Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw). I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
Complex draft mechanism though. If a read it correctly, the Yorkshire , for example, have first choice on Root or Bairstow or Stokes, then could lose any of the other two to the other teams later in the selection.
I cant see Surrey picking Burns , so will likely take Sam Curran, and obviously Southampton will take Archer. So, you could have a scenario of , say, Bairstow playing for Notts, or say, Surrey (AA goes apoplectic). Then it seems like a mop up of the rest based on salary cap.
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw). I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw). I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
As are the players.
But isnt the difference that the counties are still playing whilst the 100 is going?
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw). I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
Lancashire managed to have used same managing/coaching staff for 100. The county team will presumably be run by their back up team in their absence. Released despite being under contract. Another reason it is a mockery to suggest it is not a Lancashire team.
Are the England players only playing 3 group games and finals day?
Yes and they shouldn't be playing in that! there is an important test series against Pakistan to win at the same time which is part of the Test World Cup
T20 is a joke at Lords , the amount of pissed wallys there is increased ten fold for these fixtures Beer spillage reaches new highs will this be any different i don’t think most are there for the cricket it’s a social piss up with cricket in the background will this version be any different I doubt it will I go , if my sons want to I will and I’m pretty sure they will
The hundred is up there with the Stanford super series. I could probably be tempted with a freebie to the oval on a Friday for a drink up, but I won't care about the cricket
Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?! Its a bit selfish tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).
Most of the people who go to the Oval for 20 20 aren't interested in the cricket. Why do you think 100 will be any different?
Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.
Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?
Tell you what, i'll ignore the views of Root and Vaughan and Giles and Morgs and listen to Canters and McB, Or i'll stand outside the gate at the Oval pick up my free ticket from McB as he would prefer to go to Canterbury to watch Stevens bowl to Cobb, whilst i watch Rabada bowling to Ben Stokes. Thanks McB
The argument of Stevens to whoever has been refuted clearly and in detail on here to you at least 15 times by myself and others yet you keep dragging it out. It's bullshit even if you ignore that Stevens barely played in the blast this year (but the side he played for made the final).
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.
One or more men's Test players may be appointed as a 'non-playing player' for The Hundred, seemingly at the ECB's discretion. They will be used in promotional material, but will not train or play. James Anderson is almost certain to have such status, having last played a T20 in 2014, while Stuart Broad and Rory Burns are other candidates.
One or more men's Test players may be appointed as a 'non-playing player' for The Hundred, seemingly at the ECB's discretion. They will be used in promotional material, but will not train or play. James Anderson is almost certain to have such status, having last played a T20 in 2014, while Stuart Broad and Rory Burns are other candidates.
Nice work if you can get it - especially for £150K
One or more men's Test players may be appointed as a 'non-playing player' for The Hundred, seemingly at the ECB's discretion. They will be used in promotional material, but will not train or play. James Anderson is almost certain to have such status, having last played a T20 in 2014, while Stuart Broad and Rory Burns are other candidates.
The hundred is up there with the Stanford super series. I could probably be tempted with a freebie to the oval on a Friday for a drink up, but I won't care about the cricket
Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?! Its a bit selfish tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).
Most of the people who go to the Oval for 20 20 aren't interested in the cricket. Why do you think 100 will be any different?
Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.
Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?
Tell you what, i'll ignore the views of Root and Vaughan and Giles and Morgs and listen to Canters and McB, Or i'll stand outside the gate at the Oval pick up my free ticket from McB as he would prefer to go to Canterbury to watch Stevens bowl to Cobb, whilst i watch Rabada bowling to Ben Stokes. Thanks McB
The argument of Stevens to whoever has been refuted clearly and in detail on here to you at least 15 times by myself and others yet you keep dragging it out. It's bullshit even if you ignore that Stevens barely played in the blast this year (but the side he played for made the final).
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw). I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
Lancashire managed to have used same managing/coaching staff for 100. The county team will presumably be run by their back up team in their absence. Released despite being under contract. Another reason it is a mockery to suggest it is not a Lancashire team.
I thought you said this would be your last yet there are about 3 more after.!
I'm sorry , but the Stevens analogy CANNOT be refuted. Its a very simple question......Would the average cricket fan rather watch a) Rabada bowling to Stokes or b) Stevens bowling to Cobb ?? - its a very,very simple question that requires an answer of either a) or b) !
Have you answered ?! (let me remind you, its either a) or b)). No, of course you havnt, because it doesnt suit your argument.
Now,if you have answered and if its b), then shift off to Canterbury and watch a tedious game of medium pacers against medium batters, or if its a) then you clearly enjoy watching quality cricket. Or you could do what McB intends to do, go to the ground, turn his back on the game and drink beer all night. Yeah , thats great , tell you what, someone give him some pink foam pigs willya.
