RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote:Fitting into a 3 hr slot, city based teams rather than counties, equal money for ladies teams, max 20 balls per bowler..
16.4 overs is a thrash at any time - will certainly bring razzmatazz
and a different fan base.
The Covid thing will skew the initial public response but if they can fit it in , no harm in giving it a go.
The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Sexist.

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote: The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Yes - it just looked weller short than expected, but then it was the relatvely large Oval playing area...just wondered if this franchise was tweaking things in a bit for more excitement.

Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

Galfon wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote: The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Yes - it just looked weller short than expected, but then it was the relatvely large Oval playing area...just wondered if this franchise was tweaking things in a bit for more excitement.

definitely, enabling more 6's I'd think.

Digby wrote:Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

Look at the crowd last night for clues. Albeit enabled by a load of free tickets. Its young kids and non cricketing parents, to whom 6 ball overs, changing ends and all that are a bit of a mystery. Its a pretty inaccessible game tbh, though less so than RU. Neither bother me, but that's not the point.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote: The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Sexist.

Same as shorter tennis matches and different tees with golf I suppose. Sure things will fudge together over time.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote:Fitting into a 3 hr slot, city based teams rather than counties, equal money for ladies teams, max 20 balls per bowler..
16.4 overs is a thrash at any time - will certainly bring razzmatazz
and a different fan base.
The Covid thing will skew the initial public response but if they can fit it in , no harm in giving it a go.
The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Sexist.

I don't think so, I think its good of the authorities to help em out as they can't learn to time a ball and an egg at the same time.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

Look at the crowd last night for clues. Albeit enabled by a load of free tickets. Its young kids and non cricketing parents, to whom 6 ball overs, changing ends and all that are a bit of a mystery. Its a pretty inaccessible game tbh, though less so than RU. Neither bother me, but that's not the point.

I think I've said this before but I was once sat watching test cricket on TV and the girl I was living with ( who's Greek/American) sat watching for 10 minutes or so before asking how do you know who's on which team? It remains one of my favourite ever questions.

Cricket does have some accessibility problems, but so do F1 and NFL and they seem to have the funding most other sports can only of, most sports will need some introduction really, most of what anyone consumes they were assimilated into from a young age

Digby wrote:Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

The key is it being on terrestrial TV. Millions of kids don't have access to Sky. The terrestrial channels didn't want an 18 team T20 competition.

The move to a smaller field is a good idea. The IPL and Big Bash work well with 8. From what I have read, part of the reason for moving from 120 balls to 100 is about fitting it into a suitable terrestrial TV spot and rest of the tweaks to try and make it easier to understand (not sure it does tbh).

Its squarely aimed at the yoof. And thats fine. Purists will hate it and the presentation may need to be tweaked but cricket on prime time tv is a positive.

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

The key is it being on terrestrial TV. Millions of kids don't have access to Sky. The terrestrial channels didn't want an 18 team T20 competition.

The move to a smaller field is a good idea. The IPL and Big Bash work well with 8. From what I have read, part of the reason for moving from 120 balls to 100 is about fitting it into a suitable terrestrial TV spot and rest of the tweaks to try and make it easier to understand (not sure it does tbh).

I didn't know it was on the Beeb. No idea why the terrestrial channels wouldn't want the T20, one of them shows the IPL or did, so if they're willing to show the IPL it seems possible they'd show our domestic version. Is it just it'd entail more production costs?

Digby wrote:

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

The key is it being on terrestrial TV. Millions of kids don't have access to Sky. The terrestrial channels didn't want an 18 team T20 competition.

The move to a smaller field is a good idea. The IPL and Big Bash work well with 8. From what I have read, part of the reason for moving from 120 balls to 100 is about fitting it into a suitable terrestrial TV spot and rest of the tweaks to try and make it easier to understand (not sure it does tbh).

I didn't know it was on the Beeb. No idea why the terrestrial channels wouldn't want the T20, one of them shows the IPL or did, so if they're willing to show the IPL it seems possible they'd show our domestic version. Is it just it'd entail more production costs?

I believe BBC2 are showing some but not all games. The IPL was on ITV4 hidden away and not really advertised IIRC. The hundred will be BBC2 front and centre.

I have read that the ECB spoke to groups of the target demographic (families) and they wanted the games finished before or close to 9pm for the kids. Speculating a bit the BBC have two main channels that everyone knows how to access, working backwards from 9ish, I can understand why they want to keep the time as concise as possible so that they don't have to give up too much time early evening.

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:

Big D wrote:
The key is it being on terrestrial TV. Millions of kids don't have access to Sky. The terrestrial channels didn't want an 18 team T20 competition.

The move to a smaller field is a good idea. The IPL and Big Bash work well with 8. From what I have read, part of the reason for moving from 120 balls to 100 is about fitting it into a suitable terrestrial TV spot and rest of the tweaks to try and make it easier to understand (not sure it does tbh).

I didn't know it was on the Beeb. No idea why the terrestrial channels wouldn't want the T20, one of them shows the IPL or did, so if they're willing to show the IPL it seems possible they'd show our domestic version. Is it just it'd entail more production costs?

I believe BBC2 are showing some but not all games. The IPL was on ITV4 hidden away and not really advertised IIRC. The hundred will be BBC2 front and centre.

I have read that the ECB spoke to groups of the target demographic (families) and they wanted the games finished before or close to 9pm for the kids. Speculating a bit the BBC have two main channels that everyone knows how to access, working backwards from 9ish, I can understand why they want to keep the time as concise as possible so that they don't have to give up too much time early evening.

