Note that the Hundred has reached its spectacular denouement, we can look forward to an exciting, gripping and crowd-packed week of county championship matches to unlock the huge, latent demand for 'proper' cricket.
Wait, what..?
You are obviously a very intelligent person capable of holding your own on many a subject. But on the cricket thread you come across as being a bit of a wum.
No offence meant as I quite enjoy debating with on on other threads.
Just highlighting that every reason given for not supporting the Hundred is, to a greater or lesser extent, contradictory.
No it isn't; you are just repeatedly ignoring the many valid arguments that you disagree with!
Fair enough. What are the main few 'valid arguments' against the Hundred, the most popular, lucrative domestic cricket tournament in the country?
Note that the Hundred has reached its spectacular denouement, we can look forward to an exciting, gripping and crowd-packed week of county championship matches to unlock the huge, latent demand for 'proper' cricket.
Wait, what..?
You are obviously a very intelligent person capable of holding your own on many a subject. But on the cricket thread you come across as being a bit of a wum.
No offence meant as I quite enjoy debating with on on other threads.
Just highlighting that every reason given for not supporting the Hundred is, to a greater or lesser extent, contradictory.
No it isn't; you are just repeatedly ignoring the many valid arguments that you disagree with!
Fair enough. What are the main few 'valid arguments' against the Hundred, the most popular, lucrative domestic cricket tournament in the country?
Rather than various of us take the time to repeat what we have already said numerous times, I suggest you read back over previous posts!
As previously said by someone else, you are not coming across well on this
Note that the Hundred has reached its spectacular denouement, we can look forward to an exciting, gripping and crowd-packed week of county championship matches to unlock the huge, latent demand for 'proper' cricket.
Wait, what..?
You are obviously a very intelligent person capable of holding your own on many a subject. But on the cricket thread you come across as being a bit of a wum.
No offence meant as I quite enjoy debating with on on other threads.
Just highlighting that every reason given for not supporting the Hundred is, to a greater or lesser extent, contradictory.
No it isn't; you are just repeatedly ignoring the many valid arguments that you disagree with!
Fair enough. What are the main few 'valid arguments' against the Hundred, the most popular, lucrative domestic cricket tournament in the country?
Rather than various of us take the time to repeat what we have already said numerous times, I suggest you read back over previous posts!
As previously said by someone else, you are not coming across well on this
Well, let me spell out why I think it's a good thing. And you can counter any of these points, if you want to.
It's popular.
And, if we need any more reasons, here are some:
It drives interest in cricket - as some posters have said, they're seeing more of their friends take an interest in cricket that have never been to a first class game. It's creating revenue, which goes directly, without conditions, into each of the counties - in the case of Kent, it's likely the difference between profit and loss this year. It's been a catalyst for spectacular growth in the women's game - there are now more, full-time professional women cricketer than there have ever been. It's enabled some of the world's greatest white ball cricketers to demonstrate their skills to a wider UK public - and this will increase as the pandemic dissipates. It's perfectly timed in a sweet-spot, within the school holidays, and allowing centrally-contracted players to play (at least in the early rounds) - both of which maximise the crowd numbers and revenue generated. It doesn't reduce the number of county matches - a full set of county fixtures is still schedules for the season, and (as far as I am aware) the counties are free to arrange 'friendly' fixtures at either First Class or List A level. It's created lucrative sponsorship opportunities, some of which are already contributing to cricket (Sky Sports, New Balance, Vitality), some are new to cricket in this country (DREAM11, Cazoo, KP Snacks, The New Era Cap Co, BBC Music) and one (Masuri) who sponsor a tournament instead of offering cash to just marquee players. None of these (incremental or new) opportunities would exist without The Hundred.
There is a false suggestion that the Hundred is having a detrimental effect on the England Test team's performance. We lost 1-0 to on of the best two teams in the world earlier in the season; we're losing 1-0 to the other one, now, but with our Hundred players dramatically outperforming those not involved.
All in all, it's a good thing, it's here to last and, while 'proper cricket fans' will still have as many chances to watch all eighteen counties throughout the season, I think it's good to have a focus, for a few weeks, on the highest-level competition we can put on. Like all of the best sports do.
Note that the Hundred has reached its spectacular denouement, we can look forward to an exciting, gripping and crowd-packed week of county championship matches to unlock the huge, latent demand for 'proper' cricket.
Wait, what..?
You are obviously a very intelligent person capable of holding your own on many a subject. But on the cricket thread you come across as being a bit of a wum.
No offence meant as I quite enjoy debating with on on other threads.
