The Hundred could be scrapped

[Ali TT]

Would be a squeeze to get the seating in at Beckenham and I'd have thought would meet a lot of local resistance as quite a heavily residential area.

Starting to think the Telegraph's cricket reporting is following the rest of their paper - reactionary clickbait with little substance underneath.

 

[Molehill]

Starting to think the Telegraph's cricket reporting is following the rest of their paper - reactionary clickbait with little substance underneath.

Agreed - The golf correspondent (Corrigan) seems to be only interested in covering LIV stories as he knows he can wind people up with it. This is ironic, because when he's had a couple of glasses of red, he becomes an utter loon on X.

 

[Ashes81]

The real issue with the Hundred isn't the actual competition itself, its the over crowded schedule of English cricket.

I'm no fan of the 100 - I'm no fan of any T20 domestic competition but the 100 does what it set out to achieve - it get bums on seats, many of whom wouldn't go near a cricket ground usually.

I went to a couple of games at Old Trafford last season, took my nephew and my grown up daughters.

They loved it - great atmosphere, a few drinks, entertainment and players they actually knew like Jos Butler.

Personally I'd rather watch Lancs' 2nd string but they wouldn't and that's what the 100 was designed for. They're already eyeing up tickets for this year.

We all know the real issue - too many counties, too many competing and vested interests and too much cricket.

Until that changes, English domestic cricket will always be a bit of a mess.

The Hundred really isn't the problem and scraping it won't solve the issues facing the domestic game.

 

[Yeoman]

Only saw the headline myself. Assumed they were talking Olympic stadium.

The article was very vague on location. Beckenham was the only ‘third’ ground mentioned. A few years ago there were mentions in the press of the Olympic stadium being used for t20 by Essex as a prelude to T20 internationals however nothing came of it.

 

[Yeoman]

The real issue with the Hundred isn't the actual competition itself, its the over crowded schedule of English cricket.

I'm no fan of the 100 - I'm no fan of any T20 domestic competition but the 100 does what it set out to achieve - it get bums on seats, many of whom wouldn't go near a cricket ground usually.

I went to a couple of games at Old Trafford last season, took my nephew and my grown up daughters.

They loved it - great atmosphere, a few drinks, entertainment and players they actually knew like Jos Butler.

Personally I'd rather watch Lancs' 2nd string but they wouldn't and that's what the 100 was designed for. They're already eyeing up tickets for this year.

We all know the real issue - too many counties, too many competing and vested interests and too much cricket.

Until that changes, English domestic cricket will always be a bit of a mess.

The Hundred really isn't the problem and scraping it won't solve the issues facing the domestic game.

I don’t like the hundred and which it had never been devised however adding it to the county schedule alongside the T20 blast has massively overloaded the county schedule and oversaturated the market for short form cricket. From both of these perspectives the hundred would logically have replaced the blast, or seen the latter played on the hundred’s undercard, as the 50 over cup is today. However the counties would never have voted for that as it is a key money spinner for many.

As I have probably posted before on another thread, I feel that we got the balance of T20 right at the start - a two-week midsummer festival and then finals day. However the format became too popular for the games overall good and the tail started wagging the dog.

 

[Aidan11]

They'll expand it and people will get bored.

Trying to get private investment seems a waste of time. Most cricket clubs can be classed as distressed companies and the only way you make a small fortune in those companies is to start with a large fortune.

 

[Yeoman]

The IPL owners seem keen on getting stakes in T20 competitors around the world. I don’t know if, or how much, money they are making from the competitions outside of India however they doubtless see them as strategic investments. Beyond that, private investors are indeed likely to be few and far between. Yorkshire’s recent failure to find an alternative to Graves and the demise of three premiership rugby clubs recently suggest that the number of ultra rich individuals prepared to invest in sports other than football is limited.

 

[Socerer 01]

The IPL owners seem keen on getting stakes in T20 competitors around the world. I don’t know if, or how much, money they are making from the competitions outside of India however they doubtless see them as strategic investments. Beyond that, private investors are indeed likely to be few and far between. Yorkshire’s recent failure to find an alternative to Graves and the demise of three premiership rugby clubs recently suggest that the number of ultra rich individuals prepared to invest in sports other than football is limited.

betting is a lucrative market

look at some of the sponsors for those teams and leagues and you have your answer for money

 

[Third_Man]

Lalit Modi weighs in

Restructuring of The Hundred, minimal IPL involvement in Lalit Modi's proposal to ECB

In a parallel development, SRH and CSK are understood to be open to investing in teams in England

m.cricbuzz.com

 

[mackembhoy]

Interesting take:

www.espncricinfo.com/story/mark-chapman-manchester-originals-chair-on-ecb-and-hundred-1420180?platform=amp

As a counter to that. Seems more effort outside Old Trafford promoting the originals than there is Lancashire.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757800470830092544

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757803959534670292

 

[Third_Man]

As a counter to that. Seems more effort outside Old Trafford promoting the originals than there is Lancashire.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757800470830092544

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757803959534670292

So who was that player who never seems to play for them? Someone part of their marketing team pretending to hold a bat?

 

[Yeoman]

So who was that player who never seems to play for them? Someone part of their marketing team pretending to hold a bat?

