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
You're welcome to interpret my comments in whatever way you choose. But you're wrong if I align to that part of the article. It's not a 'reason' for backing the Hundred.
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?
Accusations about the leadership of the ECB may well be valid; but they're not exclusive to the the Hundred. I don't care how long Harrison keeps his job, so long as the ECB keep doing theirs: investing more in growing cricket at grass root and Joe Root levels.
You're not seriously asking me to justify whether the sponsorship of teams in the Hundred is appropriate though, are you? Or even suggesting that youngsters, otherwise oblivious to snacks will suddenly try out confectionary for the first time ever, because of the sponsorship? Because if that's the case, we'd have to have some conversations about whether it's appropriate for Kent to promote the drinking of Spitfire beer; or Sussex to encourage gambling habits with their promotion of Dafabet; or Surrey to encourage drinking and driving with the money they make out of Thatchers and Kia.
My view is that advertising snacks, drinks and cars aren't banned and shouldn't be; but that betting should be. It's a discussion that might be interesting, but it can't possibly be a reason to single out the Hundred as 'a bad thing', can it?
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.
Why is it an "illogical analogy" when it is comparable, or does it not suit your opinion?!
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.
Why is it an "illogical analogy" when it is comparable, or does it not suit your opinion?!
Because they are different sports, with different timescales, viewing figures, revenue generation, participation levels, sponsorship opportunities and a different set of problems that need to be solved. You may think England's eighteen first class cricket clubs, playing the vast majority of games to paltry crowds with no chance of being relegated is perfectly congruent with England's 92 clubs, some of whose average attendance is more than the capacity of the biggest cricket grounds in the country.
The mammoth commercial success of the FA's Premier League and the permanent infrastructure improvements of every ground since its inception have no bearing on whether a similar new league - the ECB's The Hundred - will also be successful.
I think The Hundred is successful and will continue to be; but I don't think it's because of the success of the FA's intervention in league football in the 90s.
Why is it an "illogical analogy" when it is comparable, or does it not suit your opinion?!
Because they are different sports, with different timescales, viewing figures, revenue generation, participation levels, sponsorship opportunities and a different set of problems that need to be solved. You may think England's eighteen first class cricket clubs, playing the vast majority of games to paltry crowds with no chance of being relegated is perfectly congruent with England's 92 clubs, some of whose average attendance is more than the capacity of the biggest cricket grounds in the country.
The mammoth commercial success of the FA's Premier League and the permanent infrastructure improvements of every ground since its inception have no bearing on whether a similar new league - the ECB's The Hundred - will also be successful.
I think The Hundred is successful and will continue to be; but I don't think it's because of the success of the FA's intervention in league football in the 90s.
You can't playtest test matches without the longer format (county) game, most of the crowds in League One and Two are not substantial and the majority of international players come from the Premier League Championship and a lot of clubs in the Premier League don't need to worry about relegation as the same 6 or so clubs finish in the top 8 to 10.
And if one of the successes of the Hundred was to get cricket on terrestrial tv, how about more people being able to watch a form of football on tv, other than a handful of FA cup games?
They didn't develop the Hundred to develop cricket and cricketers, but to line pockets
Why is it an "illogical analogy" when it is comparable, or does it not suit your opinion?!
Because they are different sports, with different timescales, viewing figures, revenue generation, participation levels, sponsorship opportunities and a different set of problems that need to be solved. You may think England's eighteen first class cricket clubs, playing the vast majority of games to paltry crowds with no chance of being relegated is perfectly congruent with England's 92 clubs, some of whose average attendance is more than the capacity of the biggest cricket grounds in the country.
The mammoth commercial success of the FA's Premier League and the permanent infrastructure improvements of every ground since its inception have no bearing on whether a similar new league - the ECB's The Hundred - will also be successful.
I think The Hundred is successful and will continue to be; but I don't think it's because of the success of the FA's intervention in league football in the 90s.
You can't playtest test matches without the longer format (county) game, most of the crowds in League One and Two are not substantial and the majority of international players come from the Premier League Championship and a lot of clubs in the Premier League don't need to worry about relegation as the same 6 or so clubs finish in the top 8 to 10.
And if one of the successes of the Hundred was to get cricket on terrestrial tv, how about more people being able to watch a form of football on tv, other than a handful of FA cup games?
They didn't develop the Hundred to develop cricket and cricketers, but to line pockets
Absolute disgrace of a tournament. The rich are destined to get richer and the poor will go amateur, have to sell grounds to pay debts. Squads at the big counties will get bigger as players specialise even more (Jordan to Surrey, Salt to Lancs today). Kent and Sussex are fucked. Minor counties. If you like this, you probably supported the super league or you’re an MK fan.
Absolute disgrace of a tournament. The rich are destined to get richer and the poor will go amateur, have to sell grounds to pay debts. Squads at the big counties will get bigger as players specialise even more (Jordan to Surrey, Salt to Lancs today). Kent and Sussex are fucked. Minor counties. If you like this, you probably supported the super league or you’re an MK fan.
Absolute disgrace of a tournament. The rich are destined to get richer and the poor will go amateur, have to sell grounds to pay debts. Squads at the big counties will get bigger as players specialise even more (Jordan to Surrey, Salt to Lancs today). Kent and Sussex are fucked. Minor counties. If you like this, you probably supported the super league or you’re an MK fan.
Oh yes, you’re right of course. Because cricket is exactly like football.
Absolute disgrace of a tournament. The rich are destined to get richer and the poor will go amateur, have to sell grounds to pay debts. Squads at the big counties will get bigger as players specialise even more (Jordan to Surrey, Salt to Lancs today). Kent and Sussex are fucked. Minor counties. If you like this, you probably supported the super league or you’re an MK fan.
Oh yes, you’re right of course. Because cricket is exactly like football.
Absolute disgrace of a tournament. The rich are destined to get richer and the poor will go amateur, have to sell grounds to pay debts. Squads at the big counties will get bigger as players specialise even more (Jordan to Surrey, Salt to Lancs today). Kent and Sussex are fucked. Minor counties. If you like this, you probably supported the super league or you’re an MK fan.
Oh yes, you’re right of course. Because cricket is exactly like football.
Cricket has never been like football for most fan and that is what the current ECB Board resent. If you were born in Kent and followed cricket the chances are that you supported Kent. If you were born in Kent and followed football you might become Charlton or Millwall or Gillingham fans. But there is just as much chance that you supported Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea or even far flung clubs like Liverpool or Man United depending on who was the big, successful club at the time that you were first getting into football.
