the hundred

davado

Member
i enjoy all forms of cricket. Especially t20 but i just cant get into the hundred.
i see kayo broadcasting an australian version of the hundred today and i really hope it doesnt become popular.
Because i just cant get into it.
its chaos. i dont see whats enjoyable about it
am i robinson crusoe?
 

Ritchie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
kayo broadcasting an australian version of the hundred
Please elaborate. I see T20 and the Hundred as pure entertainment. I no longer enjoy 50 over and I am an avid Test purist.

Is the English Hundred comp popular. There are several of our best limited overs guy playing in it.
 

davado

Member
ye its not like t20. They have awkward overs. Sometimes 10balls sometimes 5.
i cant see the batters scores on the screen the way the english televise it
And imo is just a dre4adful game. I have had the opportunity to watch 3 english hundred games and a full weekend of australian games. And despite making a concerted effort to get into it, just happier to watch old test matches on youtube instead.
 

Ljp86

Well-Known Member
Staff member
It's garbage cricket. I absolutely cannot stand it, refuse to watch it or even read about it. Hopefully it doesn't catch on anywhere else and is consigned to history sooner or later.
 

SomeblokecalledDave.

Some Bloke Called Dave
Please elaborate. I see T20 and the Hundred as pure entertainment. I no longer enjoy 50 over and I am an avid Test purist.

Is the English Hundred comp popular. There are several of our best limited overs guy playing in it.
The Jury is out on it. But the sense I get and (I'm a Pom) is that it's gaining momentum. I particularly like Women's cricket and tend to watch a lot of the games on Youtube, just don't get time to watch the men's as well. I'm guessing you Aussie's don't get the rationale, but I'll try explain what it seems the ECB are trying to do and why. Just to let you know at the start I love cricket and Test cricket is my preferred format, but honestly I'll watch Aussie kids games on Frogbox over the winter if there's nothing on! So, as you probably know the obsession in this country is football and it permeates British society throughout and it's tied in with the class system. Personally I don't like it and have no allegiances with any clubs. Because of my age and locality, football to me is linked with right-wing politics, violence and hooliganism. Cricket on the other hand is perceived by the British working classes as a 'Posh' game played by the middle classes and public school boys which is utter nonsense, but true to some extent when you look at the make up of the England cricket team. Since the 1960's there's been a massive change in the demographic of primary school teachers and this is a factor in my opinion. Increasingly middle-class men (Who would have brought the game with them) have moved away from teaching, being replaced by educated working class women with no background in cricket. Therefore since the 1980's when faced with choices of what sports to participate in during the short British summer, cricket has lost out and basically almost doesn't exist as a school sport for primary age kids, when they may have been inspired to play. A couple of other factors then played their part. In 1980's we had a PM... 'Thatcher' she didn't care one iota about the education of British working class kids and their well-being. Not interested in funding comprehensive schools through taxation she suggested that if comprehensive schools were short on cash they should sell their playing fields for real estate. Needless to say, you can imagine in a country obsessed by football it would have been cricket that lost out. Then the final nail in the coffin came with SKY TV and cricket hidden behind a paywall. Since then cricket has just slowly disappeared as young people haven't had the chance to access it (Other than the 2005 Ashes). The situation is then further exacerbated by the advent of digital media and the choice of things to do for kids. The ECB survey club cricketers every year and a series of common themes emerged leading them to realise cricket was in trouble. One of the key observations was that kids weren't playing the game and were put off by the length of the game. Another, was that the game was dominated by blokes of certain age and attitudes and this was preventing new players from a range of different demographics... Younger kids, Girls, women and all non-white British to access the game. The Conclusion - The game had to become far more attractive to these other demographics otherwise it was going to disappear. The conclusion seems to have been to engage with all those groups was that it had to be shorter, brighter, bolder, more action packed and more understandable to the uninitiated. The other thing it had to be on terrestrial television able to be accessed by all and broadcast in the early evening as families were coming together to sit and eat their dinner. The BBC showed an interest in it provided it was short enough to fit in with their existing schedule and the deal was done. The Hundred was the outcome. Reviews and reaction - The traditionalists for all sorts of reasons dismiss it and say it'll be the death of cricket as we know it, pointing out that T20 is only 20 balls longer and that their are existing comps associated with counties that generate revenue for them. The Hundred impacts on the county calendar and is perceived as potentially degrading the standard of the longer formats. But - from the perspective of gaining new audiences and encouraging the sport, from what I can see it is working. My own club which was on its knees a few years ago has seen a massive influx of all those demographic groups and where we were struggling to get 4 teams out on a Saturday, we're now looking to get 6 out next year and still growing. Whether that's the Hundred affect I don't know for certain, but the 13,14, 15 and 16 year old kids that play seem to be aware of test cricket and seem to appreciate it for what it is and also go to the Hundred games and watch those with their families as they're accessible and cheap enough for families to go to. I was sceptical about it, initially, but as I said I love all cricket and I can see that it's making a difference in that a far wider audience is accessing the sport. I like it. I read an article a couple of days ago that made an interesting point about its impact on Test cricket. The writer said that in the short term it would have negative impact as all the short format franchises do. But he then made the point that we'd get so saturated with these formats with their players changing all the time - going to the highest bidder and changing teams, their would be no real reason to form any sort of allegiance to the teams, whereas your national side will have that other aspect to it - it's your country and there would be some continuity and in amongst all the billions and razzmatazz Test cricket would always offer something increasingly rare and special - even if it was narrowed down to a handful of countries that played less than they do now. He speculated it would then rise from the Ashes (Excuse pun) as the pinnacle of all cricket and win new audiences and players would forfeit short formats to play test cricket. Those new audiences would be those that have been introduced to the sport here in England by The Hundred.
 

