clear when penalties would start to apply.
You can bet your bottom dollar that T20 Finals Day will come along and the Sky commentators will be singing the competition's praises again, saying how exciting it is and it's the standout day on the calendar, what an atmosphere we've got here etc.
I also hope, for the Hundred's own sake, that they don't overdo it too early, keep the number of games down to a reasonable level. They were guilty of expanding the T20s too quickly in my opinion - it doesn't take long for the novelty to wear off. Always leave them wanting more as the old adage goes. It's clear that I'm not a fan and don't see any real need for it, but each to their own and it'll be interesting to see how it all pans out over the next few seasons.
Riki Wessels has been released by Worcestershire. I doubt that Hampshire would be interested and his returns have started to wane since leaving Notts. I'm not sure he would add a great deal to the 4 day side now and he'll probably get snapped up by someone like Leics or Derbyshire.
I understand your points here. What I would say is that this competition has been marvellous for the women’s game and I’ve found myself equally as interested, if not more, on their side of the double header. I took my daughter to the first Southern Brave game at the Ageas and she absolutely loved it. Same couldn’t be said for when I’ve taken her to 20/20.
FWIW
I pretty much agree with you. The 100 is just a competition too much for me. I need to feel a connection to get really excited about any game and this format is just too contrived.
I understand the positives gained by running a female version alongside but again feel this could've been achieved better by pairing with existing formats.
I'm also annoyed, and at times confused, by the hype the BBC have indulged in. They obviously have an agenda but other competitions coverage has suffered as a result. If in 3yrs time after all the hype the hundred is not a raging success I hope other one day formats have not been so neglected by media and players as to fail.
I don't want to end up with the only meaningfull competitions being abroard or franchise offerings.
Oh yes, and the made up names are crap.
Last edited:
Not sure why some are against the Hundred TBH. It's new, it provides exciting games and it will attract the best cricketers from around the world. The IPL has become a massive success as has the Big Bash. The Hundred will be as well.
I have no problem with people having no interest in it. 18 years on, and there are still people who have no interest in t20. Equally, many people who like white ball cricket have no interest in four or five day cricket.
Personal preference is fine.
But yes, people who are actively against the 100?... It's only about 10 days old. No-one knows for certain whether it will be a success or failure, or what impact it may or may not have on the county game. Hence why I am so open minded.
Just think how many times Wood would have bowled to Vince in the nets over the years. But unless they faced each other in school or youth cricket (which isn't a certainty - I think Vince went to school in Sussex?), I can't think that they'd have ever faced each other in a match?