That is exactly what Harrison and his mates want cricket to become. For youngsters to support the big counties/franchises with big stadia that will produce big returns. They couldn't care less if those franchises are plastic or where those fans come from or that they are diminishing the product and financial returns of the smaller counties that have been around for hundreds of years.
I still haven't heard anyone demonstrate exactly what makes The Hundred more exciting than the Vitality Blast. Equally, I haven't seen anyone explain why the ECB didn't pump the sort of money advertising the Blast or negotiating TV deals with the BBC in the way they have with The Hundred. Perhaps just because Harrison and his fellow executives wouldn't be able to line their own pockets to the same vast degree.
Absolute disgrace of a tournament. The rich are destined to get richer and the poor will go amateur, have to sell grounds to pay debts. Squads at the big counties will get bigger as players specialise even more (Jordan to Surrey, Salt to Lancs today). Kent and Sussex are fucked. Minor counties. If you like this, you probably supported the super league or you’re an MK fan.
Oh yes, you’re right of course. Because cricket is exactly like football.
Do things have to be exactly the same to draw comparisons? Or is the fact they are not actually the only reason why we can draw comparisons?!
A: What’s best Sainsbury’s or Tesco’s? B: Can’t possibly compare them; they’re not exactly the same. A: F**k off!
Maybe because I’m just bored stiff of the constant sniping at people who actually enjoyed watching/going to The Hundred.
If we are going to draw comparisons this all reminds me of the start of the Premiership & Sky TV. Footballs dead, the worlds going end, loads of clubs will disappear. And do you know, I was one of them. It was years before I finally succumbed & took a Sky subscription & that was only because our pub landlord retired & the new ones stopped showing the football 🙄🤣🤣
I really enjoyed watching the Hundred. I really enjoyed watching different players I hadn’t seen before on all sides. I was surprised I got so behind the Invincibles but I did, probably because I actually like The Oval. Dare I say it even more than St Lawrence’s because Canterbury always just feels like a village cricket ground & I've never understood why they haven’t invested more into bringing it up to date?
And none of that has detracted from my love of The Blast. I love both.
Now I get the argument regarding county cricket & I don’t know enough about the inner workings of the ECB to know if they’re a bunch of thieves. But what I do know is that all this bollocks that’s going back & forth between us all is just driving a fecking wedge that’s completely unnecessary.
I wonder if all this talk went on over a pint of ale when the introduced one day cricket all those years ago? Jeez 🙄
Maybe because I’m just bored stiff of the constant sniping at people who actually enjoyed watching/going to The Hundred.
If we are going to draw comparisons this all reminds me of the start of the Premiership & Sky TV. Footballs dead, the worlds going end, loads of clubs will disappear. And do you know, I was one of them. It was years before I finally succumbed & took a Sky subscription & that was only because our pub landlord retired & the new ones stopped showing the football 🙄🤣🤣
I really enjoyed watching the Hundred. I really enjoyed watching different players I hadn’t seen before on all sides. I was surprised I got so behind the Invincibles but I did, probably because I actually like The Oval. Dare I say it even more than St Lawrence’s because Canterbury always just feels like a village cricket ground & I've never understood why they haven’t invested more into bringing it up to date?
And none of that has detracted from my love of The Blast. I love both.
Now I get the argument regarding county cricket & I don’t know enough about the inner workings of the ECB to know if they’re a bunch of thieves. But what I do know is that all this bollocks that’s going back & forth between us all is just driving a fecking wedge that’s completely unnecessary.
I wonder if all this talk went on over a pint of ale when the introduced one day cricket all those years ago? Jeez 🙄
Has that actually happened though? I've seen lots of people sniping at the competition, lots of people sniping at the ECB and lots of people sniping at the self-interested administrators who have trousered millions, but I can't say I've personally picked up on much sniping at that those who enjoyed watching it. Maybe it's there and I've just not tuned into it, but it doesn't seem like a major theme on this thread to me.
For what it's worth, I think it's possible and perfectly reasonable to hold views that separate out the enjoyment of the competition to the question of its overall value. I thoroughly enjoyed the games that I watched, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe the format and the competition is detrimental to the wider sport. Just because I enjoyed watching the likes of Stirling and Livingstone smashing balls all over the place, doesn't mean that I can't think that on balance the 100 is a bad thing for cricket.
I was going to post this on the Kent Cricket thread but is probably better on here, could it just be possible that Kent did so well last because so many of their players had played in The Hundred and got game time in that form of cricket.
Like @KBslittlesis I enjoyed watching The Hundred and have also enjoyed watching the T20 Blast this week. I've probably enjoyed it more as I now recognise players that took part in the Hundred.
It cannot be a bad thing for cricket if it can attract new people to the game.
I was going to post this on the Kent Cricket thread but is probably better on here, could it just be possible that Kent did so well last because so many of their players had played in The Hundred and got game time in that form of cricket.
Like @KBslittlesis I enjoyed watching The Hundred and have also enjoyed watching the T20 Blast this week. I've probably enjoyed it more as I now recognise players that took part in the Hundred.
It cannot be a bad thing for cricket if it can attract new people to the game.
That logic only works if you restrict your thinking to a more=better numbers game. There are plenty of other factors to consider. People used to gather in their thousands to watch public executions, does that mere fact mean that they were a good thing?
Absolute disgrace of a tournament. The rich are destined to get richer and the poor will go amateur, have to sell grounds to pay debts. Squads at the big counties will get bigger as players specialise even more (Jordan to Surrey, Salt to Lancs today). Kent and Sussex are fucked. Minor counties. If you like this, you probably supported the super league or you’re an MK fan.
Oh yes, you’re right of course. Because cricket is exactly like football.
Cricket has never been like football for most fan and that is what the current ECB Board resent. If you were born in Kent and followed cricket the chances are that you supported Kent. If you were born in Kent and followed football you might become Charlton or Millwall or Gillingham fans. But there is just as much chance that you supported Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea or even far flung clubs like Liverpool or Man United depending on who was the big, successful club at the time that you were first getting into football.
That is exactly what Harrison and his mates want cricket to become. For youngsters to support the big counties/franchises with big stadia that will produce big returns. They couldn't care less if those franchises are plastic or where those fans come from or that they are diminishing the product and financial returns of the smaller counties that have been around for hundreds of years.
I still haven't heard anyone demonstrate exactly what makes The Hundred more exciting than the Vitality Blast. Equally, I haven't seen anyone explain why the ECB didn't pump the sort of money advertising the Blast or negotiating TV deals with the BBC in the way they have with The Hundred. Perhaps just because Harrison and his fellow executives wouldn't be able to line their own pockets to the same vast degree.
