And so the 'long awaited' regulations for the Hundred are out at last. They had simplified the game of cricket beyond my expectations, let me tell you.
As it says in the press release:
"The Cricket Committee recommendation for playing conditions in the new competition - agreed by the Board - is for each innings to be 100 balls, a change of end after every ten balls, and an individual bowler able to deliver either 5 or 10 consecutive balls, with a maximum of 20 per game."
Which if course is massively more easy to understand than 'each innings of 120 balls, a change of end after every six, with an individual able to deliver no more than six consecutive balls, with a maximum of 24 in a game'.
It assumes of course, if they are simplifying it, that there are no wides and no balls and maybe they are allowed in this competition. Never mind, because 'we are getting people to re-appraise cricket in terms of their perceptions of what the game means to them'.
Well, I know what the game means to me and don't need suit-speak to better understand, thank you very much. For me it is enjoying the company of friends, while watching MY team, one I have followed for over fifty years, try to beat the best another county has to offer. If I watch a second eleven, it should be through choice. I want to see Wayne Madsen handle Kagiso Rabada, or Tony Palladino bowling at an international star in the other team's colours.
Yet there is the rub. The timing and current world cricket scheduling is such that there will likely be no Indian players in the new tournament, while all the international sides have tours during its first year. So it will be made up of fringe international players and those who are recently retired. Nor is there likely to be any major involvement from England players. It is not so much a Vegas residency, more an end of the pier tribute show with dodgy wigs optional.
Tom Harrison, the CEO of the English Cricket Board, says that 'cricket fans can start to get very excited about this'. Considering that we have been told all along that it wasn't aimed at us, that's slightly amusing. So too his assertion that cricket fans around the country will 'flock to see' the tournament. When I told my 91-year old Dad this he said they were 'flocking crazy'. At least it sounded like that.
With The Hundred to be played at the same time as the domestic fifty-over competition, but the best white ball players signed up for it, the competition which prepares players for the format of this year's World Cup will comprise largely second team players. Yet the fact that they won't play the format 'won't impact on our success at fifty-over international level' according to Tom Harrison. I genuinely can't decide if he is naive or nuts. The more you do anything in life, the better you get, I am sure most will agree.
As I have said over the past two years, Lancashire people outside Manchester will not support a team of that name. Nor will Yorkshire folk outside of Leeds, and don't get me started on the good folk of God's Own County supporting a team playing at Trent Bridge. The concept ignores centuries-old rivalries and enmity. I wouldn't go if there was a game in Glasgow, and that is said as a passionate fan of cricket. Proper cricket, because it holds no appeal for me.
Since this tournament was first touted, I have spoken to literally hundreds of people at talks, grounds and dinners and have genuinely yet to meet one in favour of it. The only support the tournament appears to be getting is from those in the media who see it as another nice pay day in the commentary box, together with those who are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them, even when it marginalises the formats that have earned them a career.
From a Derbyshire perspective, the worst is perhaps yet to come.
According to The Cricketer, the side based at Lord's will be run by the CEO's of Middlesex and Essex, together with the CEO of the MCC. Logically, when they appoint coaching staff it is likely that players from those counties will make up most of the squad. There is supposed to be a similarly logical look to the running of other sides, and it suggests Surrey/Kent at The Oval and Hampshire/Sussex at the Ageas Bowl, as well as Nottinghamshire/Leicestershire at Trent Bridge.
So what about Derbyshire?
Will we merge with Yorkshire? Or will they link with Durham? Whatever way you look at it, there are eighteen first-class counties and eight sides in The Hundred'. So two sides will need to draw on three counties, if it is being done fairly. That gives you a chance of a stronger squad, but less chance of getting a ticket to the dance if you play for one of those three.
It all seems rather messy, my only concern being who will be left from the Derbyshire squad to watch when The Hundred is in full swing.
Because you can bet your bottom dollar I won't be watching the circus.
I agree with every point you have made. The issue is that if it fails,the powers that be will go looking for scapegoats, this would probably not be good news for the less well supported counties.
ReplyDeleteMany good points PF. I have not spoken to anyone who is enthused by this competition, but may be I mix with people who enjoy CRICKET!
ReplyDeleteThere is a Notts blog (not as good as yours!), nottsview.blogspot.com which has an ongoing discussion re this Competition. It is interesting that even people who watch cricket at a ground that has been allocated as a venue are not happy.
Another interesting point they raise is that the only County who weren't swayed by the money, and voted against the 100 ball competition, Surrey, have not been been considered as a venue, what is going off there, the 2nd?? largest ground in England who regularly sell out 20/20 matches, and currently the most successful team don't get a bite of the cherry. Perhaps other counties should get behind Surreys stance!