| The Hundred 09:15 - Aug 17 with 2566 views | woodbridge_blue |
There is a continual debate amongst cricket followers about he pros and cons of The Hundred, and I can see both sides of the argument.
Last night I had the privilege to be at The Oval to witness one of the greatest onslaught of hitting I have ever seen in such a short space of time.
Invincibles smashed the previous record by scoring 226 for 4 in a 100 balls, with Jordan Cox bludgeoning 86 in 29 balls.
In total there were 25 sixes in the match, another competition record.
Whatever the merits of the competition, 26,000 people were entertained as never before, lots and lots of youngsters, some enjoying their first taste of live cricket on a beautiful South London summer evening.
Seriously, what's not to like? |  | | |  |
| The Hundred on 18:03 - Aug 18 with 109 views | mellowblue |
That's interesting, I wonder if he keeps quiet about it. | | | |
| The Hundred on 19:05 - Aug 18 with 81 views | Churchman |
| The Hundred on 11:29 - Aug 18 by Ryorry |
Lack of any possible affinity is another big negative for me too - the names of the teams are completely disconnected from anything I know - no local or other connection to even remotely hook me in. |
I agree Ryorry. Lack of affinity is a downside. I can’t just ‘pick a team’. I suppose because one or two Kent players (as I’ve lived in Kent a long time, I’ve always followed them) are playing for Oval Invincibles I lean towards them. But only slightly.
But with regard to it being cricket that people who don’t like cricket, I have to disagree. It’s just another format. Financially, cricket needs all the help it can get. Go to a county game and more often than not the only people there are a few old codgers, old codgers like me going for a chat, snooze and beer(s).
20/20 - great. 50 over - great, 4 day and test matched - great. All offer different things and that can only be good. The players’ calendar needs sorting though. |  | | |
| The Hundred on 19:26 - Aug 18 with 68 views | Ryorry |
| The Hundred on 16:51 - Aug 18 by ArnoldMoorhen |
The 2005 Ashes captured the Public imagination in part because they were broadcast free-to-view on Channel 4, who also put considerable effort into revolutionising broadcasting of cricket int this country. They made cricket fun and maybe even cool. They even paid an unemployed actor to dress up as WG Grace and hype up the crowd. (Comedy fans: do you know who that was?)
Then the fcking ECB sold their soul to Sky and took Test cricket off free-to-view television. The most stupid decision imaginable. |
^This^. |  |
| |
| The Hundred on 20:55 - Aug 18 with 40 views | mellowblue |
| The Hundred on 13:05 - Aug 18 by stonojnr |
You do know the boundaries are smaller for this ? even if it gets tonked into the stand its passing fielders with no chance for them to catch it, or put doubt in the batsmen mind they might mistime it and slew it wrong.
It's like I saw they had a MLB Home run competition in the US. Now normally in a game of baseball only the very best hit the ball consistently or score home runs in game situations. In this competition with no fielders and basically just a machine setup for batting practice, they could hit every ball and were all hitting multiple home runs in their 3min slots, if they played like that in real games you'd see basketball type scores.
The point being there's no skill required if you tip all the odds in the guy with the bats favour. |
Talking of bats; the expensive bats produced now have sweet spots to die for. Much better than what big hitters of their day like Sir Viv Richards would have had. And as the cricketers have muscled up, the bats used are heavier and can impart a lot more force compared to the wand that David Gower would have used. Professional cricket bats can cost over £1000. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