You may have missed some of the comments made on this thread that explain why the Hundred is exciting. And you may have missed some of the comments made on this thread that explain why the ECB didn't 'pump the sort of money advertising the Blast or negotiating TV deals with the BBC the way they have with The Hundred'.
The Hundred is more exciting than The Blast, because it is in addition to The Blast. It's not a case of which format is more exciting - you and I probably differ on that. It's exciting because it's in addition to The Blast and it's lucrative because it's sufficiently different.
@BlackfenLen summed up perfectly what it's for and why it's a good idea. But, to me, a family taking their six-year old to his first-ever game, is the definition of 'exciting'. No doubt there were opportunities to take him to a Blast game, but these were not taken up. This 6 year old's first witnessing of professional cricket is thanks to The Hundred, at the Oval, in the same way mine was thanks to Test cricket at the Oval - I wish I hadn't had to wait those extra few years.
At the Oval tomorrow night with my wife and 6 year Son. He's really excited about going to the Oval and if helps him become a cricket fan then I'm all for it.
Spoiler alert - we found out later that Len's six-year old went on to watch a county game.
Having had no preconceived ideas how this was going to go, I sat down with an open heart, cricket, oval as a venue, loving heart.
And I loved it.
I miss the Oval. I loved my cricket nights there 🥰🤩😍🤩🥰
@MarcusH26 explained in very simple terms how it's not a zero-sum game. The Blast plus The Hundred is better than The Blast. It's perfectly possible to enjoy both The Blast and The Hundred.
I'm just treating it like watching any of these franchise tournaments , it's decent entertainment with some of the players on show. Don't really have an allegence to any of the teams .
...and that was a point illustrated by @suzisausage - it's an enjoyable format in the same way that T20 cricket is.
I’m enjoying it. Really don’t see the harm in it or why anyone would be so annoyed about it.
The kids are loving it!
If you need an illustration as to why it's 'more exciting' than the Blast, maybe @Rothko's seven-year old would be best placed to answer:
Rothko said: My 7 year old liked it too, wants to go to a game at the Oval. He's shown absolutely no interest in a T20 game at Canterbury, even when he's seen the games on Sky
As someone who hasn’t watched cricket since it was taken off terrestrial TV, I’m really happy to just have some format of the game back for me to watch.
Can understand why the purists don’t like it but me and my 4 year old son are enjoying it and who knows, this could be his gateway into the sport? Can’t see the harm in it.
The very aptly named @objectivecafc called it. You can enjoy it, without enjoying everything about it. (Probably in the same way you can enjoy Test cricket and not enjoy the players coming off for bad light in the afternoon when the floodlights are on).
Why didn't they just pump some more money into the T20 tournament to attract major overseas players like the IPL?
Because they wanted franchise cricket and presumably the existing T20 blast contracts don't allow for that. Setting up a second T20 competition would have been pointless, no differentiation from the existing T20 comp and would be difficult to market, so they were left having to invent a new product as the only way to achieve franchise cricket.
There is a T20 competition, tied into a set of broadcast contracts, probably with clauses in them which prohibit the ECB from producing another twenty-over competition. So a new, different-format competition had to be devised in order to exploit broadcast opportunities (and associated sponsorship income). It's not possible to re-negotiate a water-tight broadcast contract profitably, while gaining free-to-air broadcast. What the ECB wanted was more income, derived both from broadcast fees and from sponsorship - that could not be achieved by renegotiating the Blast broadcast deal.
The bit that I don't understand is why some people who claim to enjoy cricket also want this new form of cricket to fail. I love Test cricket, ODIs and T20 internationals; lots of county cricket can also be interesting; and The Hundred is another opportunity to see - live or on terrestrial TV, at home or abroad - the world's best Summer sport. It's all good and it's all symbiotic. Even though I find the Royal London Cup excruciating, I want it to continue, because some people like it. (Perhaps that marks me out as not being a 'proper cricket fan'. Although, if the sport only ever relies on 'proper cricket fans', it will eventually wither and die). So why some people want The Hundred to fail baffles me.
It also gives a fair idea of the mindset of the people who run cricket. Clueless, petty and small minded. I hope this pretend version of cricket dies on its arse like it deserves to.
I'll ... watch a men's game out of curiosity, but I'm quite happy if it's a massive failure.
I enjoyed it and I am looking forward to next year's competition, which I imagine will be even more popular, with the addition of more big name players able to travel to England. Equally, I am looking forward to going to the Oval next month to watch the Test. I hope they let me in - it would be a shame to miss a Test match at the Oval for the first time since 1975 because I am outed as not being a 'proper cricket fan'.
But for now, I will sign off this thread and get back to watching England struggle against India at Edgbaston. It's such a shame the Test team has been ruined, as predicted, by The Hundred.
Your enitre argument seems to be based on 2 things @Chizz - I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong
Firstly, the more money that goes into sport the healthier the sport will be.
Secondly, entertaining = successful.
It depends on what success looks like to you. For me, success looks like watching decent players with friends and family at affordable prices at my local county ground. A shared experience. I see the 100 as a threat to this.
Of course it's entertaining, that's not the point for me. Of course a 7 year old will love it and might go to a county championship game...but where? The Oval? Lords...? Probably not Hove or Canterbury.
I don't like watching cricket anywhere near as much as I like watching Sussex play cricket and compete with all the other counties. Similarly, I don't really like watching football - I like watching Charlton play football and compete...
Wait, what...?
There is an assumption that the premier league has been a success. How is it? For me, it's been an unbridled disaster. Again, we're back to more money = success. Not for me. If I had shares in Bentley or Range Rover, maybe.
How much more money do the host ground counties get than the other counties?
Does the ECB pay a set fee to them and the ECB gets the in ground revenue and ticket sales or is it all shared at a certain percentage between the ECB and the county ?
I mentioned previously that Sussex had 12 contracted players between the ages of 17 and 20 as opposed to Kent's two (one being Jordan Cox and the other Tawanda Muyeye who came from Sussex too).
The current Sussex CC team playing in this week's CC game has an average age of just over 20 and the following table has been tweeted by way of evidence:
Apart from their incredibly youthful team, the other striking aspect of this is that this XI were all privately educated (as were Muyeye and Cox at Kent).
An incredibly small number of pro footballers are privately educated. Equally, there are far more State school recreational cricketers than there are privately educated ones. So why are more State school children not breaking through? Perhaps the ECB should be asked as to how they propose State school educated children that pay to watch The Hundred, whose parents can't afford to send their child to a private school (even with a full scholarship), can progress into County age group squads?
