Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The 100
Comments
-
It can only be the ECB are jealous of the IPL and Big Bash success and rather than get behind our own T20 Blast they wanna be different and set up this even shorter form of the game .
Why , well it can only be a money thing ...
5 -
This money could have been spent on the T20 blast.
3 groups of 6 - winners to finals day and 3 runners up play a mini league for final spot.
so only 10 games for each team in group (and a not too big hit to the pocket 5 home games)
£x amount of pounds to each county to spend on 2 marquee players' wages or lose the funds
a shorter, condensed format, bigger names and wow, a great product.5 -
Agreed, an absolute guarantee on return on investment as well. Creating essentially cricket lite is a bit of a unknown.MrOneLung said:This money could have been spent on the T20 blast.
3 groups of 6 - winners to finals day and 3 runners up play a mini league for final spot.
so only 10 games for each team in group (and a not too big hit to the pocket 5 home games)
£x amount of pounds to each county to spend on 2 marquee players' wages or lose the funds
a shorter, condensed format, bigger names and wow, a great product.
The only supporting argument is that t20 was different, this will be just as big as a success because it’s also different. But it did take t20 two or three years for players and fans to start to take it seriously. T20 was also a really refreshing revamp to a tired format (white ball cricket). I don’t think t20 is as tired.1 -
All in one block in the summer holidays with an international break to let England best players play - adds to the star names and ups the quality.MrOneLung said:This money could have been spent on the T20 blast.
3 groups of 6 - winners to finals day and 3 runners up play a mini league for final spot.
so only 10 games for each team in group (and a not too big hit to the pocket 5 home games)
£x amount of pounds to each county to spend on 2 marquee players' wages or lose the funds
a shorter, condensed format, bigger names and wow, a great product.
Bang. Great successful product.1 -
And on terrestrial tv. Which is the only thing the hundred has going for it.cantersaddick said:
All in one block in the summer holidays with an international break to let England best players play - adds to the star names and ups the quality.MrOneLung said:This money could have been spent on the T20 blast.
3 groups of 6 - winners to finals day and 3 runners up play a mini league for final spot.
so only 10 games for each team in group (and a not too big hit to the pocket 5 home games)
£x amount of pounds to each county to spend on 2 marquee players' wages or lose the funds
a shorter, condensed format, bigger names and wow, a great product.
Bang. Great successful product.
In fact I’m worried if the hundred falls flat on its arse the ecb will point that cricket on terrestrial tv doesn’t work.0 -
let's all not forget that despite the planning, the money, the marketing all the razzamattaz, there is always one imponderable .. the weather ((:>)0
-
It's barely in terrestrial tv mate. 10 games will be. The rest on sky. It's something but it's less than a quarter of the competition.kentaddick said:
And on terrestrial tv. Which is the only thing the hundred has going for it.cantersaddick said:
All in one block in the summer holidays with an international break to let England best players play - adds to the star names and ups the quality.MrOneLung said:This money could have been spent on the T20 blast.
3 groups of 6 - winners to finals day and 3 runners up play a mini league for final spot.
so only 10 games for each team in group (and a not too big hit to the pocket 5 home games)
£x amount of pounds to each county to spend on 2 marquee players' wages or lose the funds
a shorter, condensed format, bigger names and wow, a great product.
Bang. Great successful product.
In fact I’m worried if the hundred falls flat on its arse the ecb will point that cricket on terrestrial tv doesn’t work.1 -
To address a point raised earlier - plenty of former cricketers and journalists are openly opposed to the 100. But surprisingly these ones aren't paid by the ECB or sky (who have paid a lot of money for the 100). And so probably are a little more objective.
But you know whatever you want. Keep banging that drum.0 -
you telling me there are more than 40 games of this proposed rubbish ? f f skentaddick said:
And on terrestrial tv. Which is the only thing the hundred has going for it.cantersaddick said:
All in one block in the summer holidays with an international break to let England best players play - adds to the star names and ups the quality.MrOneLung said:This money could have been spent on the T20 blast.
3 groups of 6 - winners to finals day and 3 runners up play a mini league for final spot.
so only 10 games for each team in group (and a not too big hit to the pocket 5 home games)
£x amount of pounds to each county to spend on 2 marquee players' wages or lose the funds
a shorter, condensed format, bigger names and wow, a great product.
