I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
To be fair the bails lighting up has been around in white ball for a while, and does really help third umpire with run outs and stumpings. Overall a good thing.
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
I dunno, you can't possibly expect the kids of today to sit through a a whole 20:20 match. I'm sure shaving those 20 balls off each innings will bring the Millennials flooding back to watch cricket.
The test isn't how many people bought tickets last night, but how many buy them in 12 months time. There will always be people to get tickets for something new purely for the novelty factor.
The test isn't how many people bought tickets last night, but how many buy them in 12 months time. There will always be people to get tickets for something new purely for the novelty factor.
About 2,500 were actually bought last night with about 7,000 being given away to cricket club junior sections, schools and NHS workers. The Oval has a capacity of just over 25,000.
I dunno, you can't possibly expect the kids of today to sit through a a whole 20:20 match. I'm sure shaving those 20 balls off each innings will bring the Millennials flooding back to watch cricket.
Older Millennials are nearly in their 40s mate.
Yeah millennials own their own businesses now and have families, are doctors and lawyers etc. It’s just a weird boomer slur used against young people.
I'm not exactly a cricket fan. I couldn't sit down to watch a whole day of a test match for example.
I find that 20-20 is about the perfect version of cricket for my attention span at appx 3hrs all in.
How does the 20-20 game time compare to The Hundred?
We’ll see how it develops, but very little, except there are 5 ball overs, and bowlers can bowl 2 in a row, after 10 balls they switch ends. That’s basically it. Pointless.
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Watched the last half hour when i got in last night and enjoyed it, although the colours and graphics took a while to get used to what was going on - I liked the tailenders snippets, and the facts and insights into new players.
It has made me look up options to go to a future game. Have never done an evening game at Lords, but I think the type of cricket is best suited to the oval - anything other than test at Lords feels like misbehaviour. Was tempted to go on Friday 20th to the eliminator but can't seem to buy any tickets - singles or pair even though they are showing as available? just had a look at other games at Lords or Oval that we can make (we're going to a lot of tests) but nothing comes up but it doesn't say sold out?
I don’t get the issue with players being from different countries & therefore you can’t form an allegiance with them. This happens in all forms of sports. If they’re wearing your team badge then they’re your player.
I really liked getting behind the London team last night & loved seeing the kids having a great time actually watching the game. And I thought Sky let a lot of the hype in the crowd go unseen so it didn’t detract too much from the cricket.
I also was really happy to see how women’s fielding has improved. I’ve been watching the gals for some time now & that’s been my biggest gripe. Long may that continue.
Is it much different from T20? Probably not tbh.
I’m really looking forward to seeing the geezers now.
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
This.
Am boycotting the 100 for many reasons - the closest I'll get to it is this thread.
Has a negative effect on the counties via the 1 day cup too
I dunno, you can't possibly expect the kids of today to sit through a a whole 20:20 match. I'm sure shaving those 20 balls off each innings will bring the Millennials flooding back to watch cricket.
Older Millennials are nearly in their 40s mate.
Yeah millennials own their own businesses now and have families, are doctors and lawyers etc. It’s just a weird boomer slur used against young people.
Yeah I think a lot of ppl think a millenial is a 20 year old vegan fortnite twitch streamer, when the oldest millenials were born in 1982!
There was a real anti T20 movement at the start of that competition so will see how this goes. Thought last nights game was ok, longest I’ve watched the women’s game for so I guess that’s a positive. The fielding though.
I watched on bbc 2 for the novelty and could hardly pick up any atmosphere, which I think was down to the production as the crowd looked like they were enjoying it.
I love test cricket, but understand that puts me in the minority in terms of sport fandom, I see stuff like this and T20 as underwriting that game, and at the moment they are not a threat to it. They won’t make existing fans switch off test cricket and may even add some younger ones. So I’m all for it.
There was a real anti T20 movement at the start of that competition so will see how this goes. Thought last nights game was ok, longest I’ve watched the women’s game for so I guess that’s a positive. The fielding though.