I'd like them to show County matches on the BBC, which would easily finish before 9pm. This I suspect will simply not happen. The pyjama stuff is perhaps useful for raising money, and some of the skill adaptations are technically interesting, but the actual construct isn't my cup of tea

Digby wrote:

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:
I didn't know it was on the Beeb. No idea why the terrestrial channels wouldn't want the T20, one of them shows the IPL or did, so if they're willing to show the IPL it seems possible they'd show our domestic version. Is it just it'd entail more production costs?

I believe BBC2 are showing some but not all games. The IPL was on ITV4 hidden away and not really advertised IIRC. The hundred will be BBC2 front and centre.

I have read that the ECB spoke to groups of the target demographic (families) and they wanted the games finished before or close to 9pm for the kids. Speculating a bit the BBC have two main channels that everyone knows how to access, working backwards from 9ish, I can understand why they want to keep the time as concise as possible so that they don't have to give up too much time early evening.

I'd like them to show County matches on the BBC, which would easily finish before 9pm. This I suspect will simply not happen. The pyjama stuff is perhaps useful for raising money, and some of the skill adaptations are technically interesting, but the actual construct isn't my cup of tea

Even Sky with their dedicated cricket channel only show county 4 day games when they really have to and I imagine have the T20 blast under contract. To get the crowd in and max TV audience during week nights there is only a relatively small window of time that fits. I like watching cricket and will watch days of test cricket at a time, but on another rugby forum I was conversing with a committee member from a club and he was saying cricket badly needs something to get young kids involved. If this "only" becomes a gateway for kids to get into the longer forms then it would be a success imo.

We also need to remember that of the FTA channels the BBC owe the ECB nothing. The ECB took the money and ran from BBC to C4 and then to Sky. Now they want to raise participation and "need" terrestrial/FTA TV there needs to be give and take on both sides as the BBC really is the best channels to have it on.

I think the BBC need do a hell of a lot better than Tufnell and Vaughan on comms. They are pretty poor at it.

Vaughan has tweeted that between 9 & 920 last night the 100 was the most watched programme across all TV. So at least folk are tuning in for now.

With regards to TV, I think the shortened format means that the entirety of the prime time window is not taken over by cricket. I believe all the terrestrial channels, and def the BBC, said this was a non-negotiable if the ECB want prime time slots.
My youngest was captivated by it last night, especially the balls v runs as the match grew to a close. Both of gone from wanting to go to the matches at Headingley because they love watching sport in general to really excited that they are going to watch The Hundred. So excited that it cost me £150 in Northern Superchargers merch so we’re kitted out for the match.....

Great that the sport is getting regular live play-time again on the beeb.The launch of the 40-over Sunday league in '69 coincided with the first test series managed to watch on a small b & w telly (Ward & Hampshire debuts with good stuff)
Regular whites, Frank Bough presenting with Laker and Arlott warbling for 4 - 5 hrs...seeing the SA stars and new Windie talent strut their stuff was good, and getting a result before 7 pm ( 2 pm start i think ) was novel.
Seemed to recall families making a day of these, and Kent being on alot (probs. because they had half the Eng team back then).
Could never have predicted the game evolving into this tbh, but my name's not Kerry Packer.

Galfon wrote:Great that the sport is getting regular live play-time again on the beeb.The launch of the 40-over Sunday league in '69 coincided with the first test series managed to watch on a small b & w telly (Ward & Hampshire debuts with good stuff)
Regular whites, Frank Bough presenting with Laker and Arlott warbling for 4 - 5 hrs...seeing the SA stars and new Windie talent strut their stuff was good, and getting a result before 7 pm ( 2 pm start i think ) was novel.
Seemed to recall families making a day of these, and Kent being on alot (probs. because they had half the Eng team back then).
Could never have predicted the game evolving into this tbh, but my name's not Kerry Packer.

Was it the Benson and Hedges that was 60 overs a side? Come a long way since then!

Big D wrote: Was it the Benson and Hedges that was 60 overs a side? Come a long way since then!

It was the Gillette Cup from early 60's - 60 overs each with showpiece final at Lords late summer, 12 overs max. per bowler.
Straight k/o with Minor Counties, Ire and Sco included to make up the numbers. Latterly 'NatWest' and then 'C&G' it ended in '06 then something else for a few years.
B&H was 55 overs then 50 later on with regionally orientated Group stage followed by K/O from last 8.
Another Lords final, earlier in year - bit like the league cup in Wendyball. Again, sponsorship went a bit before the other one in early noughties.

Yes 60 overs to 16.4 is a bit of a shift-
Just shows how little time there is available for anything these days!

Bravo to Glass Bros....never over 'til it's over !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57860743

Ben Stokes in a low place - hope he can return to playing soon, Eng. games not the same without the blitzmeister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58033393

Galfon wrote:Ben Stokes in a low place - hope he can return to playing soon, Eng. games not the same without the blitzmeister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58033393

His dad has been poorly and his finger is still knackered- I note he has been playing in the Hundred though.

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote:Ben Stokes in a low place - hope he can return to playing soon, Eng. games not the same without the blitzmeister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58033393

His dad has been poorly and his finger is still knackered- I note he has been playing in the Hundred though.

I would imagine the ECB put quite a bit of pressure on him to appear in at least the opening rounds of their new flagship, given he's the most recognisable English cricketer to the public at large. A break from "all cricket" would probably include that going forwards though.

Poor sod. Hope he gets better.

Puja

The England players were only ever going to make the first few games. Most of them were gash even then, though it does sound like there was quite a bit of chat about the 100 and banter in camp about who they were going to play against each other

Start as you mean to go on….