Just highlighting that every reason given for not supporting the Hundred is, to a greater or lesser extent, contradictory.
No it isn't; you are just repeatedly ignoring the many valid arguments that you disagree with!
Fair enough. What are the main few 'valid arguments' against the Hundred, the most popular, lucrative domestic cricket tournament in the country?
Rather than various of us take the time to repeat what we have already said numerous times, I suggest you read back over previous posts!
As previously said by someone else, you are not coming across well on this
Well, let me spell out why I think it's a good thing. And you can counter any of these points, if you want to.
It's popular.
And, if we need any more reasons, here are some:
It drives interest in cricket - as some posters have said, they're seeing more of their friends take an interest in cricket that have never been to a first class game. It's creating revenue, which goes directly, without conditions, into each of the counties - in the case of Kent, it's likely the difference between profit and loss this year. It's been a catalyst for spectacular growth in the women's game - there are now more, full-time professional women cricketer than there have ever been. It's enabled some of the world's greatest white ball cricketers to demonstrate their skills to a wider UK public - and this will increase as the pandemic dissipates. It's perfectly timed in a sweet-spot, within the school holidays, and allowing centrally-contracted players to play (at least in the early rounds) - both of which maximise the crowd numbers and revenue generated. It doesn't reduce the number of county matches - a full set of county fixtures is still schedules for the season, and (as far as I am aware) the counties are free to arrange 'friendly' fixtures at either First Class or List A level. It's created lucrative sponsorship opportunities, some of which are already contributing to cricket (Sky Sports, New Balance, Vitality), some are new to cricket in this country (DREAM11, Cazoo, KP Snacks, The New Era Cap Co, BBC Music) and one (Masuri) who sponsor a tournament instead of offering cash to just marquee players. None of these (incremental or new) opportunities would exist without The Hundred.
There is a false suggestion that the Hundred is having a detrimental effect on the England Test team's performance. We lost 1-0 to on of the best two teams in the world earlier in the season; we're losing 1-0 to the other one, now, but with our Hundred players dramatically outperforming those not involved.
All in all, it's a good thing, it's here to last and, while 'proper cricket fans' will still have as many chances to watch all eighteen counties throughout the season, I think it's good to have a focus, for a few weeks, on the highest-level competition we can put on. Like all of the best sports do.
You don't need to spell out why you think it is a good thing. You (and some others) have already given your reasons (several times at that). The rest of us have read these, and have given counter arguments.
There is no need to ask others about what they have already said! We know what you think, so no need to repeat yourself!
Note that the Hundred has reached its spectacular denouement, we can look forward to an exciting, gripping and crowd-packed week of county championship matches to unlock the huge, latent demand for 'proper' cricket.
Wait, what..?
You are obviously a very intelligent person capable of holding your own on many a subject. But on the cricket thread you come across as being a bit of a wum.
No offence meant as I quite enjoy debating with on on other threads.
Just highlighting that every reason given for not supporting the Hundred is, to a greater or lesser extent, contradictory.
No it isn't; you are just repeatedly ignoring the many valid arguments that you disagree with!
Fair enough. What are the main few 'valid arguments' against the Hundred, the most popular, lucrative domestic cricket tournament in the country?
Rather than various of us take the time to repeat what we have already said numerous times, I suggest you read back over previous posts!
As previously said by someone else, you are not coming across well on this
Well, let me spell out why I think it's a good thing. And you can counter any of these points, if you want to.
It's popular.
And, if we need any more reasons, here are some:
It drives interest in cricket - as some posters have said, they're seeing more of their friends take an interest in cricket that have never been to a first class game. It's creating revenue, which goes directly, without conditions, into each of the counties - in the case of Kent, it's likely the difference between profit and loss this year. It's been a catalyst for spectacular growth in the women's game - there are now more, full-time professional women cricketer than there have ever been. It's enabled some of the world's greatest white ball cricketers to demonstrate their skills to a wider UK public - and this will increase as the pandemic dissipates. It's perfectly timed in a sweet-spot, within the school holidays, and allowing centrally-contracted players to play (at least in the early rounds) - both of which maximise the crowd numbers and revenue generated. It doesn't reduce the number of county matches - a full set of county fixtures is still schedules for the season, and (as far as I am aware) the counties are free to arrange 'friendly' fixtures at either First Class or List A level. It's created lucrative sponsorship opportunities, some of which are already contributing to cricket (Sky Sports, New Balance, Vitality), some are new to cricket in this country (DREAM11, Cazoo, KP Snacks, The New Era Cap Co, BBC Music) and one (Masuri) who sponsor a tournament instead of offering cash to just marquee players. None of these (incremental or new) opportunities would exist without The Hundred.