I watched on bbc 2 for the novelty and could hardly pick up any atmosphere, which I think was down to the production as the crowd looked like they were enjoying it.
I love test cricket, but understand that puts me in the minority in terms of sport fandom, I see stuff like this and T20 as underwriting that game, and at the moment they are not a threat to it. They won’t make existing fans switch off test cricket and may even add some younger ones. So I’m all for it.
i dont ever remember there being one, people just saw it as a bit of fun originally. Then all the weird shots etc slowly started to bleed into longer formats. Pre 20/20 a reverse sweep was almost ungentlmanly, now you see it legitimately played by test players.
Worst thing about this is I don't know which team to cheer for. As a Kent fan, we have the highest number of our players in the Oval based team, but they have so many Slurrey players that they look like said county is disguise. And they wear the same colours too, so not much of a bloody disguise if you ask me! They shouldn't have allowed both Curran brothers to play for Slurrey-in-a-very-poor-disgiuse.
I never saw any anti T20 movement. Thought it was a good idea and it has proved to be one too. I think the 100 is a poor imitation of the IPL that has brought nothing more to the game. It stinks of the ECB wanting more control and money
Yeah maybe Movement was strong but I didn’t think it was unanimous in its favour from the counties or traditional fans. But I guess if you actually consider the numbers of those, it would have been very low. This was when 20 odd people used to turn up for a county game.
Ed. Just looked back and can’t see much opposition, counties were 11-7 in favour. Must be misremembering it.
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
First, there are more opportunities for the newly-professionalised women's sport to be shown off, and thanks in no small part to the Hundred, there are now domestic professional women's cricketers than ever before, rising by 16 to 41 last winter. The Hundred has stimulated the opportunity for women to play professional, full-time, domestic cricket for the first time, ever. Yes, there have been a few professional international cricketers. The game-changing aspect is that women can now make domestic cricket a full-time career for the first time.
Second, thousands of people got to see professional, live, 'big match' cricket for the first time ever yesterday. And thousands more will, later today. I know that some people, like @addick1956 might prefer not to see that as a benefit, but, hopefully you can see the advantages of more people being introduced to cricket? If it weren't for the Hundred, none of these would have fixtured to see on those two days. So, we have now welcomed thousands more people into the cricket-supporting family: undoubtedly a good thing.
Thirdly, you're right, children have been inspired by watching international cricketers up close, live, for donkeys years. I would agree with you that it's a good thing.
Fourthly, I think saying 'I prefer cricket' is pointless. Especially in relation to a game of... cricket.
Not everyone will like it. Not everyone will be open minded. And not everyone will want to acknowledge the obvious benefits it brings to the game, permanently.
However, I quite enjoyed it. And, although I don't give a flying fuck who wins tonight, I am looking forward to tonight's game. And I think those who don't want to enjoy it will miss out.
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
First, there are more opportunities for the newly-professionalised women's sport to be shown off, and thanks in no small part to the Hundred, there are now domestic professional women's cricketers than ever before, rising by 16 to 41 last winter. The Hundred has stimulated the opportunity for women to play professional, full-time, domestic cricket for the first time, ever. Yes, there have been a few professional international cricketers. The game-changing aspect is that women can now make domestic cricket a full-time career for the first time.
Second, thousands of people got to see professional, live, 'big match' cricket for the first time ever yesterday. And thousands more will, later today. I know that some people, like @addick1956 might prefer not to see that as a benefit, but, hopefully you can see the advantages of more people being introduced to cricket? If it weren't for the Hundred, none of these would have fixtured to see on those two days. So, we have now welcomed thousands more people into the cricket-supporting family: undoubtedly a good thing.
Thirdly, you're right, children have been inspired by watching international cricketers up close, live, for donkeys years. I would agree with you that it's a good thing.
Fourthly, I think saying 'I prefer cricket' is pointless. Especially in relation to a game of... cricket.
