The Hundred - English cricket's new thing starts in 2020

Does it not bother anyone else that 6 is not a factor of 100?
 
jojojo said:
You can divide it by ten though.
Click to expand...

So 10 x 10 ball overs? I think 20 x 5 ball overs would be better. But still, 6 balls to an over is a key measurement in cricket. How are you supposed to compare statistics across formats if there is a different amount of balls in the overs?
 
Pexbo said:
So 10 x 10 ball overs? I think 20 x 5 ball overs would be better. But still, 6 balls to an over is a key measurement in cricket. How are you supposed to compare statistics across formats if there is a different amount of balls in the overs?
Click to expand...

Change of ends after ten balls I believe, with an option to change bowler after 5.
 
Traub said:
Problem with this is you’ll alienate fans who don’t want to support ‘rival’ teams e.g. city football fans won’t support a Manchester United team.
Click to expand...
Good spot and Doh on me! Make sense.
 
sammsky1 said:
Good spot and Doh on me! Make sense.
Click to expand...
Yeah. This is the problem with the whole city-based format isn't it.

On one hand it's great, because the population is much more urbanised than it was when county cricket started and people identify with cities much more readily. On the other hand you're alienating a lot of people who don't have any attachment to the cities in question. Who's someone from Liverpool supposed to support, for example?

We could just as easily have kept the existing T20 blast, renaming each of the 18 counties to reflect the cities they played in, then added five or six more sides for Liverpool, Sheffield and other unrepresented cities. Two divisions of 12, promotion-relegation playoffs and top four go into finals day.

There was no need to create an entire new format of the game IMO.
 
Pexbo said:
So 10 x 10 ball overs? I think 20 x 5 ball overs would be better. But still, 6 balls to an over is a key measurement in cricket. How are you supposed to compare statistics across formats if there is a different amount of balls in the overs?
Click to expand...

It's about saving time. This way, you save at least 10 mins per innings because 10 less end changes.
 
JohnnyKills said:
Yeah. This is the problem with the whole city-based format isn't it.

On one hand it's great, because the population is much more urbanised than it was when county cricket started and people identify with cities much more readily. On the other hand you're alienating a lot of people who don't have any attachment to the cities in question. Who's someone from Liverpool supposed to support, for example?

We could just as easily have kept the existing T20 blast, renaming each of the 18 counties to reflect the cities they played in, then added five or six more sides for Liverpool, Sheffield and other unrepresented cities. Two divisions of 12, promotion-relegation playoffs and top four go into finals day.

There was no need to create an entire new format of the game IMO.
Click to expand...
Hmm. And I'm not choosing teams that way, anyway. Rather Im looking at the teams and seeing which has the most players I like or which entire team would suit my favoured style of the game. Personally I like Southern Brave (I am from London!) and Welsh Fire (I have no connection to Wales!)

But we have to keep reminding ourselves, as existing serious cricket fans WE ARE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE!

This is entirely about attracting new players and viewers. From that point of view, I'm sure they did a demographic study on where these new audiences could most easily come from and chose team locations accordingly.
 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:
Hmm. And I'm not choosing teams that way, anyway. Rather Im looking at the teams and seeing which has the most players I like or which entire team would suit my favoured style of the game. Personally I like Southern Brave (I am from London!) and Welsh Fire (I have no connection to Wales!)

But we have to keep reminding ourselves, as existing serious cricket fans WE ARE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE!

This is entirely about attracting new players and viewers. From that point of view, I'm sure they did a demographic study on where these new audiences could most easily come from and chose team locations accordingly.
Click to expand...
Yep, for sure. There's a reason they've called the north-west team Manchester and not Liverpool. Still, feels a bit crap that a lot of cities aren't represented.
 
sammsky1 said:
It's about saving time. This way, you save at least 10 mins per innings because 10 less end changes.
Click to expand...

You're still switching fields everytime a LHB/RHB swaps strike. I'll be interested to see how much time it does end up saving
 
Skills said:
You're still switching fields everytime a LHB/RHB swaps strike. I'll be interested to see how much time it does end up saving
Click to expand...
Match has to finish with 2 1/2 hours. That's the TV window on free TV. Everything is geared to ensure that.
 
Skills said:
You're still switching fields everytime a LHB/RHB swaps strike. I'll be interested to see how much time it does end up saving
Click to expand...
Yeah. Plus bowlers will get tired towards the end of the over so will need a breather. And don't they have the option of changing the bowler half-way through the over? They'll need to set a new field every time that happens.

As you say, 20 5-ball overs would make more sense. But to be honest the best option would have been to put the money into the existing T20 Blast and make that better, not invent a new format of the game whose basic rules are different to all the others.
 
sammsky1 said:
Match has to finish with 2 1/2 hours. That's the TV window on free TV. Everything is geared to ensure that.
Click to expand...
The window on BBC. Can't imagine they'd have faced the same restrictions on Channel 4.

Still, when you've got quality programming like The One Show, schedules will always be tight.
 