I think the answer lies with the relationship between not the clubs and counties but the schools and counties. Take Eastbourne College for example. The Head of Cricket there is Rob Ferley, former Kent cricketer. He is the eyes and ears of the county and has a vested interest in producing pro cricketers because the more he does that the more attractive the school becomes. I believe that Sussex have an App that is shared by them and school coaches so both can monitor the progress and work on aspects of a child's game together. When a State school doesn't even support cricket as part of their curriculum there is no such continuity. The majority of parents don't have the money to pay for all that playing cricket at county age group level entails. Clubs don't either and neither do counties such as Kent.
So does Tom Harrison, the ECB CEO, who was himself privately educated himself at Oundle School actually understand this? Or is that he has no vested interest whatsoever in changing this? The programmes such as All Stars and Dynamos that the ECB sponsor only apply to the age of 10. They also end prior to The Hundred so the interest element is lost because there is no end product available anyway.
I mentioned previously that Sussex had 12 contracted players between the ages of 17 and 20 as opposed to Kent's two (one being Jordan Cox and the other Tawanda Muyeye who came from Sussex too).
The current Sussex CC team playing in this week's CC game has an average age of just over 20 and the following table has been tweeted by way of evidence:
Apart from their incredibly youthful team, the other striking aspect of this is that this XI were all privately educated (as were Muyeye and Cox at Kent).
An incredibly small number of pro footballers are privately educated. Equally, there are far more State school recreational cricketers than there are privately educated ones. So why are more State school children not breaking through? Perhaps the ECB should be asked as to how they propose State school educated children that pay to watch The Hundred, whose parents can't afford to send their child to a private school (even with a full scholarship), can progress into County age group squads?
I think the answer lies with the relationship between not the clubs and counties but the schools and counties. Take Eastbourne College for example. The Head of Cricket there is Rob Ferley, former Kent cricketer. He is the eyes and ears of the county and has a vested interest in producing pro cricketers because the more he does that the more attractive the school becomes. I believe that Sussex have an App that is shared by them and school coaches so both can monitor the progress and work on aspects of a child's game together. When a State school doesn't even support cricket as part of their curriculum there is no such continuity. The majority of parents don't have the money to pay for all that playing cricket at county age group level entails. Clubs don't either and neither do counties such as Kent.
So does Tom Harrison, the ECB CEO, who was himself privately educated himself at Oundle School actually understand this? Or is that he has no vested interest whatsoever in changing this? The programmes such as All Stars and Dynamos that the ECB sponsor only apply to the age of 10. They also end prior to The Hundred so the interest element is lost because there is no end product available anyway.
There are some interesting points here, but it's not really a post about The Hundred, which this thread is about. And The Hundred was never intended as a solution to counties drawing almost exclusively on private schools for their talent pool.
I mentioned previously that Sussex had 12 contracted players between the ages of 17 and 20 as opposed to Kent's two (one being Jordan Cox and the other Tawanda Muyeye who came from Sussex too).
The current Sussex CC team playing in this week's CC game has an average age of just over 20 and the following table has been tweeted by way of evidence:
Apart from their incredibly youthful team, the other striking aspect of this is that this XI were all privately educated (as were Muyeye and Cox at Kent).
An incredibly small number of pro footballers are privately educated. Equally, there are far more State school recreational cricketers than there are privately educated ones. So why are more State school children not breaking through? Perhaps the ECB should be asked as to how they propose State school educated children that pay to watch The Hundred, whose parents can't afford to send their child to a private school (even with a full scholarship), can progress into County age group squads?
I think the answer lies with the relationship between not the clubs and counties but the schools and counties. Take Eastbourne College for example. The Head of Cricket there is Rob Ferley, former Kent cricketer. He is the eyes and ears of the county and has a vested interest in producing pro cricketers because the more he does that the more attractive the school becomes. I believe that Sussex have an App that is shared by them and school coaches so both can monitor the progress and work on aspects of a child's game together. When a State school doesn't even support cricket as part of their curriculum there is no such continuity. The majority of parents don't have the money to pay for all that playing cricket at county age group level entails. Clubs don't either and neither do counties such as Kent.
So does Tom Harrison, the ECB CEO, who was himself privately educated himself at Oundle School actually understand this? Or is that he has no vested interest whatsoever in changing this? The programmes such as All Stars and Dynamos that the ECB sponsor only apply to the age of 10. They also end prior to The Hundred so the interest element is lost because there is no end product available anyway.
There are some interesting points here, but it's not really a post about The Hundred, which this thread is about. And The Hundred was never intended as a solution to counties drawing almost exclusively on private schools for their talent pool.
It is very much about The Hundred and Harrison's attempts to use it to engage kids at State schools:
"It's all a big challenge trying to capture kids' imaginations and young people's imaginations," he said. "We are competing with everything. We've had a lot of news about Fortnite recently in the news - that's the kind of competitive landscape that we're in.
"We've got a plan - it's called 'Inspiring Generations'. We launched it at the start of the year, [and] it's literally kicking off right now using the Ashes and the World Cup as a platform for growing the game.
"It's all about transforming the women's and girls' game in this country, and looking again at our schools strategy, because we're not comfortable about where we're at with schools in this country."
Harrison claimed that cricket had already enjoyed a post-World Cup bounce, highlighting strong sales in Vitality Blast tickets, and claimed that the ECB had seen "people writing in and saying 'my family have never really looked at cricket as being an option', and suddenly it's something that their kids are talking about, they want to play, they want to be part of".
Despite their apparent marginalisation to open up a window for The Hundred from next year, he said that the ECB have "got to put our counties at the heart of the challenge to grow the game in this country", and to ensure "that our county clubs are filling grounds across the country more regularly and for more formats of the game".
He also highlighted the role of the ECB's South Asian community programme, and said England "have got an incredibly diverse team that won the World Cup and that's playing in this Ashes Test right now" - despite the fact that ten of the side for the Edgbaston Test are white British and six were privately educated.
This interview was more than two years ago. The Hundred was and still is being touted as a vehicle to bring cricket to the masses. The masses can buy tickets but there is still no evidence whatsoever that he and the ECB have done a single thing to incentivise kids from State schools to break into the county set up. The fact that all 14 under 20 contracted players at Kent and Sussex were privately educated says it all in that respect.
I mentioned previously that Sussex had 12 contracted players between the ages of 17 and 20 as opposed to Kent's two (one being Jordan Cox and the other Tawanda Muyeye who came from Sussex too).