Ritchie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
The Jury is out on it. But the sense I get and (I'm a Pom) is that it's gaining momentum. I particularly like Women's cricket and tend to watch a lot of the games on Youtube, just don't get time to watch the men's as well. I'm guessing you Aussie's don't get the rationale, but I'll try explain what it seems the ECB are trying to do and why. Just to let you know at the start I love cricket and Test cricket is my preferred format, but honestly I'll watch Aussie kids games on Frogbox over the winter if there's nothing on! So, as you probably know the obsession in this country is football and it permeates British society throughout and it's tied in with the class system. Personally I don't like it and have no allegiances with any clubs. Because of my age and locality, football to me is linked with right-wing politics, violence and hooliganism. Cricket on the other hand is perceived by the British working classes as a 'Posh' game played by the middle classes and public school boys which is utter nonsense, but true to some extent when you look at the make up of the England cricket team. Since the 1960's there's been a massive change in the demographic of primary school teachers and this is a factor in my opinion. Increasingly middle-class men (Who would have brought the game with them) have moved away from teaching, being replaced by educated working class women with no background in cricket. Therefore since the 1980's when faced with choices of what sports to participate in during the short British summer, cricket has lost out and basically almost doesn't exist as a school sport for primary age kids, when they may have been inspired to play. A couple of other factors then played their part. In 1980's we had a PM... 'Thatcher' she didn't care one iota about the education of British working class kids and their well-being. Not interested in funding comprehensive schools through taxation she suggested that if comprehensive schools were short on cash they should sell their playing fields for real estate. Needless to say, you can imagine in a country obsessed by football it would have been cricket that lost out. Then the final nail in the coffin came with SKY TV and cricket hidden behind a paywall. Since then cricket has just slowly disappeared as young people haven't had the chance to access it (Other than the 2005 Ashes). The situation is then further exacerbated by the advent of digital media and the choice of things to do for kids. The ECB survey club cricketers every year and a series of common themes emerged leading them to realise cricket was in trouble. One of the key observations was that kids weren't playing the game and were put off by the length of the game. Another, was that the game was dominated by blokes of certain age and attitudes and this was preventing new players from a range of different demographics... Younger kids, Girls, women and all non-white British to access the game. The Conclusion - The game had to become far more attractive to these other demographics otherwise it was going to disappear. The conclusion seems to have been to engage with all those groups was that it had to be shorter, brighter, bolder, more action packed and more understandable to the uninitiated. The other thing it had to be on terrestrial television able to be accessed by all and broadcast in the early evening as families were coming together to sit and eat their dinner. The BBC showed an interest in it provided it was short enough to fit in with their existing schedule and the deal was done. The Hundred was the outcome. Reviews and reaction - The traditionalists for all sorts of reasons dismiss it and say it'll be the death of cricket as we know it, pointing out that T20 is only 20 balls longer and that their are existing comps associated with counties that generate revenue for them. The Hundred impacts on the county calendar and is perceived as potentially degrading the standard of the longer formats. But - from the perspective of gaining new audiences and encouraging the sport, from what I can see it is working. My own club which was on its knees a few years ago has seen a massive influx of all those demographic groups and where we were struggling to get 4 teams out on a Saturday, we're now looking to get 6 out next year and still growing. Whether that's the Hundred affect I don't know for certain, but the 13,14, 15 and 16 year old kids that play seem to be aware of test cricket and seem to appreciate it for what it is and also go to the Hundred games and watch those with their families as they're accessible and cheap enough for families to go to. I was sceptical about it, initially, but as I said I love all cricket and I can see that it's making a difference in that a far wider audience is accessing the sport. I like it. I read an article a couple of days ago that made an interesting point about its impact on Test cricket. The writer said that in the short term it would have negative impact as all the short format franchises do. But he then made the point that we'd get so saturated with these formats with their players changing all the time - going to the highest bidder and changing teams, their would be no real reason to form any sort of allegiance to the teams, whereas your national side will have that other aspect to it - it's your country and there would be some continuity and in amongst all the billions and razzmatazz Test cricket would always offer something increasingly rare and special - even if it was narrowed down to a handful of countries that played less than they do now. He speculated it would then rise from the Ashes (Excuse pun) as the pinnacle of all cricket and win new audiences and players would forfeit short formats to play test cricket. Those new audiences would be those that have been introduced to the sport here in England by The Hundred.
Good to see you back on the forum SomeblokecalledDave. SomeblokecalledDave. An informative post. Hope you hang around for the Aussie domestic and international season.
 