Pexbo said:
So 10 x 10 ball overs? I think 20 x 5 ball overs would be better. But still, 6 balls to an over is a key measurement in cricket. How are you supposed to compare statistics across formats if there is a different amount of balls in the overs?
Click to expand...

Goodness me, I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean.
 
JohnnyKills said:
Yeah. Plus bowlers will get tired towards the end of the over so will need a breather. And don't they have the option of changing the bowler half-way through the over? They'll need to set a new field every time that happens.

As you say, 20 5-ball overs would make more sense. But to be honest the best option would have been to put the money into the existing T20 Blast and make that better, not invent a new format of the game whose basic rules are different to all the others.
Click to expand...
Whilst it’s a 10 ball over, ie 10 consecutive ball from same end, it will be delivered by 2 bowlers bowling 5 balls each. So they should be fresher than normal, not more tired.

I don’t think Hundred has first class status yet, but I might be wrong on that.
 
sammsky1 said:
Whinsg it’s a 10 ball over, ie 10 consecutive ball from same end, it will be delivered by 2 bowlers bowling 5 balls each. So they should be fresher than normal, Not more tired.
Click to expand...

they can use 1 or 2 bowlers no?
 
stepic said:
they can use 1 or 2 bowlers no?
Click to expand...
Yes. One bowler can bowl 10 consecutive balls from same end which would constitute as two 5-ball overs. Or it can be 2 bowlers. Think there is a very short time limit for that handover.

Am sure we’ll get used to it quite quickly
 
sammsky1 said:
Whilst it’s a 10 ball over, ie 10 consecutive ball from same end, it will be delivered by 2 bowlers bowling 5 balls each. So they should be fresher than normal, not more tired.

I don’t think Hundred has first class status yet, but I might be wrong on that.
Click to expand...
Tbh (and I may be wrong) this just sounds nonsense. Maybe we'll get used to it as you say but seems so unnecessary.
 
sammsky1 said:
Hmm. And I'm not choosing teams that way, anyway. Rather Im looking at the teams and seeing which has the most players I like or which entire team would suit my favoured style of the game. Personally I like Southern Brave (I am from London!) and Welsh Fire (I have no connection to Wales!)

But we have to keep reminding ourselves, as existing serious cricket fans WE ARE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE!

This is entirely about attracting new players and viewers. From that point of view, I'm sure they did a demographic study on where these new audiences could most easily come from and chose team locations accordingly.
Click to expand...
I think this is a key point all long term cricket fans are missing. For most of us, a 5 day game that ends in a draw where one team bats the fourth innings like their life depends on it, is up there with the most exciting match between United and Liverpool. For most people though, it’s ridiculous to watch 5 full days of cricket for the game to end in a draw. We have to remember that the whole point of this series is to get fans to the same point of being able to watch 5 days with the same excitement as the rest of us.
 
JohnnyKills said:
As said earlier, there was no reason they couldn't pump all this money and marketing into the existing T20 Blast. It's a good product with a committed audience and it's thrived despite having little or no attention from the ECB.

All the gimmicks they've thrown at The Hundred would have applied just as easily to the Blast.
Click to expand...
you're missing the point about free TV airing. T20 takes too long for UK free TV to air, hence game is dying through lack of new audience. Likewise, new kids wont play because T20 takes too long.

You have to start from there.
 
sammsky1 said:
you're missing the point about free TV airing. T20 takes too long for UK free TV to air, hence game is dying through lack of new audience. Likewise, new kids wont play because T20 takes too long.

You have to start from there.
Click to expand...

You really really don't. The ECBs case for this is incredibly weak.
 
sammsky1 said:
you're missing the point about free TV airing. T20 takes too long for UK free TV to air, hence game is dying through lack of new audience. Likewise, new kids wont play because T20 takes too long.

You have to start from there.
Click to expand...
Not missing the point. Why could it not have been aired on ITV, Channel 4 etc? As I understand it the only time restriction is on BBC.
 
JohnnyKills said:
As said earlier, there was no reason they couldn't pump all this money and marketing into the existing T20 Blast. It's a good product with a committed audience and it's thrived despite having little or no attention from the ECB.

All the gimmicks they've thrown at The Hundred would have applied just as easily to the Blast.
Click to expand...

Well the biggest problem I see is the number of teams . No way can ECB afford a tournament in which games are on TV everyday with 20+ teams. The whole concept is exactly what India did with the IPL where 20+ state associations were cut down to 8 teams . In the longer run people working for the counties have to understand that if it works then it's good for the sport and they will benefit from it .

I am personally sick of the negativity . I like the blast but the fact is that a lot of the great English talent doesn't get enough coverage and that I believe can change with the hundred
 
Ayush_reddevil said:
Well the biggest problem I see is the number of teams . No way can ECB afford a tournament in which games are on TV everyday with 20+ teams. The whole concept is exactly what India did with the IPL where 20+ state associations were cut down to 8 teams . In the longer run people working for the counties have to understand that if it works then it's good for the sport and they will benefit from it .