The current Sussex CC team playing in this week's CC game has an average age of just over 20 and the following table has been tweeted by way of evidence:
Apart from their incredibly youthful team, the other striking aspect of this is that this XI were all privately educated (as were Muyeye and Cox at Kent).
An incredibly small number of pro footballers are privately educated. Equally, there are far more State school recreational cricketers than there are privately educated ones. So why are more State school children not breaking through? Perhaps the ECB should be asked as to how they propose State school educated children that pay to watch The Hundred, whose parents can't afford to send their child to a private school (even with a full scholarship), can progress into County age group squads?
I think the answer lies with the relationship between not the clubs and counties but the schools and counties. Take Eastbourne College for example. The Head of Cricket there is Rob Ferley, former Kent cricketer. He is the eyes and ears of the county and has a vested interest in producing pro cricketers because the more he does that the more attractive the school becomes. I believe that Sussex have an App that is shared by them and school coaches so both can monitor the progress and work on aspects of a child's game together. When a State school doesn't even support cricket as part of their curriculum there is no such continuity. The majority of parents don't have the money to pay for all that playing cricket at county age group level entails. Clubs don't either and neither do counties such as Kent.
So does Tom Harrison, the ECB CEO, who was himself privately educated himself at Oundle School actually understand this? Or is that he has no vested interest whatsoever in changing this? The programmes such as All Stars and Dynamos that the ECB sponsor only apply to the age of 10. They also end prior to The Hundred so the interest element is lost because there is no end product available anyway.
There are some interesting points here, but it's not really a post about The Hundred, which this thread is about. And The Hundred was never intended as a solution to counties drawing almost exclusively on private schools for their talent pool.
It is very much about The Hundred and Harrison's attempts to use it to engage kids at State schools:
"It's all a big challenge trying to capture kids' imaginations and young people's imaginations," he said. "We are competing with everything. We've had a lot of news about Fortnite recently in the news - that's the kind of competitive landscape that we're in.
"We've got a plan - it's called 'Inspiring Generations'. We launched it at the start of the year, [and] it's literally kicking off right now using the Ashes and the World Cup as a platform for growing the game.
"It's all about transforming the women's and girls' game in this country, and looking again at our schools strategy, because we're not comfortable about where we're at with schools in this country."
Harrison claimed that cricket had already enjoyed a post-World Cup bounce, highlighting strong sales in Vitality Blast tickets, and claimed that the ECB had seen "people writing in and saying 'my family have never really looked at cricket as being an option', and suddenly it's something that their kids are talking about, they want to play, they want to be part of".
Despite their apparent marginalisation to open up a window for The Hundred from next year, he said that the ECB have "got to put our counties at the heart of the challenge to grow the game in this country", and to ensure "that our county clubs are filling grounds across the country more regularly and for more formats of the game".
He also highlighted the role of the ECB's South Asian community programme, and said England "have got an incredibly diverse team that won the World Cup and that's playing in this Ashes Test right now" - despite the fact that ten of the side for the Edgbaston Test are white British and six were privately educated.
This interview was more than two years ago. The Hundred was and still is being touted as a vehicle to bring cricket to the masses. The masses can buy tickets but there is still no evidence whatsoever that he and the ECB have done a single thing to incentivise kids from State schools to break into the county set up. The fact that all 14 under 20 contracted players at Kent and Sussex were privately educated says it all in that respect.
No, you're conflating The Hundred with the ECB.
The ECB have responsibility for developing and supporting all areas of the game – from elite through to recreational level. It's a limited company, owned by the 38 counties and the MCC. It has six strategic aims, tp grow and nurture the core, to inspire through elite teams, to make cricket accessible, to engage children and young people, to transform women's and girls' cricket and to support communities.
The Hundred is one of the ways - by, by no means the only way - it aims to achieve each of these goals. By all means criticise the ECB if you feel (and I am sure you do) that it's failing to achieve its agreed strategic goals. But, please understand that, if the ECB is falling short in any of its strategic goals, the reason for that cannot be sensibly attributed solely to one of the many competitions the ECB runs.
If you think the ECB are responsible for Sussex only using players that were educated privately and you think that's not a good thing, you're perfectly entitled to that view and you should argue that case. Further, you may decide that the ECB are to blame for Sussex's recruitment policy and should intervene in order to change how, and from where, Sussex recruit players. Again, you would be perfectly entitled to that view. But it's nothing at all to do with The Hundred which, I think, didn't take place until after all of those players were signed.
Surely one of the main reasons why those of us that support & appreciate our Counties is that The Hundred will always ( should it continue) be played over the month of August in order to attract families with kids on school hols. And that this is the only time that the 50 over 1 day matches can be played due to the T20 Blast & the 4 day match competitions.
As I, and others, have stated before ( although basically ignored by the Hundred fans regardless of whether they intend to go to matches themselves....) this means that the counties AND their income suffer due to depleted squads being available for said competition. Whilst it's heartwarming to see a county's up & coming players / 2nd teamers perform, it's not what we pay £25 a pop to see ...especially when it's not a level playing field.
Once again, I'd draw attention to the inclusion of up to ELEVEN Kent contracted players in The Hundred whilst the 1 dayers were taking place. Is there any wonder that our county's performances suffered substantially during August ...and attendances were affected ?
I also fail to see how anyone who enjoys cricket as a sport cannot understand that this "glory boys" form of the game impacts so heavily on, not only cricket at county level but IF the 50 over competition is shelved, England's expertise at international level.
IF The Hundred continues next season ( as Rothko is adamant it will) then surely the number of players involved from each county MUST be limited to a maximum of, say 3 or 4 in addition to the overseas players clamouring to take part in yet another Franchise tournament. Parity must be maintained for the sake of The Beautiful Game Mk 2....
One final point today on the subject from Fanny.
With families eager to holiday both home & abroad next August , once schools have broken up for the summer, I wonder whether they will be as eager to continue to support the Hundred as in its inaugural year or whether finances & interest will impact attendances.....
I mentioned previously that Sussex had 12 contracted players between the ages of 17 and 20 as opposed to Kent's two (one being Jordan Cox and the other Tawanda Muyeye who came from Sussex too).
The current Sussex CC team playing in this week's CC game has an average age of just over 20 and the following table has been tweeted by way of evidence:
Apart from their incredibly youthful team, the other striking aspect of this is that this XI were all privately educated (as were Muyeye and Cox at Kent).
