|
|
Post by Hit Wicket on Mar 20, 2024 15:16:30 GMT
Disclaimer: I loathe this competition. But I loathe many things that I'm unable to stop happening.
Why are bowlers restricted to 20 balls? What's the harm in flooding a lineup with batters and relying on two or three bowlers sharing the workload? If there are injuries then a part-timer will have to fill in. That'd be fun, right?
And if the above is a non-starter then what about batters - shouldn't they be similarly limited - 20 balls max?
Or, alternatively, why not allow batters to cycle around? So once the 10th wicket falls they can bring batter number one back in. Imagine the disappointment at seeing Chris Gayle fall first ball of the match. But wait - he might get a second chance later. What's not to like about that?
I dunno. The Hundred as it currently exists is a half-baked pseudo cricket. If they're going to mess with the format why not go the whole hog?
As you were.
|
|
|
|
Post by slowleftarmer on Mar 20, 2024 15:32:00 GMT
Why not just scrap it....
|
|
|
|
Post by davemorton on Mar 20, 2024 15:46:15 GMT
You have taken the very words from my fingertips, SLA.
Let's be clear, there are two elements here. There is the franchise element, which I oppose utterly; and there's the fiddling with traditional Laws, which is unnecessary and confusing, but not really significant.
There is one change I would make to all limited overs cricket, and that would be to allow one bowler to bowl two of the five allotments. This would, to an extent, mirror the batsman who can make 200 out of 330 in a 50-over game.
So in a 50 over match, one bowler could bowl 20, with all others limited to 10. Having the best bowler bowl more overs would raise the standard of cricket, at a stroke.
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Mar 20, 2024 18:06:35 GMT
I'm not sure the 'powers that be' would be too keen on the idea of increasing the chances of teams getting bowled out too often in limited overs games.
If we were going for total fairness then, if the best bowler can only bowl either 20, 24 or 60 legitimate balls before having the ball taken away from them, then the best batter should only be allowed to face 20,24 or 60 legitimate balls before being forced to retire not out.
The problem with levelling the playing field is, sticking with T20 as an example, if you bowl a bad ball you have 19 or 20, if it's a no ball, other deliveries to make your mark. While if you play a bad stroke you may well be out with no opportunity to make amends.
The hundred, as a stand alone competition, could try something to emphasis it's point of difference. In order to give the batter a bit of chance to play themselves in, perhaps a maximum 25 legitimate deliveries before being forced to retire, 20 as now for the bowlers.
Teams would I think still need to conform to a normal team structure in terms of the mix of batters, bowlers and all rounders. It might make scoring a century even more difficult, but a 50 should be well within range.
I commend this change to the house.
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Mar 20, 2024 21:31:56 GMT
Talking of the dreaded Hundred. With the completion of the draft today there are more Yorkshire players in the Trent Rockets line-up than in the Headingley based team. Adam Lyth and Jordan Thompson have both been transferred to Nottingham to join up with Joe Root.
Northern Superchargers
Ben Stokes, Adil Rashid, Harry Brook, Reece Topley, Matthew Short, Brydon Carse, Adam Hose, Matthew Potts, Callum Parkinson, Ollie Robinson, Nicholas Pooran, Daniel Sams, Tom Lawes, Graham Clark.
Trent Rockets
Joe Root, Rashid Khan, Alex Hales, Lewis Gregory, Luke Wood, John Turner, Sam Hain, Sam Cook, Rovman Powell, Imad Wasim, Tom Banton, Calvin Harrison, Jordan Thompson, Adam Lyth
|
|
|
|
Post by davemorton on Mar 21, 2024 0:30:06 GMT
Whoever plays for whom, my home, and my life, will continue to be a Hundred Free Zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by slowleftarmer on Mar 21, 2024 7:57:23 GMT
Which Ollie Robinson is it? The unfit seamer from Sussex or the up and coming keeper now at Durham? I would hope its the latter but then Pooran also in the squad so I assume he will be the keeper?
Big bucks for TKC at Welsh Fire with a 125k deal.
If we really want the Hundred to appeal to a new audience of young kids then why not adapt it to the format they play when they start playing cricket?
Both teams start with 100 runs, then bat in pairs for 4 overs (not 5 ball whatevers) a pair, lose 5 runs for every dismissal, all players have to bowl 2 overs
|
|
|
|
Post by hillsboroughowl on Mar 21, 2024 7:57:37 GMT
Looking at those teams for 2024 it is the ideal time to move the games to Chester le Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Mar 21, 2024 11:16:08 GMT
Durham will probably have their own team in 2025 when they increase the competition to 10 teams. The even Northerner Northern Superchargers.
It will the Durham Ollie Robinson.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbsteve on Mar 21, 2024 11:49:17 GMT
Not sure about that - the South West (Somerset/Gloucs) want a team, and there's talk of a third in London where the big money is. Durham may miss out again!
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Mar 21, 2024 12:23:01 GMT
I haven't been keeping up to date but I know Durham wanted one of the two proposed new teams. I wouldn't like to blunt their ambition but I would worry about their ability to make it work financially at CLS.
Where would another team play in London would be my question. I presume with the advent of the hybrid pitches they could play a lot more cricket at Lords or the Oval.
|
|
|
|
Post by byased on Mar 21, 2024 18:50:53 GMT
whilst I do find some aspects of the county game a bit old fashioned, I have not absorbed the franchise aspect at all. Don't think I have watched a single minute of the hundred, the IPL, or any other tournament. Not quite sure what the answer is, doing away with silly names would be a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Mar 21, 2024 20:24:48 GMT
It's not franchise cricket but the ECB are presently in the process of changing the model of women's cricket from 8 teams with silly names, such as the Northern Diamonds, South East Stars, Southern Vipers etc back to 8 teams, based at and with proper First class County names for the 2025 season.
They admit they have got it wrong because the current teams lack of a County identity is putting off supporters and young players.
I expect a couple of years down the line they will come to admit they got it wrong in the case of naming the 100 franchises.
Whether that's before they admit they have got it wrong in just going for 8 women's Tier 1 teams is another question.
|
|
|
|
Post by slowleftarmer on Mar 22, 2024 8:31:17 GMT
A 100 franchises..... my first read of that made me think there were a hundred different franchises..... which is at least 99 too many!
|
|
|
|
Post by tykemania on Mar 23, 2024 19:55:56 GMT
What to do with the hundred?
Honestly, the best thing they could do would be to bin the format off. T20 - whether you hate it, only watch that or, like me, enjoy it as a hit and giggle but don't take it too seriously - is a perfect format to introduce and broaden the game. If you switched to that, expand to 10 teams and shorten the timescales a bit (Sky need to accept it can't fill their whole summer) then there is no reason why you can't have the Championship, a short 50 over comp with full strength teams and even a T20 comp for the counties (perhaps accepting that there may be a part of the season that crosses over the hundred) as well.
|
|