There is a false suggestion that the Hundred is having a detrimental effect on the England Test team's performance. We lost 1-0 to on of the best two teams in the world earlier in the season; we're losing 1-0 to the other one, now, but with our Hundred players dramatically outperforming those not involved.
All in all, it's a good thing, it's here to last and, while 'proper cricket fans' will still have as many chances to watch all eighteen counties throughout the season, I think it's good to have a focus, for a few weeks, on the highest-level competition we can put on. Like all of the best sports do.
You don't need to spell out why you think it is a good thing. You (and some others) have already given your reasons (several times at that). The rest of us have read these, and have given counter arguments.
There is no need to ask others about what they have already said! We know what you think, so no need to repeat yourself!
Note that the Hundred has reached its spectacular denouement, we can look forward to an exciting, gripping and crowd-packed week of county championship matches to unlock the huge, latent demand for 'proper' cricket.
Wait, what..?
You are obviously a very intelligent person capable of holding your own on many a subject. But on the cricket thread you come across as being a bit of a wum.
No offence meant as I quite enjoy debating with on on other threads.
Just highlighting that every reason given for not supporting the Hundred is, to a greater or lesser extent, contradictory.
No it isn't; you are just repeatedly ignoring the many valid arguments that you disagree with!
Fair enough. What are the main few 'valid arguments' against the Hundred, the most popular, lucrative domestic cricket tournament in the country?
Rather than various of us take the time to repeat what we have already said numerous times, I suggest you read back over previous posts!
As previously said by someone else, you are not coming across well on this
Well, let me spell out why I think it's a good thing. And you can counter any of these points, if you want to.
It's popular.
And, if we need any more reasons, here are some:
It drives interest in cricket - as some posters have said, they're seeing more of their friends take an interest in cricket that have never been to a first class game. It's creating revenue, which goes directly, without conditions, into each of the counties - in the case of Kent, it's likely the difference between profit and loss this year. It's been a catalyst for spectacular growth in the women's game - there are now more, full-time professional women cricketer than there have ever been. It's enabled some of the world's greatest white ball cricketers to demonstrate their skills to a wider UK public - and this will increase as the pandemic dissipates. It's perfectly timed in a sweet-spot, within the school holidays, and allowing centrally-contracted players to play (at least in the early rounds) - both of which maximise the crowd numbers and revenue generated. It doesn't reduce the number of county matches - a full set of county fixtures is still schedules for the season, and (as far as I am aware) the counties are free to arrange 'friendly' fixtures at either First Class or List A level. It's created lucrative sponsorship opportunities, some of which are already contributing to cricket (Sky Sports, New Balance, Vitality), some are new to cricket in this country (DREAM11, Cazoo, KP Snacks, The New Era Cap Co, BBC Music) and one (Masuri) who sponsor a tournament instead of offering cash to just marquee players. None of these (incremental or new) opportunities would exist without The Hundred.
There is a false suggestion that the Hundred is having a detrimental effect on the England Test team's performance. We lost 1-0 to on of the best two teams in the world earlier in the season; we're losing 1-0 to the other one, now, but with our Hundred players dramatically outperforming those not involved.
All in all, it's a good thing, it's here to last and, while 'proper cricket fans' will still have as many chances to watch all eighteen counties throughout the season, I think it's good to have a focus, for a few weeks, on the highest-level competition we can put on. Like all of the best sports do.
You don't need to spell out why you think it is a good thing. You (and some others) have already given your reasons (several times at that). The rest of us have read these, and have given counter arguments.
There is no need to ask others about what they have already said! We know what you think, so no need to repeat yourself!
I respect your opinion
As you have said (more than once) before - I have read your comments; it's how I understand what others think about a thread topic
They define "sealioning" as "A disparaging term for the confrontational practice of leaping into an online discussion with endless demands for answers and evidence." ... Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable
'England cricketers FUME with ECB fat cats to pocket £2.1m bonus for delivering the Hundred after squad took pay cut during Covid crisis last summer and 62 jobs were cut last year'
Any other countries considering playing this format?
If not then let's have a World Cup and be champions.
well a lot of other nations play one day cricket and we're already world champions. Though who cares about that when you got a flashy gimmick of a competition to promote that no other fucker plays and probably will ever play.
“For the England and Wales Cricket Board there is also disgruntlement over the news of a £2.1 million bonus due to be picked up by senior executives including Tom Harrison, the chief executive, and Sanjay Patel, the managing director of the Hundred.
It has dismayed staff at the ECB who took pay cuts last year and have seen 62 colleagues made redundant.