Bang. Great successful product.
In fact I’m worried if the hundred falls flat on its arse the ecb will point that cricket on terrestrial tv doesn’t work.
0 -
Slight exaggeration on my part think it is between 30 and 40 although not confirmed yet as they haven't actually told us the format in terms of group stages, if there are groups or if it will be a round robin. Whether they will have quarters or skip them. Etc.Lincsaddick said:
you telling me there are more than 40 games of this proposed rubbish ? f f skentaddick said:
And on terrestrial tv. Which is the only thing the hundred has going for it.cantersaddick said:
All in one block in the summer holidays with an international break to let England best players play - adds to the star names and ups the quality.MrOneLung said:This money could have been spent on the T20 blast.
3 groups of 6 - winners to finals day and 3 runners up play a mini league for final spot.
so only 10 games for each team in group (and a not too big hit to the pocket 5 home games)
£x amount of pounds to each county to spend on 2 marquee players' wages or lose the funds
a shorter, condensed format, bigger names and wow, a great product.
Bang. Great successful product.
In fact I’m worried if the hundred falls flat on its arse the ecb will point that cricket on terrestrial tv doesn’t work.1 - Sponsored links:
-
First players picked, the red ball England players. Root playing in Nottingham, Bairstow in Cardiff, Burns at Lord's! Not sure why Colin Ingram has been included
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/49661954
0 -
So,
was it a) or b) ?
Ok, i started this thread so i'm gonna do a McB and join his kiddies club , and you are all banned.
I'm gonna sit here and talk to myself.
I suppose the kits are shit too...
0 -
cantersaddick said:
Firstly I quite clearly stated it was the last time I replied to that point. My following posts were on other issues.The_President said:
I thought you said this would be your last yet there are about 3 more after.!cantersaddick said:The_President said:
Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.redman said:
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?The_President said:
Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?!McBobbin said: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
Its a bit selfish tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).
Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?
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).The_President said: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
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.redman said:
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.The_President said:
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw).Lincsaddick said:pretty much the full SP in this article .. no English coaches/managers, just disgraceful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49716478
I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
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.
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.
The 100 will be fantastic - in my very simple outlook, its another game of cricket, played by better players than we see domestically now.
To me, there is a correlation between Charlton fans who dont want The 100 with Charlton fans who didnt want the move to the Peninsular. (i know i shouldnt have gone 'there'!)
I better go round up those ostriches ! (i've got Baboons and Peacocks and Emu's nearby, so i'm sure i can find a few Ostrichs) .
1 -
Ah hem.Johnnysummers5 said:The_President said:
I thought you said this would be your last yet there are about 3 more after.!cantersaddick said:The_President said:
Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.redman said:
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?The_President said:
Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?!McBobbin said: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
Its a bit selfish tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).
Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?
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).The_President said: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
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.redman said:
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.The_President said:
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw).Lincsaddick said:pretty much the full SP in this article .. no English coaches/managers, just disgraceful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49716478
I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
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.
Can your head get any further up your arse?
Please explain further.0 -
Would be good to have home and away kits. Gets on my tits in white ball cricket when they’re all wearing the same coloured kits. May as well be wearing cricket whites.The_President said:So,
was it a) or b) ?
Ok, i started this thread so i'm gonna do a McB and join his kiddies club , and you are all banned.
I'm gonna sit here and talk to myself.
I suppose the kits are shit too...0 -
Nice to see kid friendly kids though, advertising unhealthy snack foods...!0
-
Which reminds me, didnt we wear a kit last night with no advertising on front?
Not noticed this before, so,is it normal?0 -
Burns to be a non-playing player for the team based at Lords? or is he actually going to play for them despite the fact he cant get in Surrey's T20 team? and shouldn't play the shortest format (who said we were getting better quality players?)0
-
LOL okay mate! carry on.The_President said:cantersaddick said:
Firstly I quite clearly stated it was the last time I replied to that point. My following posts were on other issues.The_President said:
I thought you said this would be your last yet there are about 3 more after.!cantersaddick said:The_President said:
Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.redman said:
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?The_President said:
Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?!McBobbin said: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
Its a bit selfish tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).
Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?