There's no need to go spouting on pouring out paragraph after paragraph about how shit T100 is , providing some spawny information - if you dont want it, or dont like it, then bugger off to Canterbury, dont waste your clearly boundless Cricket energy and knowledge criticising it.
As i have also said to you, MANY MANY MANY MANY times that you also clearly selectively refuse to listen to, is that I dont know the answer to your questions - i've never suggested i do. Do i need to keep repeating it?
However coming back to my original very simple question , mine is a) because i would rather watch Stokes than Stevens - it s a simple question. Its a question that the likes of Giles,Root,Morgs,Vaughan,Hussain,Atherton,Strauss have clearly answered a) - but obviously Cantersaddick knows better than the uninformed people above and its shit.
This thread was set up to explore and find out and enjoy the 100 - not to have some reprobate come on and slag it off extensively just coz it doesnt suit his particular agenda.
so Eoin, are you saying you will not play the too long format of the T20 BLAST next season
Speaking earlier in the summer, Morgan said: "The Hundred, yes, I do think we need it. We need one franchise-based tournament, with fewer teams, in order to consistently sell the game to the country.
"Anybody I speak to who loves sport but doesn't necessarily love cricket is crying out for a tournament that he or she understands, because 18 teams going for a long period of time just doesn't make sense to anybody.
I guess Eoin hasn’t heard of the premier league when 20 teams smash it out for months and is Britain’s biggest sporting export.
Non playing players... I thought I heard it all. It just doesn’t make sense, we still don’t actually know what demographic is being aimed at. The new skills required for the hundred won’t be transferable to other forms of the game. wasn’t it rumoured lbw’s wouldn’t be a rule in the hundred?
It feels more like the ecb are attempting to create a new sport, rather than add to cricket.
One or more men's Test players may be appointed as a 'non-playing player' for The Hundred, seemingly at the ECB's discretion. They will be used in promotional material, but will not train or play. James Anderson is almost certain to have such status, having last played a T20 in 2014, while Stuart Broad and Rory Burns are other candidates.
this whole hundred business gets more and more nonsensical by the day ..
The hundred is up there with the Stanford super series. I could probably be tempted with a freebie to the oval on a Friday for a drink up, but I won't care about the cricket
Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?! Its a bit selfish tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).
Most of the people who go to the Oval for 20 20 aren't interested in the cricket. Why do you think 100 will be any different?
Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.
Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?
Tell you what, i'll ignore the views of Root and Vaughan and Giles and Morgs and listen to Canters and McB, Or i'll stand outside the gate at the Oval pick up my free ticket from McB as he would prefer to go to Canterbury to watch Stevens bowl to Cobb, whilst i watch Rabada bowling to Ben Stokes. Thanks McB
The argument of Stevens to whoever has been refuted clearly and in detail on here to you at least 15 times by myself and others yet you keep dragging it out. It's bullshit even if you ignore that Stevens barely played in the blast this year (but the side he played for made the final).
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw). I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
Lancashire managed to have used same managing/coaching staff for 100. The county team will presumably be run by their back up team in their absence. Released despite being under contract. Another reason it is a mockery to suggest it is not a Lancashire team.
I thought you said this would be your last yet there are about 3 more after.!
I'm sorry , but the Stevens analogy CANNOT be refuted. Its a very simple question......Would the average cricket fan rather watch a) Rabada bowling to Stokes or b) Stevens bowling to Cobb ?? - its a very,very simple question that requires an answer of either a) or b) !
Have you answered ?! (let me remind you, its either a) or b)). No, of course you havnt, because it doesnt suit your argument.
Now,if you have answered and if its b), then shift off to Canterbury and watch a tedious game of medium pacers against medium batters, or if its a) then you clearly enjoy watching quality cricket. Or you could do what McB intends to do, go to the ground, turn his back on the game and drink beer all night. Yeah , thats great , tell you what, someone give him some pink foam pigs willya.
There's no need to go spouting on pouring out paragraph after paragraph about how shit T100 is , providing some spawny information - if you dont want it, or dont like it, then bugger off to Canterbury, dont waste your clearly boundless Cricket energy and knowledge criticising it.
As i have also said to you, MANY MANY MANY MANY times that you also clearly selectively refuse to listen to, is that I dont know the answer to your questions - i've never suggested i do. Do i need to keep repeating it?
However coming back to my original very simple question , mine is a) because i would rather watch Stokes than Stevens - it s a simple question. Its a question that the likes of Giles,Root,Morgs,Vaughan,Hussain,Atherton,Strauss have clearly answered a) - but obviously Cantersaddick knows better than the uninformed people above and its shit.