Not everyone will like it. Not everyone will be open minded. And not everyone will want to acknowledge the obvious benefits it brings to the game, permanently.
However, I quite enjoyed it. And, although I don't give a flying fuck who wins tonight, I am looking forward to tonight's game. And I think those who don't want to enjoy it will miss out.
Care to share these obvious benefits?
All the "Benefits" that you talk about are already in place.
Any cricket is better than no cricket and last night was the most women’s cricket I’ve watched since we won the World Cup being an old fart I was against the 20-20 at the beginning but realise that’s me being an old fart I’m open to see what comes with this and as ever each to their own .
50 over royal London starts today , did I read this is this competitions last year 🤷♂️
I watched this yesterday. Iam not a lover of T20 to begin with.
Much of the game is spent on a fake drama added by commentators.
Seeing every stroke from every angle is boring on non key balls.
The scoring on the side of the screen is annoying to me. I can count and subtract.
Apart from the American style Umpah raz ma taz which happens at Base Ball it is no different to T20. Why do the umpires have to wear coloured jump suits and look if they live in La la land.
How are the teams made up. I heard they don't need to be on a particular counties books and so all could be 'mercenaries '. If so why would anyone tie a loyalty ribbon to such a made up bunch ?
This exercise is pointless to me. I prefer cricket. As for the bails that light up . Why not a bat that lights up when it hits the ball or a ball that lights up when hit. Yuck
Do you see *any* of the benefits at all? For example:
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago - Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans - Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
Ok. Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval. Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years. Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
First, there are more opportunities for the newly-professionalised women's sport to be shown off, and thanks in no small part to the Hundred, there are now domestic professional women's cricketers than ever before, rising by 16 to 41 last winter. The Hundred has stimulated the opportunity for women to play professional, full-time, domestic cricket for the first time, ever. Yes, there have been a few professional international cricketers. The game-changing aspect is that women can now make domestic cricket a full-time career for the first time.
Second, thousands of people got to see professional, live, 'big match' cricket for the first time ever yesterday. And thousands more will, later today. I know that some people, like @addick1956 might prefer not to see that as a benefit, but, hopefully you can see the advantages of more people being introduced to cricket? If it weren't for the Hundred, none of these would have fixtured to see on those two days. So, we have now welcomed thousands more people into the cricket-supporting family: undoubtedly a good thing.
Thirdly, you're right, children have been inspired by watching international cricketers up close, live, for donkeys years. I would agree with you that it's a good thing.
Fourthly, I think saying 'I prefer cricket' is pointless. Especially in relation to a game of... cricket.
Not everyone will like it. Not everyone will be open minded. And not everyone will want to acknowledge the obvious benefits it brings to the game, permanently.
However, I quite enjoyed it. And, although I don't give a flying fuck who wins tonight, I am looking forward to tonight's game. And I think those who don't want to enjoy it will miss out.
Care to share these obvious benefits?
All the "Benefits" that you talk about are already in place.
More money. More domestic professional, full-time domestic women's cricketers. More supporters.
the thing is - in terms of the national team - england's white ball county set up has been incredibly successful, we easily have the best white ball team in the world (in which our reserves can pull apart a decent pakistan side). My worry is the lack of 50 over games for the top players will mean we'll begin to suffer in that format.
Any cricket is better than no cricket and last night was the most women’s cricket I’ve watched since we won the World Cup being an old fart I was against the 20-20 at the beginning but realise that’s me being an old fart I’m open to see what comes with this and as ever each to their own .
50 over royal London starts today , did I read this is this competitions last year 🤷♂️
This is what really bugs me. The 50/40 /60/65 over Cup has always been a good event. It obviously works, look how many white ball players England have got. They should have played that when they played the blast.
Then put the blast on, for both men and women, in the school holidays and stuck half the games on the BBC.
That's it, problem solved, no hundred, no waste of everyone's time and money, no controversy. Double headers at the weekend. Full houses for the Roses, London derby's, Kent v Essex etc etc. The product wasn't broken.