Effectively, yes.

 

[Ashes81]

So who was that player who never seems to play for them? Someone part of their marketing team pretending to hold a bat?

I thought It looked like Liam Livingstone and the narrator was being sarcastic.

 

[mackembhoy]

So who was that player who never seems to play for them? Someone part of their marketing team pretending to hold a bat?

What @Ashes81 said

Which seems more than a tad unfair when he was captain in the Blast.

 

[Third_Man]

Effectively, yes.

I thought It looked like Liam Livingstone and the narrator was being sarcastic.

What @Ashes81 said

Which seems more than a tad unfair when he was captain in the Blast.

As Yeoman says.

And the narrator would not be alone.

The underlying problem is that he is probably seen as wasting his talent. A lot of supporters were impressed when he was in the seconds and then in the season that he made his fc debut but did he then squander his talent with ugly white ball swipes to be caught repeatedly in the deep? Not the most respected player - on here - during England's last tournament either.

But in Lancashire terms being given the captaincy (for the second time) when parachuted into the squad after the IPL did not sit well and his body language is often not great and decision making verging in the bizarre and that is before you get to the dressing room rumours when injured prior to joining the IPL last season which, allegedly, were the cause of a popular player leaving. Why support a player who might give you 6 Blast games rather than another - just as talented - who would bring a whole season? Still just rumours until the books come out.

 

[Ali TT]

The real issue with the Hundred isn't the actual competition itself, its the over crowded schedule of English cricket.

I'm no fan of the 100 - I'm no fan of any T20 domestic competition but the 100 does what it set out to achieve - it get bums on seats, many of whom wouldn't go near a cricket ground usually.

I went to a couple of games at Old Trafford last season, took my nephew and my grown up daughters.

They loved it - great atmosphere, a few drinks, entertainment and players they actually knew like Jos Butler.

Personally I'd rather watch Lancs' 2nd string but they wouldn't and that's what the 100 was designed for. They're already eyeing up tickets for this year.

We all know the real issue - too many counties, too many competing and vested interests and too much cricket.

Until that changes, English domestic cricket will always be a bit of a mess.

The Hundred really isn't the problem and scraping it won't solve the issues facing the domestic game.

Very close to my view. I'd have preferred a T20 franchise, a downgrading of the Blast to a feeder T20 competition, keeping a higher profile 50-over competition and a more compact county championship with fewer matches but played May-July. As you say, that was always a no-go with the counties. Lots of people think that Harrison dreamed up the Hundred deliberately as a quirky but cringe new format to woo the kids, but in reality the ECB had to create something new because any T20 comp would've been vetoed by the counties as a threat to the Blast.

 

[Third_Man]

Tim Bostock, Durham Chairman:
“Members don’t realise that what they are trying to say will kill the game. We’re running a multi-million-pound professional sport and yet the long-term, big decisions are made by a handful of... I don’t want to call them activists because they will get on their high horse but they are effectively activists,” said Bostock.

“Of all the millions of people who watch cricket in an English summer, the whole structure is being dictated to by what might only be about 10,000 people. You’ve got chairmen threatened with removal if they don’t do what a small handful of Luddites say – and they are Luddites. They are passionate Luddites, but they are Luddites. I just don’t know how they think it will survive without radical change. We’ve ended up with the lowest common denominator ruling the day.”

 

[Aidan11]

If Bostock walked out of Durham tomorrow I wouldn't be sorry. A lot of members feel the same way.

When the ECB put it to a vote after Covid as to whether the counties wanted the CC to remain as it is or have a 3 conference system, he vored for the latter. When Durham had a chance to have their harsh punishment reviewed, he declined. When Surrey couldn't be arsed to come up and play a cc game citing a covid outbreak he wouldn't press for punishment/compensation.

It later transpired he was up for the top job at the ECB. Of course he didn't get it but it seems he still has his head rammed firmly up their arse.

 

[Yeoman]

Tim Bostock, Durham Chairman:
“Members don’t realise that what they are trying to say will kill the game. We’re running a multi-million-pound professional sport and yet the long-term, big decisions are made by a handful of... I don’t want to call them activists because they will get on their high horse but they are effectively activists,” said Bostock.

“Of all the millions of people who watch cricket in an English summer, the whole structure is being dictated to by what might only be about 10,000 people. You’ve got chairmen threatened with removal if they don’t do what a small handful of Luddites say – and they are Luddites. They are passionate Luddites, but they are Luddites. I just don’t know how they think it will survive without radical change. We’ve ended up with the lowest common denominator ruling the day.”

What annoys me most about this is the (oft repeated) refrain that county cricket needs more money to survive. There has never been so much money in the game. I begrudge no-one making what they can from the game but not if it is at the expense of the game itself.

 

[Ali TT]

What annoys me most about this is the (oft repeated) refrain that county cricket needs more money to survive. There has never been so much money in the game. I begrudge no-one making what they can from the game but not if it is at the expense of the game itself.

But it's not the money the counties are generating but English cricket as a whole. I object to the idea that listening the members is giving fans a voice, it's giving only a subset of fans a voice and not necessarily a representative one.