It is understood the England players were also stunned to hear about Harrison’s bonus for delivering the Hundred, with the revelations threatening to strain relations between ECB executives and the team as they head for tense talks over the future of the Ashes tour to Australia this winter.”
“For the England and Wales Cricket Board there is also disgruntlement over the news of a £2.1 million bonus due to be picked up by senior executives including Tom Harrison, the chief executive, and Sanjay Patel, the managing director of the Hundred.
It has dismayed staff at the ECB who took pay cuts last year and have seen 62 colleagues made redundant.
It is understood the England players were also stunned to hear about Harrison’s bonus for delivering the Hundred, with the revelations threatening to strain relations between ECB executives and the team as they head for tense talks over the future of the Ashes tour to Australia this winter.”
Now we find something that @Rothko didn't mention.....
Not sure if mentioned elsewhere on this or if this waffle someone discussed with me when i was pissed the other day is t20 owned/patented by Indian or Aussie cricket and we have to pay to play it , surely not ECB don't like this so have tinkered to create the Hundred so they can try and flog it elsewhere , madness
“For the England and Wales Cricket Board there is also disgruntlement over the news of a £2.1 million bonus due to be picked up by senior executives including Tom Harrison, the chief executive, and Sanjay Patel, the managing director of the Hundred.
It has dismayed staff at the ECB who took pay cuts last year and have seen 62 colleagues made redundant.
It is understood the England players were also stunned to hear about Harrison’s bonus for delivering the Hundred, with the revelations threatening to strain relations between ECB executives and the team as they head for tense talks over the future of the Ashes tour to Australia this winter.”
Now we find something that @Rothko didn't mention.....
I don’t get why you seem to want this to be person to me?
I’d like to see both side of this then a Daily Mail splash
“For the England and Wales Cricket Board there is also disgruntlement over the news of a £2.1 million bonus due to be picked up by senior executives including Tom Harrison, the chief executive, and Sanjay Patel, the managing director of the Hundred.
It has dismayed staff at the ECB who took pay cuts last year and have seen 62 colleagues made redundant.
It is understood the England players were also stunned to hear about Harrison’s bonus for delivering the Hundred, with the revelations threatening to strain relations between ECB executives and the team as they head for tense talks over the future of the Ashes tour to Australia this winter.”
Now we find something that @Rothko didn't mention.....
I don’t get why you seem to want this to be person to me?
I’d like to see both side of this then a Daily Mail splash
Very quickly, a narrative was constructed around the Hundred whereby it was the sport’s sole outlet of diversification, its only vehicle for inclusion, cricket’s last chance to save itself. And so to object to it in any form was to mark yourself out as a staid traditionalist, a county bore, a reactionary gammon who hates not only change, but very possibly also brown people and women.
In truth, the ECB’s primary objective was not altruistic custodianship but profit and control. By moving into the sports-entertainment sector, it could tap the lucrative and growing event-going market: people who want to attend some sport, eat some street food and take some cool selfies, but don’t necessarily need to know the rules or remember any of what they saw. And by breaking the stranglehold of the counties, it has ruthlessly centralised English cricket’s decision-making power and revenue-generating ability.
Yes, good one, AA. And I back the Hundred for all those reasons.
Sorry AA and Fanny, I can no longer exchange pleasantries with you, as you are both reactionary gammons who hate not only change, but very possibly also brown people and women
Yes, good one, AA. And I back the Hundred for all those reasons.
Would you back an equivalent in football, bearing in mind we are one of the lesser 'poorly run counties' as you refer to the counties without test grounds?
Want to scrap the offside rule (as 'too complicated') and shorten the time? And maybe increase the goal size so there are more goals, maybe?
Yes, good one, AA. And I back the Hundred for all those reasons.
And no doubt in doing so you also endorse the promotion to those new young lovers of cricket the consumption of those thoroughly healthy snacks that front the various shirts such as butterkist popcorn, McCoy's crisps, Tyrells crisps, Popchips, KP nuts, Pom-Bear, Skips and Hula-Hoops.
After all, Harrison won't get his bonus without selling his soul to the devil. Wonder how long he will be around before moving on to his next ponzi scam. My spread is 18-24 months. Are you a buyer or seller?
Yes, good one, AA. And I back the Hundred for all those reasons.
Would you back an equivalent in football, bearing in mind we are one of the lesser 'poorly run counties' as you refer to the counties without test grounds?
Want to scrap the offside rule (as 'too complicated') and shorten the time? And maybe increase the goal size so there are more goals, maybe?