SomeblokecalledDave.

Some Bloke Called Dave
Today in the Guardian (I think you Aussies have a version of it) someone summed up the rationale for it... " Bashing the Hundred has, though, become a little tiresome and predictable. Yes, it is a horribly simplified version of a wonderfully complex game; yes, the commentators, with their endless bigging up of some very ordinary cricket are annoying; yes, the rise of short-form franchise cricket across the world threatens the traditional game. But at least it has got the sport back on to terrestrial TV, and at the same time given a boost to the women’s game. The Hundred was invented to address cricket’s increasing marginalisation, and the middle-aged accountants and retired colonels who adore the labyrinthine plot twists of a Test match have to recognise those challenges: struggling counties; an ageing demographic; the posh, public school image of cricket (many state schools have unfortunately given up on the game); the failure to bring players from south Asian backgrounds into the first-class game". Which is pretty much what I'd said above. Here's the link to the article, not sure if you'll be able open though https://www.theguardian.com/comment...hundred-a-short-format-is-playing-a-long-game
 

Ritchie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
I opened the link , you wanna be called simply Dave or the longer u/n form? To be brutally honest I have not seen one Hundred match.. despite some of the best Aussie white ballers taking part. I prefer the 20 over format to the 50 over one. Reckon it is 10 overs too long. Need to remove the predictability if it is to remain popular. Like you I remain a true devotee of the pure Test format. Let us hope it continues for many more decades.
 

davado

Member
can someblokecalled dave please google the paragraph and learn how to use them so i can read his post.
Otherwise i wont bother.
And the jury isnt out on the hundred. Its in in my house, the hundred seems to be trying to merge the concepts of tv game shows with cricket as if this makes it more entertaining.
it doesnt. Not to cricket fans anyway.
Who ever invented it should be sacked for being an halfwit.
i wont be watching it again anyway. Which is saying something because i watch any games from county to local leagues to t20 and tests.
but i dont watch game shows
 
Top