I am personally sick of the negativity . I like the blast but the fact is that a lot of the great English talent doesn't get enough coverage and that I believe can change with the hundred
Click to expand...
Get your point completely. I'd certainly reduce the county championship (England's domestic red-ball tournament) down to six-eight teams and have the ECB run it. It loses money hand over fist and doesn't produce a lot of good test cricketers.

The Blast, however, has consistently made money and drawn big crowds. Why do the ECB even need to take over? Why couldn't they just let the counties continue to run the tournament and give them marketing support?
 
NinjaFletch said:
You really really don't. The ECBs case for this is incredibly weak.
Click to expand...

JohnnyKills said:
Not missing the point. Why could it not have been aired on ITV, Channel 4 etc? As I understand it the only time restriction is on BBC.
Click to expand...

Don’t shoot the messenger! I was originally very against a new format and wrote so in earlier posts. All I’m doing is repeating things I’ve read or seen in interviews, which also made sense to me. And now it’s definitely happening, I’m prepared to give it a go.

The bit that resonated was that non fans/players of school and youth age have a huge primary barrier and that is length of the game. Forget test or ODI, they even think T20 is way too long. If that’s true, then no modification of the blast or IPL will grow the game in UK.

I’m not sure why ITV, c4 or c5 aren’t airing, perhaps get dkd t even bother to make a bid because they couldn’t make the ad revenue numbers work?

As I wrote before, I’m also aware that I’m not the target audience and all the formats I like will still be there.
 
sammsky1 said:
Don’t shoot the messenger! I was originally very against a new format and wrote so in earlier posts. All I’m doing is repeating things I’ve read or seen in interviews, which also made sense to me. And now it’s definitely happening, I’m prepared to give it a go.

The bit that resonated was that non fans/players of school and youth age have a huge primary barrier and that is length of the game. Forget test or ODI, they even think T20 is way too long. If that’s true, then no modification of the blast or IPL will grow the game in UK.

I’m not sure why ITV, c4 or c5 aren’t airing, perhaps get dkd t even bother to make a bid because they couldn’t make the ad revenue numbers work?

As I wrote before, I’m also aware that I’m not the target audience and all the formats I like will still be there.
Click to expand...

Sure I know that, but I also know why the ECB are telling people that T20 is too long and I'm not at all convinced by their methodology.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Sure I know that, but I also know why the ECB are telling people that T20 is too long and I'm not at all convinced by their methodology.
Click to expand...
Would you mind sharing what you know and your concerns on methodology?

I know ECB are green with envy about the prestige and revenue of India financial dominance and the success of IPL. But the role of top dog has long gone and I can’t see anyway in near future for IPL or T20 being replaced - it’s a great format for existing fans and a brilliant way to spend an evening.

But even if Hundred did somehow capture the imagination of sub continent fans, India would simply create their own version like they did with T20/IPL.

I suspect hunderd will turn into a weird whackAttack circus that existing fans will reject. Even now I sometimes feel abit weird after a game of T20 because of its brutality and intensity. Cricket needs nuanced ebbs and flows to properly enjoy.

But if it can get new fans into the English market, then hopefully the main formats financially justify getting back onto free tv, and the game grows.

World cricket needs a decent England team, if it descended into rubbish like WIndies did, entire sport would suffer.
 
sammsky1 said:
Would you mind sharing what you know and your concerns on methodology?

I know ECB are green with envy about the prestige and revenue of India financial dominance and the success of IPL. But the role of top dog has long gone and I can’t see anyway in near future for IPL or T20 being replaced - it’s a great format for existing fans and a brilliant way to spend an evening.

But even if Hundred did somehow capture the imagination of sub continent fans, India would simply create their own version like they did with T20/IPL.

I suspect hunderd will turn into a weird whackAttack circus that existing fans will reject. Even now I sometimes feel abit weird after a game of T20 because of its brutality and intensity. Cricket needs nuanced ebbs and flows to properly enjoy.

But if it can get new fans into the English market, then hopefully the main formats financially justify getting back onto free tv, and the game grows.

World cricket needs a decent England team, if it descended into rubbish like WIndies did, entire sport would suffer.
Click to expand...

They asked mumsnet and designed a competition based on why they didn't like cricket. There are articles out there on it if you're interested.

Their arguments about game length seem to artificially inflate the length of a T20 game played in this country, too.
 
Anyone else hooked?
 
Pexbo said:
Anyone else hooked?
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm really enjoying it. It's great seeing top quality players play against each other. Night like tonight with Livingstone striking the ball as he has done is pure joy.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Yeah I'm really enjoying it. It's great seeing top quality players play against each other. Night like tonight with Livingstone striking the ball as he has done is pure joy.
Click to expand...
Unreal. Definition of having your eye in and seeing the ball like a watermelon.
 
I'm not from Birmingham, but Phoenix are a great to watch as well. Young promising players, led by Moeen, have Livingstone in his pomp, great to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.