Would I draw the same conclusion in an entirely different set of circumstances, in a different sport, with different timescales, viewing figures, revenue generation, participation levels, sponsorship opportunities and, crucially, a different set of problems needing to be solved? On balance, no, I don't think I would. Drawing an illogical analogy doesn't work in my view.
The ECB run the professional game and all aspects of the international team. And, by introducing the Hundred, they're filling the coffers, from which the professional game and the international teams draw. You could argue that the same thing happened with the Premier League, set up by the FA, which runs the game and the international teams in England. The Premier League has been a success; the England team has improved. But the differences between the sports are so vast that the comparison is pointless.
Comments
As previously said by someone else, you are not coming across well on this
It's popular.
And, if we need any more reasons, here are some:
It drives interest in cricket - as some posters have said, they're seeing more of their friends take an interest in cricket that have never been to a first class game.
It's creating revenue, which goes directly, without conditions, into each of the counties - in the case of Kent, it's likely the difference between profit and loss this year.
It's been a catalyst for spectacular growth in the women's game - there are now more, full-time professional women cricketer than there have ever been.
It's enabled some of the world's greatest white ball cricketers to demonstrate their skills to a wider UK public - and this will increase as the pandemic dissipates.
It's perfectly timed in a sweet-spot, within the school holidays, and allowing centrally-contracted players to play (at least in the early rounds) - both of which maximise the crowd numbers and revenue generated.
It doesn't reduce the number of county matches - a full set of county fixtures is still schedules for the season, and (as far as I am aware) the counties are free to arrange 'friendly' fixtures at either First Class or List A level.
It's created lucrative sponsorship opportunities, some of which are already contributing to cricket (Sky Sports, New Balance, Vitality), some are new to cricket in this country (DREAM11, Cazoo, KP Snacks, The New Era Cap Co, BBC Music) and one (Masuri) who sponsor a tournament instead of offering cash to just marquee players. None of these (incremental or new) opportunities would exist without The Hundred.
There is a false suggestion that the Hundred is having a detrimental effect on the England Test team's performance. We lost 1-0 to on of the best two teams in the world earlier in the season; we're losing 1-0 to the other one, now, but with our Hundred players dramatically outperforming those not involved.
All in all, it's a good thing, it's here to last and, while 'proper cricket fans' will still have as many chances to watch all eighteen counties throughout the season, I think it's good to have a focus, for a few weeks, on the highest-level competition we can put on. Like all of the best sports do.
There is no need to ask others about what they have already said! We know what you think, so no need to repeat yourself!
'England cricketers FUME with ECB fat cats to pocket £2.1m bonus for delivering the Hundred after squad took pay cut during Covid crisis last summer and 62 jobs were cut last year'
If not then let's have a World Cup and be champions.
is t20 owned/patented by Indian or Aussie cricket and we have to pay to play it , surely not
ECB don't like this so have tinkered to create the Hundred so they can try and flog it elsewhere , madness
I’d like to see both side of this then a Daily Mail splash
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/aug/23/senior-ecb-executives-to-share-21m-bonus-despite-covid-job-cuts
It's wrong that a few individuals will make a lot of money out of The Hundred, but as a tournament it was very enjoyable to watch.
There needs to be dialogue to be able to accommodate all forms of cricket.
Very quickly, a narrative was constructed around the Hundred whereby it was the sport’s sole outlet of diversification, its only vehicle for inclusion, cricket’s last chance to save itself. And so to object to it in any form was to mark yourself out as a staid traditionalist, a county bore, a reactionary gammon who hates not only change, but very possibly also brown people and women.
In truth, the ECB’s primary objective was not altruistic custodianship but profit and control. By moving into the sports-entertainment sector, it could tap the lucrative and growing event-going market: people who want to attend some sport, eat some street food and take some cool selfies, but don’t necessarily need to know the rules or remember any of what they saw. And by breaking the stranglehold of the counties, it has ruthlessly centralised English cricket’s decision-making power and revenue-generating ability.
Want to scrap the offside rule (as 'too complicated') and shorten the time? And maybe increase the goal size so there are more goals, maybe?
After all, Harrison won't get his bonus without selling his soul to the devil. Wonder how long he will be around before moving on to his next ponzi scam. My spread is 18-24 months. Are you a buyer or seller?
The ECB run the professional game and all aspects of the international team. And, by introducing the Hundred, they're filling the coffers, from which the professional game and the international teams draw. You could argue that the same thing happened with the Premier League, set up by the FA, which runs the game and the international teams in England. The Premier League has been a success; the England team has improved. But the differences between the sports are so vast that the comparison is pointless.