This thread was set up to explore and find out and enjoy the 100 - not to have some reprobate come on and slag it off extensively just coz it doesnt suit his particular agenda.
The hundred is up there with the Stanford super series. I could probably be tempted with a freebie to the oval on a Friday for a drink up, but I won't care about the cricket
Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?! Its a bit selfish tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).
Most of the people who go to the Oval for 20 20 aren't interested in the cricket. Why do you think 100 will be any different?
Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.
Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?
Tell you what, i'll ignore the views of Root and Vaughan and Giles and Morgs and listen to Canters and McB, Or i'll stand outside the gate at the Oval pick up my free ticket from McB as he would prefer to go to Canterbury to watch Stevens bowl to Cobb, whilst i watch Rabada bowling to Ben Stokes. Thanks McB
The argument of Stevens to whoever has been refuted clearly and in detail on here to you at least 15 times by myself and others yet you keep dragging it out. It's bullshit even if you ignore that Stevens barely played in the blast this year (but the side he played for made the final).
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw). I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
Lancashire managed to have used same managing/coaching staff for 100. The county team will presumably be run by their back up team in their absence. Released despite being under contract. Another reason it is a mockery to suggest it is not a Lancashire team.
I thought you said this would be your last yet there are about 3 more after.!
I'm sorry , but the Stevens analogy CANNOT be refuted. Its a very simple question......Would the average cricket fan rather watch a) Rabada bowling to Stokes or b) Stevens bowling to Cobb ?? - its a very,very simple question that requires an answer of either a) or b) !
Have you answered ?! (let me remind you, its either a) or b)). No, of course you havnt, because it doesnt suit your argument.
Now,if you have answered and if its b), then shift off to Canterbury and watch a tedious game of medium pacers against medium batters, or if its a) then you clearly enjoy watching quality cricket. Or you could do what McB intends to do, go to the ground, turn his back on the game and drink beer all night. Yeah , thats great , tell you what, someone give him some pink foam pigs willya.
There's no need to go spouting on pouring out paragraph after paragraph about how shit T100 is , providing some spawny information - if you dont want it, or dont like it, then bugger off to Canterbury, dont waste your clearly boundless Cricket energy and knowledge criticising it.
As i have also said to you, MANY MANY MANY MANY times that you also clearly selectively refuse to listen to, is that I dont know the answer to your questions - i've never suggested i do. Do i need to keep repeating it?
However coming back to my original very simple question , mine is a) because i would rather watch Stokes than Stevens - it s a simple question. Its a question that the likes of Giles,Root,Morgs,Vaughan,Hussain,Atherton,Strauss have clearly answered a) - but obviously Cantersaddick knows better than the uninformed people above and its shit.
This thread was set up to explore and find out and enjoy the 100 - not to have some reprobate come on and slag it off extensively just coz it doesnt suit his particular agenda.
Firstly I quite clearly stated it was the last time I replied to that point. My following posts were on other issues.
And I have answered you many times is that obviously everyone would rather see better players. What you keep ignoring is that the 100 isn't the only way to do this. In fact with the latest news of test players only playing 3 games it appears the 100 won't actually do that either.
I am not expecting you to know the answers to the questions raised. It would be wonderful if you could maybe acknowledge there are other sides to the argument and that all is not rosy. And maybe stop with the ridiculous groupthink "it's happening, all must buy into It, must not question it" approach.
Hahahahha imagine being called a reprobate by you! Comedy gold!
You mentioned me 3 times on this thread since you bumped it yesterday before I even commented - clearly trying to get me involved. Then you have a little strop when i call you out. Unique
Nothing about agenda. It's called a debate. Something you seem incapable of!
Have done no slagging off I have simply put out my views based on the evidence we have.
In other news. Somerset announced that they had over 50million views on their live stream this season. Surrey figures I'm told were higher than that. Other counties have streams too.
Can we quickly go back to the "non-playing player" thing? So teams would pay Jimmy or Broady or whoever £150k for a few photos or videos of them to be taken, with absolutely zero sporting effort from them?
They'd have nothing to do with the team, and this would happen...?
Can we quickly go back to the "non-playing player" thing? So teams would pay Jimmy or Broady or whoever £150k for a few photos or videos of them to be taken, with absolutely zero sporting effort from them?
They'd have nothing to do with the team, and this would happen...?
Jimmy is eyeing a permanent career change into Fashion (Cricket kit) modelling as a result of this.
Also, why not invest this money into the T20 Blast? I cannot think of a single good reason for the ECB to do this, that cannot also be achieved by appropriate measures taken in the Blast. I genuinely can't.
Also, why not invest this money into the T20 Blast? I cannot think of a single good reason for the ECB to do this, that cannot also be achieved by appropriate measures taken in the Blast. I genuinely can't.