An incredibly small number of pro footballers are privately educated. Equally, there are far more State school recreational cricketers than there are privately educated ones. So why are more State school children not breaking through? Perhaps the ECB should be asked as to how they propose State school educated children that pay to watch The Hundred, whose parents can't afford to send their child to a private school (even with a full scholarship), can progress into County age group squads?
I think the answer lies with the relationship between not the clubs and counties but the schools and counties. Take Eastbourne College for example. The Head of Cricket there is Rob Ferley, former Kent cricketer. He is the eyes and ears of the county and has a vested interest in producing pro cricketers because the more he does that the more attractive the school becomes. I believe that Sussex have an App that is shared by them and school coaches so both can monitor the progress and work on aspects of a child's game together. When a State school doesn't even support cricket as part of their curriculum there is no such continuity. The majority of parents don't have the money to pay for all that playing cricket at county age group level entails. Clubs don't either and neither do counties such as Kent.
So does Tom Harrison, the ECB CEO, who was himself privately educated himself at Oundle School actually understand this? Or is that he has no vested interest whatsoever in changing this? The programmes such as All Stars and Dynamos that the ECB sponsor only apply to the age of 10. They also end prior to The Hundred so the interest element is lost because there is no end product available anyway.
There are some interesting points here, but it's not really a post about The Hundred, which this thread is about. And The Hundred was never intended as a solution to counties drawing almost exclusively on private schools for their talent pool.
It is very much about The Hundred and Harrison's attempts to use it to engage kids at State schools:
"It's all a big challenge trying to capture kids' imaginations and young people's imaginations," he said. "We are competing with everything. We've had a lot of news about Fortnite recently in the news - that's the kind of competitive landscape that we're in.
"We've got a plan - it's called 'Inspiring Generations'. We launched it at the start of the year, [and] it's literally kicking off right now using the Ashes and the World Cup as a platform for growing the game.
"It's all about transforming the women's and girls' game in this country, and looking again at our schools strategy, because we're not comfortable about where we're at with schools in this country."
Harrison claimed that cricket had already enjoyed a post-World Cup bounce, highlighting strong sales in Vitality Blast tickets, and claimed that the ECB had seen "people writing in and saying 'my family have never really looked at cricket as being an option', and suddenly it's something that their kids are talking about, they want to play, they want to be part of".
Despite their apparent marginalisation to open up a window for The Hundred from next year, he said that the ECB have "got to put our counties at the heart of the challenge to grow the game in this country", and to ensure "that our county clubs are filling grounds across the country more regularly and for more formats of the game".
He also highlighted the role of the ECB's South Asian community programme, and said England "have got an incredibly diverse team that won the World Cup and that's playing in this Ashes Test right now" - despite the fact that ten of the side for the Edgbaston Test are white British and six were privately educated.
This interview was more than two years ago. The Hundred was and still is being touted as a vehicle to bring cricket to the masses. The masses can buy tickets but there is still no evidence whatsoever that he and the ECB have done a single thing to incentivise kids from State schools to break into the county set up. The fact that all 14 under 20 contracted players at Kent and Sussex were privately educated says it all in that respect.
No, you're conflating The Hundred with the ECB.
The ECB have responsibility for developing and supporting all areas of the game – from elite through to recreational level. It's a limited company, owned by the 38 counties and the MCC. It has six strategic aims, tp grow and nurture the core, to inspire through elite teams, to make cricket accessible, to engage children and young people, to transform women's and girls' cricket and to support communities.
The Hundred is one of the ways - by, by no means the only way - it aims to achieve each of these goals. By all means criticise the ECB if you feel (and I am sure you do) that it's failing to achieve its agreed strategic goals. But, please understand that, if the ECB is falling short in any of its strategic goals, the reason for that cannot be sensibly attributed solely to one of the many competitions the ECB runs.
If you think the ECB are responsible for Sussex only using players that were educated privately and you think that's not a good thing, you're perfectly entitled to that view and you should argue that case. Further, you may decide that the ECB are to blame for Sussex's recruitment policy and should intervene in order to change how, and from where, Sussex recruit players. Again, you would be perfectly entitled to that view. But it's nothing at all to do with The Hundred which, I think, didn't take place until after all of those players were signed.
The Hundred is funded by the ECB and purports to be there to engage kids from all communities. It is the competition that earns the ECB the most amount of money. What Harrison and his cronies are doing is taking the money and in doing so pretending to use it to bring cricket to those who wouldn't otherwise be playing it. It is taking money away from the county system not adding to it.
Anyone who has any notion of what is happening at club level will recognise, with the number of clubs that have folded, the damage that the ECB have done already. The Hundred is just another extension of that and the percentage of privately educated kids from 10 upwards in age group squads is evidence that nothing has changed.
I absolutely guarantee that most of the volunteers at the remaining clubs will still be there a long time after Harrison has disappeared into the sunset having pocketed his bonuses and moved on to his next personal money making venture.
Surely one of the main reasons why those of us that support & appreciate our Counties is that The Hundred will always ( should it continue) be played over the month of August in order to attract families with kids on school hols. And that this is the only time that the 50 over 1 day matches can be played due to the T20 Blast & the 4 day match competitions.
As I, and others, have stated before ( although basically ignored by the Hundred fans regardless of whether they intend to go to matches themselves....) this means that the counties AND their income suffer due to depleted squads being available for said competition. Whilst it's heartwarming to see a county's up & coming players / 2nd teamers perform, it's not what we pay £25 a pop to see ...especially when it's not a level playing field.
Once again, I'd draw attention to the inclusion of up to ELEVEN Kent contracted players in The Hundred whilst the 1 dayers were taking place. Is there any wonder that our county's performances suffered substantially during August ...and attendances were affected ?
I also fail to see how anyone who enjoys cricket as a sport cannot understand that this "glory boys" form of the game impacts so heavily on, not only cricket at county level but IF the 50 over competition is shelved, England's expertise at international level.
IF The Hundred continues next season ( as Rothko is adamant it will) then surely the number of players involved from each county MUST be limited to a maximum of, say 3 or 4 in addition to the overseas players clamouring to take part in yet another Franchise tournament. Parity must be maintained for the sake of The Beautiful Game Mk 2....
One final point today on the subject from Fanny.
With families eager to holiday both home & abroad next August , once schools have broken up for the summer, I wonder whether they will be as eager to continue to support the Hundred as in its inaugural year or whether finances & interest will impact attendances.....
But, of course, it's never about money, is it ?
This hits the nail on the head. Especially the bit about (certain) supporters of the Hundred ignoring alternative views!
Just because there are a couple of advantages in a new concept it doesn't mean it is a good thing it is as massively outweighed by far more disadvantages. Unless the £s outweighs the game of cricket, of course!