Comments
- Women playing cricket professionally, which wouldn't have happened until a very few years ago
- Thousands of people attending a 'big' match, many for the first time ever, potentially to be hooked and to become life-long cricket fans
- Children being inspired to play cricket by seeing, close-up, international cricketers
I note your diatribe doesn't mention the skills being displayed by the players; or the opportunity to see some of England's greatest stars, including the world's best spin bowler in action.
More tickets have been sold for this week's clashes between teams no-one had seen play together before, than have been sold by Charlton for the up-coming season - yet, I firmly believe that Charlton isn't 'pointless' either.
I couldn't sit down to watch a whole day of a test match for example.
I find that 20-20 is about the perfect version of cricket for my attention span at appx 3hrs all in.
How does the 20-20 game time compare to The Hundred?
About 2,500 were actually bought last night with about 7,000 being given away to cricket club junior sections, schools and NHS workers. The Oval has a capacity of just over 25,000.
Firstly women have been playing professionally for quite a few years.
Nothing to do with the 100.
Secondly,thousands of people regularly attend 50 over and 20/20 games at the Oval.
Nothing to do with the 100.
Thirdly, children being inspired to play cricket by watching international cricketers up close has been happening for donkeys years.
Nothing to do with the 100.
Fourthly, comparing the crowds at cricket to the crowds at Charlton is pointless.
The competition is a flawed pile of shite with players being named from all different counties preventing people from forming an allegiance with any team.
Other than that I think your post was ok 😁
It has made me look up options to go to a future game. Have never done an evening game at Lords, but I think the type of cricket is best suited to the oval - anything other than test at Lords feels like misbehaviour. Was tempted to go on Friday 20th to the eliminator but can't seem to buy any tickets - singles or pair even though they are showing as available? just had a look at other games at Lords or Oval that we can make (we're going to a lot of tests) but nothing comes up but it doesn't say sold out?
This happens in all forms of sports.
If they’re wearing your team badge then they’re your player.
I really liked getting behind the London team last night & loved seeing the kids having a great time actually watching the game.
And I thought Sky let a lot of the hype in the crowd go unseen so it didn’t detract too much from the cricket.
I also was really happy to see how women’s fielding has improved. I’ve been watching the gals for some time now & that’s been my biggest gripe. Long may that continue.
Is it much different from T20? Probably not tbh.
Am boycotting the 100 for many reasons - the closest I'll get to it is this thread.
Has a negative effect on the counties via the 1 day cup too
Second, thousands of people got to see professional, live, 'big match' cricket for the first time ever yesterday. And thousands more will, later today. I know that some people, like @addick1956 might prefer not to see that as a benefit, but, hopefully you can see the advantages of more people being introduced to cricket? If it weren't for the Hundred, none of these would have fixtured to see on those two days. So, we have now welcomed thousands more people into the cricket-supporting family: undoubtedly a good thing.
Thirdly, you're right, children have been inspired by watching international cricketers up close, live, for donkeys years. I would agree with you that it's a good thing.
Fourthly, I think saying 'I prefer cricket' is pointless. Especially in relation to a game of... cricket.
Not everyone will like it. Not everyone will be open minded. And not everyone will want to acknowledge the obvious benefits it brings to the game, permanently.
However, I quite enjoyed it. And, although I don't give a flying fuck who wins tonight, I am looking forward to tonight's game. And I think those who don't want to enjoy it will miss out.
All the "Benefits" that you talk about are already in place.
being an old fart I was against the 20-20 at the beginning but realise that’s me being an old fart
I’m open to see what comes with this and as ever each to their own .
50 over royal London starts today , did I read this is this competitions last year 🤷♂️
Then put the blast on, for both men and women, in the school holidays and stuck half the games on the BBC.
That's it, problem solved, no hundred, no waste of everyone's time and money, no controversy. Double headers at the weekend. Full houses for the Roses, London derby's, Kent v Essex etc etc. The product wasn't broken.