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).The_President said: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
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.redman said:
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.The_President said:
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw).Lincsaddick said:pretty much the full SP in this article .. no English coaches/managers, just disgraceful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49716478
I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
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.
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.
The 100 will be fantastic - in my very simple outlook, its another game of cricket, played by better players than we see domestically now.
To me, there is a correlation between Charlton fans who dont want The 100 with Charlton fans who didnt want the move to the Peninsular. (i know i shouldnt have gone 'there'!)
I better go round up those ostriches ! (i've got Baboons and Peacocks and Emu's nearby, so i'm sure i can find a few Ostrichs) .
P.S. You've accused me of being rude but i believe this is at least the 5th time you've called me an ostrich on this matter and thats before we get to the laughable irony of the reprobate comment!0 -
I guess they took him as someone has to take every Test player!cantersaddick said:Burns to be a non-playing player for the team based at Lords? or is he actually going to play for them despite the fact he cant get in Surrey's T20 team? and shouldn't play the shortest format (who said we were getting better quality players?)0 - Sponsored links:
-
The_President said:
Ah hem.Johnnysummers5 said:The_President said:
I thought you said this would be your last yet there are about 3 more after.!cantersaddick said:The_President said:
Very true, Drives me crazy - worse when Kent are playing.redman said:
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?The_President said:
Ouch, If you are not interested in the cricket, then why not give it to someone who is ?!McBobbin said: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
Its a bit selfish tbh. (and maybe a tad childish too).
Dont you think that might change if Rabada is bowling to Stokes , and not Stevens to Rikki Clarke?
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).The_President said: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
This is the last time I even dignify it with a response.redman said:
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.The_President said:
Pretty similar to IPL. (im not saying its right btw).Lincsaddick said:pretty much the full SP in this article .. no English coaches/managers, just disgraceful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49716478
I suppose its a case of these being new teams and all the 'elite' English coaches are already employed by the counties.
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.
Can your head get any further up your arse?
Please explain further.
I think you have an excessively high opinion of yourself6 -
What do you make of the kit that Woakes is wearing?The_President said:So,
was it a) or b) ?
Ok, i started this thread so i'm gonna do a McB and join his kiddies club , and you are all banned.
I'm gonna sit here and talk to myself.
I suppose the kits are shit too...0 -
I think The Hundred is going to be an exciting, compelling and awe-inspiring competition, brilliantly designed to deliver enthralling and captivating entertainment for just about every single person in the UK of primary school age. For almost everyone else, it seems to me it's a potentially expensive and unnecessary embarrassment.6
-
Still not convinced that another format of the game is what we need. If the summer of cricket just gone doesn’t inspire kids to play cricket then nothing will.
And don't get why we need a 100 ball format when we have a perfectly good 120 ball format.6 -
Am I missing something? I don't really get non-playing players. Is it a bit like me being a non-spectating spectator?cantersaddick said:Burns to be a non-playing player for the team based at Lords? or is he actually going to play for them despite the fact he cant get in Surrey's T20 team? and shouldn't play the shortest format (who said we were getting better quality players?)0 -
It's all a con - the non players are purely there for marketing purposes i.e. the likes of Broad and Anderson won't actually be involved. Even the other Test players will play a maximum of 3 group games plus Finals day.thai malaysia addick said:
Am I missing something? I don't really get non-playing players. Is it a bit like me being a non-spectating spectator?cantersaddick said:Burns to be a non-playing player for the team based at Lords? or is he actually going to play for them despite the fact he cant get in Surrey's T20 team? and shouldn't play the shortest format (who said we were getting better quality players?)0 -
there's also 10 ball overs, where you can switch bowlers half way through, and (apparently) no LBWs. It exists too isolated from other forms of the game for it to be effective. Hell I'd be up for a 10/10 competition, and its all over in an hour and a half.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Still not convinced that another format of the game is what we need. If the summer of cricket just gone doesn’t inspire kids to play cricket then nothing will.
And don't get why we need a 100 ball format when we have a perfectly good 120 ball format.1 -
I see the hundred as a competition sized muck up as the fans sofa. It's going to alienate those that are the regular customers and those that its supposed to appeal to aren't going to like it because its cricket. A net negative.1
-
So, who is everyone supporting?0
-
I support Kent and Kent aren't in it so I couldn't give a fuck. Hope President can understand that.6