There is one other thing that The Hundred has done to damage the game. There is no such thing now, so far as lifetime stats are concerned, as overs and maidens. The fact that overs are 5/10 balls long in The Hundred means that they cannot be recorded as overs. And maidens can't be shown because overs are no longer of a standard six ball duration!
Comments
You're not seriously asking me to justify whether the sponsorship of teams in the Hundred is appropriate though, are you? Or even suggesting that youngsters, otherwise oblivious to snacks will suddenly try out confectionary for the first time ever, because of the sponsorship? Because if that's the case, we'd have to have some conversations about whether it's appropriate for Kent to promote the drinking of Spitfire beer; or Sussex to encourage gambling habits with their promotion of Dafabet; or Surrey to encourage drinking and driving with the money they make out of Thatchers and Kia.
My view is that advertising snacks, drinks and cars aren't banned and shouldn't be; but that betting should be. It's a discussion that might be interesting, but it can't possibly be a reason to single out the Hundred as 'a bad thing', can it?
The mammoth commercial success of the FA's Premier League and the permanent infrastructure improvements of every ground since its inception have no bearing on whether a similar new league - the ECB's The Hundred - will also be successful.
I think The Hundred is successful and will continue to be; but I don't think it's because of the success of the FA's intervention in league football in the 90s.
And if one of the successes of the Hundred was to get cricket on terrestrial tv, how about more people being able to watch a form of football on tv, other than a handful of FA cup games?
They didn't develop the Hundred to develop cricket and cricketers, but to line pockets
Because cricket is exactly like football.
That is exactly what Harrison and his mates want cricket to become. For youngsters to support the big counties/franchises with big stadia that will produce big returns. They couldn't care less if those franchises are plastic or where those fans come from or that they are diminishing the product and financial returns of the smaller counties that have been around for hundreds of years.
I still haven't heard anyone demonstrate exactly what makes The Hundred more exciting than the Vitality Blast. Equally, I haven't seen anyone explain why the ECB didn't pump the sort of money advertising the Blast or negotiating TV deals with the BBC in the way they have with The Hundred. Perhaps just because Harrison and his fellow executives wouldn't be able to line their own pockets to the same vast degree.
A: What’s best Sainsbury’s or Tesco’s?
B: Can’t possibly compare them; they’re not exactly the same.
A: F**k off!
If we are going to draw comparisons this all reminds me of the start of the Premiership & Sky TV.
Footballs dead, the worlds going end, loads of clubs will disappear.
And do you know, I was one of them. It was years before I finally succumbed & took a Sky subscription & that was only because our pub landlord retired & the new ones stopped showing the football 🙄🤣🤣
I really enjoyed watching the Hundred. I really enjoyed watching different players I hadn’t seen before on all sides. I was surprised I got so behind the Invincibles but I did, probably because I actually like The Oval. Dare I say it even more than St Lawrence’s because Canterbury always just feels like a village cricket ground & I've never understood why they haven’t invested more into bringing it up to date?
Now I get the argument regarding county cricket & I don’t know enough about the inner workings of the ECB to know if they’re a bunch of thieves. But what I do know is that all this bollocks that’s going back & forth between us all is just driving a fecking wedge that’s completely unnecessary.
I wonder if all this talk went on over a pint of ale when the introduced one day cricket all those years ago? Jeez 🙄
For what it's worth, I think it's possible and perfectly reasonable to hold views that separate out the enjoyment of the competition to the question of its overall value. I thoroughly enjoyed the games that I watched, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe the format and the competition is detrimental to the wider sport. Just because I enjoyed watching the likes of Stirling and Livingstone smashing balls all over the place, doesn't mean that I can't think that on balance the 100 is a bad thing for cricket.
Like @KBslittlesis I enjoyed watching The Hundred and have also enjoyed watching the T20 Blast this week. I've probably enjoyed it more as I now recognise players that took part in the Hundred.
It cannot be a bad thing for cricket if it can attract new people to the game.
An easy way to concentrate power and treasure even more with the 'haves' at the expense of the 'have nots'.
History, tradition, localism and all those unfashionable, non-vibrant, 'legacy fans' can do one. What use are they anyway?
Them and their backward local allegiances are so last century!
The Hundred is more exciting than The Blast, because it is in addition to The Blast. It's not a case of which format is more exciting - you and I probably differ on that. It's exciting because it's in addition to The Blast and it's lucrative because it's sufficiently different.
@BlackfenLen summed up perfectly what it's for and why it's a good idea. But, to me, a family taking their six-year old to his first-ever game, is the definition of 'exciting'. No doubt there were opportunities to take him to a Blast game, but these were not taken up. This 6 year old's first witnessing of professional cricket is thanks to The Hundred, at the Oval, in the same way mine was thanks to Test cricket at the Oval - I wish I hadn't had to wait those extra few years.
Spoiler alert - we found out later that Len's six-year old went on to watch a county game.
@Addick_and_Chips summed it up well, too.
Can there be a better endorsement than from someone like @KBslittlesis who went with an open mind and thoroughly enjoyed it?
@MarcusH26 explained in very simple terms how it's not a zero-sum game. The Blast plus The Hundred is better than The Blast. It's perfectly possible to enjoy both The Blast and The Hundred.
...and that was a point illustrated by @suzisausage - it's an enjoyable format in the same way that T20 cricket is.
If you need an illustration as to why it's 'more exciting' than the Blast, maybe @Rothko's seven-year old would be best placed to answer:
...or @Saulc23's four-year old
The very aptly named @objectivecafc called it. You can enjoy it, without enjoying everything about it. (Probably in the same way you can enjoy Test cricket and not enjoy the players coming off for bad light in the afternoon when the floodlights are on).
The question about negotiating contracts with the BBC was addressed by @cafc999 and answered by @randy andy
There is a T20 competition, tied into a set of broadcast contracts, probably with clauses in them which prohibit the ECB from producing another twenty-over competition. So a new, different-format competition had to be devised in order to exploit broadcast opportunities (and associated sponsorship income). It's not possible to re-negotiate a water-tight broadcast contract profitably, while gaining free-to-air broadcast. What the ECB wanted was more income, derived both from broadcast fees and from sponsorship - that could not be achieved by renegotiating the Blast broadcast deal.