£200million been spent or committed so far. A tenth of that marketing and improving the blast would have got a far better product.
Also, why not invest this money into the T20 Blast? I cannot think of a single good reason for the ECB to do this, that cannot also be achieved by appropriate measures taken in the Blast. I genuinely can't.
Agreed. I think the T20 Blast is a great competition. Group stage builds nicely, matches are well attended, and finals day is brilliant. Just look at this season's competition - it had everything. To diminish the Blast with this utter shit is criminal.
I can't speak for the average cricket fan, but I would rather see my team (Essex) play than a cobbled together collection of players, irrespective of who they are. In same way I'd rather watch Charlton than Chelsea. Now if Rabada wants to play for Essex, then great
Comments
I cant see Surrey picking Burns , so will likely take Sam Curran, and obviously Southampton will take Archer.
So, you could have a scenario of , say, Bairstow playing for Notts, or say, Surrey (AA goes apoplectic).
Then it seems like a mop up of the rest based on salary cap.
Beer spillage reaches new highs
will this be any different
i don’t think most are there for the cricket it’s a social piss up with cricket in the background
will this version be any different I doubt it
will I go , if my sons want to I will and I’m pretty sure they will
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.
NO ONE IS DISAGREEING WITH THAT! We are simply saying the 100 is irrefutably the wrong way to do that.
As for the utter crap "stop being negative about it, back it" bullshit.
Sounds a bit like brexit. "You don't like it but its happening so stop moaning and stop trying to make change happen just accept it".
This is actually an official term of the thing? Fucking hell. I thought it was a pisstake when I first saw it.
If it wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious.
I'm sorry , but the Stevens analogy CANNOT be refuted. Its a very simple question......Would the average cricket fan rather watch a) Rabada bowling to Stokes or b) Stevens bowling to Cobb ?? - its a very,very simple question that requires an answer of either a) or b) !
Have you answered ?! (let me remind you, its either a) or b)).
No, of course you havnt, because it doesnt suit your argument.
Now,if you have answered and if its b), then shift off to Canterbury and watch a tedious game of medium pacers against medium batters, or if its a) then you clearly enjoy watching quality cricket. Or you could do what McB intends to do, go to the ground, turn his back on the game and drink beer all night. Yeah , thats great , tell you what, someone give him some pink foam pigs willya.
There's no need to go spouting on pouring out paragraph after paragraph about how shit T100 is , providing some spawny information - if you dont want it, or dont like it, then bugger off to Canterbury, dont waste your clearly boundless Cricket energy and knowledge criticising it.
As i have also said to you, MANY MANY MANY MANY times that you also clearly selectively refuse to listen to, is that I dont know the answer to your questions - i've never suggested i do. Do i need to keep repeating it?
However coming back to my original very simple question , mine is a) because i would rather watch Stokes than Stevens - it s a simple question.
Its a question that the likes of Giles,Root,Morgs,Vaughan,Hussain,Atherton,Strauss have clearly answered a) - but obviously Cantersaddick knows better than the uninformed people above and its shit.
This thread was set up to explore and find out and enjoy the 100 - not to have some reprobate come on and slag it off extensively just coz it doesnt suit his particular agenda.
Non playing players... I thought I heard it all. It just doesn’t make sense, we still don’t actually know what demographic is being aimed at. The new skills required for the hundred won’t be transferable to other forms of the game. wasn’t it rumoured lbw’s wouldn’t be a rule in the hundred?
It feels more like the ecb are attempting to create a new sport, rather than add to cricket.
Can your head get any further up your arse?
And I have answered you many times is that obviously everyone would rather see better players. What you keep ignoring is that the 100 isn't the only way to do this. In fact with the latest news of test players only playing 3 games it appears the 100 won't actually do that either.
I am not expecting you to know the answers to the questions raised. It would be wonderful if you could maybe acknowledge there are other sides to the argument and that all is not rosy. And maybe stop with the ridiculous groupthink "it's happening, all must buy into It, must not question it" approach.
Hahahahha imagine being called a reprobate by you! Comedy gold!
You mentioned me 3 times on this thread since you bumped it yesterday before I even commented - clearly trying to get me involved. Then you have a little strop when i call you out. Unique
Nothing about agenda. It's called a debate. Something you seem incapable of!
Have done no slagging off I have simply put out my views based on the evidence we have.
County cricket really is dead.
Unfortunately I think the movement has got off the ground too late to make a difference but be aware things are happening and momentum is growing.
They'd have nothing to do with the team, and this would happen...?
I think the T20 Blast is a great competition. Group stage builds nicely, matches are well attended, and finals day is brilliant.
Just look at this season's competition - it had everything.
To diminish the Blast with this utter shit is criminal.