The bit that I don't understand is why some people who claim to enjoy cricket also want this new form of cricket to fail. I love Test cricket, ODIs and T20 internationals; lots of county cricket can also be interesting; and The Hundred is another opportunity to see - live or on terrestrial TV, at home or abroad - the world's best Summer sport. It's all good and it's all symbiotic. Even though I find the Royal London Cup excruciating, I want it to continue, because some people like it. (Perhaps that marks me out as not being a 'proper cricket fan'. Although, if the sport only ever relies on 'proper cricket fans', it will eventually wither and die). So why some people want The Hundred to fail baffles me.
I enjoyed it and I am looking forward to next year's competition, which I imagine will be even more popular, with the addition of more big name players able to travel to England. Equally, I am looking forward to going to the Oval next month to watch the Test. I hope they let me in - it would be a shame to miss a Test match at the Oval for the first time since 1975 because I am outed as not being a 'proper cricket fan'.
But for now, I will sign off this thread and get back to watching England struggle against India at Edgbaston. It's such a shame the Test team has been ruined, as predicted, by The Hundred.
Wait, what?
Firstly, the more money that goes into sport the healthier the sport will be.
Secondly, entertaining = successful.
It depends on what success looks like to you. For me, success looks like watching decent players with friends and family at affordable prices at my local county ground. A shared experience. I see the 100 as a threat to this.
Of course it's entertaining, that's not the point for me. Of course a 7 year old will love it and might go to a county championship game...but where? The Oval? Lords...? Probably not Hove or Canterbury.
I don't like watching cricket anywhere near as much as I like watching Sussex play cricket and compete with all the other counties. Similarly, I don't really like watching football - I like watching Charlton play football and compete...
Wait, what...?
There is an assumption that the premier league has been a success. How is it? For me, it's been an unbridled disaster. Again, we're back to more money = success. Not for me. If I had shares in Bentley or Range Rover, maybe.
The current Sussex CC team playing in this week's CC game has an average age of just over 20 and the following table has been tweeted by way of evidence:
An incredibly small number of pro footballers are privately educated. Equally, there are far more State school recreational cricketers than there are privately educated ones. So why are more State school children not breaking through? Perhaps the ECB should be asked as to how they propose State school educated children that pay to watch The Hundred, whose parents can't afford to send their child to a private school (even with a full scholarship), can progress into County age group squads?
I think the answer lies with the relationship between not the clubs and counties but the schools and counties. Take Eastbourne College for example. The Head of Cricket there is Rob Ferley, former Kent cricketer. He is the eyes and ears of the county and has a vested interest in producing pro cricketers because the more he does that the more attractive the school becomes. I believe that Sussex have an App that is shared by them and school coaches so both can monitor the progress and work on aspects of a child's game together. When a State school doesn't even support cricket as part of their curriculum there is no such continuity. The majority of parents don't have the money to pay for all that playing cricket at county age group level entails. Clubs don't either and neither do counties such as Kent.
So does Tom Harrison, the ECB CEO, who was himself privately educated himself at Oundle School actually understand this? Or is that he has no vested interest whatsoever in changing this? The programmes such as All Stars and Dynamos that the ECB sponsor only apply to the age of 10. They also end prior to The Hundred so the interest element is lost because there is no end product available anyway.
Harrison claimed that cricket had already enjoyed a post-World Cup bounce, highlighting strong sales in Vitality Blast tickets, and claimed that the ECB had seen "people writing in and saying 'my family have never really looked at cricket as being an option', and suddenly it's something that their kids are talking about, they want to play, they want to be part of".
This interview was more than two years ago. The Hundred was and still is being touted as a vehicle to bring cricket to the masses. The masses can buy tickets but there is still no evidence whatsoever that he and the ECB have done a single thing to incentivise kids from State schools to break into the county set up. The fact that all 14 under 20 contracted players at Kent and Sussex were privately educated says it all in that respect.
The ECB have responsibility for developing and supporting all areas of the game – from elite through to recreational level. It's a limited company, owned by the 38 counties and the MCC. It has six strategic aims, tp grow and nurture the core, to inspire through elite teams, to make cricket accessible, to engage children and young people, to transform women's and girls' cricket and to support communities.
The Hundred is one of the ways - by, by no means the only way - it aims to achieve each of these goals. By all means criticise the ECB if you feel (and I am sure you do) that it's failing to achieve its agreed strategic goals. But, please understand that, if the ECB is falling short in any of its strategic goals, the reason for that cannot be sensibly attributed solely to one of the many competitions the ECB runs.
If you think the ECB are responsible for Sussex only using players that were educated privately and you think that's not a good thing, you're perfectly entitled to that view and you should argue that case. Further, you may decide that the ECB are to blame for Sussex's recruitment policy and should intervene in order to change how, and from where, Sussex recruit players. Again, you would be perfectly entitled to that view. But it's nothing at all to do with The Hundred which, I think, didn't take place until after all of those players were signed.
As I, and others, have stated before ( although basically ignored by the Hundred fans regardless of whether they intend to go to matches themselves....) this means that the counties AND their income suffer due to depleted squads being available for said competition. Whilst it's heartwarming to see a county's up & coming players / 2nd teamers perform, it's not what we pay £25 a pop to see ...especially when it's not a level playing field.
Once again, I'd draw attention to the inclusion of up to ELEVEN Kent contracted players in The Hundred whilst the 1 dayers were taking place. Is there any wonder that our county's performances suffered substantially during August ...and attendances were affected ?
I also fail to see how anyone who enjoys cricket as a sport cannot understand that this "glory boys" form of the game impacts so heavily on, not only cricket at county level but IF the 50 over competition is shelved, England's expertise at international level.
IF The Hundred continues next season ( as Rothko is adamant it will) then surely the number of players involved from each county MUST be limited to a maximum of, say 3 or 4 in addition to the overseas players clamouring to take part in yet another Franchise tournament. Parity must be maintained for the sake of The Beautiful Game Mk 2....
One final point today on the subject from Fanny.
With families eager to holiday both home & abroad next August , once schools have broken up for the summer, I wonder whether they will be as eager to continue to support the Hundred as in its inaugural year or whether finances & interest will impact attendances.....
But, of course, it's never about money, is it ?
Anyone who has any notion of what is happening at club level will recognise, with the number of clubs that have folded, the damage that the ECB have done already. The Hundred is just another extension of that and the percentage of privately educated kids from 10 upwards in age group squads is evidence that nothing has changed.
I absolutely guarantee that most of the volunteers at the remaining clubs will still be there a long time after Harrison has disappeared into the sunset having pocketed his bonuses and moved on to his next personal money making venture.
Just because there are a couple of advantages in a new concept it doesn't mean it is a good thing it is as massively outweighed by far more disadvantages. Unless the £s outweighs the game of cricket, of course!