The Hundred

First topic message reminder :

England's World Cup-winning captain Eoin Morgan, West Indies batsman Chris Gayle and Australia's Steve Smith have made themselves available for The Hundred player draft on 20 October.

The inaugural 100-ball competition, which is comprised of eight city-based teams, takes place next summer from 17 July-16 August.

Other big names to have stated their interest include Afghanistan spinner Rashid Khan, Australia opener David Warner and former Pakistan all-rounder Shahid Afridi.

England's contracted Test players such as Joe Root, Ben Stokes and Jofra Archer are not on the list because they will be part of an initial draft for England's red-ball cricketers on Thursday.

In that mini draft, teams will select up to three players, with the Leeds-based side, for instance, having to choose between Root, Stokes and Jonny Bairstow as their first pick.

They will also have the opportunity to select local icons. The eight teams will be based in London (two teams), Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Cardiff and Southampton.

The main draft will be held later this month and among the other international cricketers to have made themselves available for the competition are Shakib Al Hasan, Moeen Ali, Babar Azam, Tom Curran, Quinton de Kock, Faf du Plessis, Aaron Finch, Lasith Malinga, Kieron Pollard, Kagiso Rabada, Jason Roy, Mitchell Starc and Kane Williamson.

Players are able to set a reserve price for their services, with each team having two spaces in their squad in each of the following pay brackets: £125,000, £100,000, £75,000, £60,000, £50,000, £40,000 and £30,000.

Taken from the BBC Sport draft. I know that there isn't a lot of fans of it on here...but the actual cricket itself and standard of it will be quite high I think. Certainly is attracting some big names

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Looking forward to the competition - fancy the Birmingham Phoenix to win, and have leaped aboard JDizzle's Dan Mouseley bandwagon and had a little flutter on him as top run scorer in the tourney at a big price (a punt!)

Intrigued to see how some of the experiments with scheduling the womens game as the late one in the double header goes - hoping well!

Excited about that too, Olly. I attended a few of the women's games last year with my cousins two daughters that I'm close with and they absolutely loved it. They've since taken up cricket, given they didn't know a single rule going in that is a wonderful thing.

Birmingham's batting looks fantastic but their bowling will be hit very hard by Woakes and Stone being injured.

A few sides look strong on batting but short on bowling to me. I could perhaps see Trent Rockets surprising a few if their spinners can squeeze teams in the middle.

Oval Invincibles look decent on paper. Strong seam bowling backed by a resurgent Narine, the underrated pair of Briggs and Sowter. They will need their big batters to fire though. Roy really needs to find form then there's Roussow, Jacks, Haynes and Billings. Their batting situation should be a good opportunity for Surran to bat up the order.

As discussed on another thread recently many of the changes are silly but the silly changes in cricket's history tend to die out and good ones remain. It's how the game evolves. I love switching ends after two overs. I like having one less man out the ring in the last over for slow over rates - though attention needs paying to batting sides slowing things down. I think bowlers being able to bowl two overs on the bounce is an interesting strategic option too.

I take Duty's points, there's clearly too much cricket. Take some of the gimmicks out of this though and it's what a lot of people were asking for, fewer teams concentrating the best players together, in what is pretty much T20. I could see The Blast becoming itself second XI if it exists at all in a few years. Then there could be a push for this kind of setup for first class cricket. That would be the death of the likes of Derbyshire and Leicestershire, but that's been talked about for a long time

Also, as others point out the women's game benefits hugely from this and some of those prime time games are now perfectly placed to ride the wave of increased interest in women's sport following the Euros

50 over domestic cricket all over the world has been shifting to a secondary competition for a while if we're honest though. England won the 2019 CWC off the back of Morgan basically telling the ECB that England's white ball players needed to be in the IPL not domestic white ball tournaments.

The Blast being left behind by other domestic T20 leagues would only cause similar in the longer run too.

Longer term I've liked the idea for a while of some counties combining under one banner. For instance any of: Kent and Sussex, Glamorgan and Gloucestershire, Worcs and Warks, Notts and Derby, Leicestershire and Northants. Make use of both academy areas, both Counties grounds and facilities, play matches at both grounds for more variety of conditions (and more time for ground staff to prepare good pitches...). Many counties outside the Test grounds are lacking in top end facilities which is often not mentioned. Combining two counties facilities into one could remedy some of this.

County cricket has so much history and therefore sentimental value for fans that these changes are difficult. I get that too. As I've posted many times my late granddad was an ardent Essex CCC fan and member, his father before him. I can go to Chelmsford and sit on the bench they watched cricket from with my dad and grandmother. That's a wonderful thing that I understand people not wanting to lose. County crickets finances are the imminent threat to that not shorter forms though. Whilst combining with Warks would feel gut wrenching for Worcs fans short term it is surely better than these counties disappearing entirely in the medium to longer term.

Yeah, my comments were solely about the men's game. I think the Hundred can be good for women's cricket, and if they took the men out of the equation then the women would get an even greater platform, particularly with games on the BBC.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Looking forward to the competition - fancy the Birmingham Phoenix to win, and have leaped aboard JDizzle's Dan Mouseley bandwagon and had a little flutter on him as top run scorer in the tourney at a big price (a punt!)

Intrigued to see how some of the experiments with scheduling the womens game as the late one in the double header goes - hoping well!

Looking at the squads, I would agree! The Brave look a bit weaker than last year (no QDK, Stirling or Mills - injured?) and Birmingham’s batting line up is an absolute bomb squad. Led by Mousley, with support from Livingstone, Smeed, Benjamin and Moeen too. Fun!

Rehan Ahmed playing in the opener… Chance for him to plant a flag.

Tufnell on about conserving wickets in the PowerPlay. The year is 2022. It’s a 100 ball game.

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Looking forward to the competition - fancy the Birmingham Phoenix to win, and have leaped aboard JDizzle's Dan Mouseley bandwagon and had a little flutter on him as top run scorer in the tourney at a big price (a punt!)

Intrigued to see how some of the experiments with scheduling the womens game as the late one in the double header goes - hoping well!

Looking at the squads, I would agree! The Brave look a bit weaker than last year (no QDK, Stirling or Mills - injured?) and Birmingham’s batting line up is an absolute bomb squad. Led by Mousley, with support from Livingstone, Smeed, Benjamin and Moeen too. Fun!

Rehan Ahmed playing in the opener… Chance for him to plant a flag.

Jake Lintott and Rehan Ahmed in the same side and neither has bowled before ball 40 - cancel James Vince imho

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Looking forward to the competition - fancy the Birmingham Phoenix to win, and have leaped aboard JDizzle's Dan Mouseley bandwagon and had a little flutter on him as top run scorer in the tourney at a big price (a punt!)

Intrigued to see how some of the experiments with scheduling the womens game as the late one in the double header goes - hoping well!

Looking at the squads, I would agree! The Brave look a bit weaker than last year (no QDK, Stirling or Mills - injured?) and Birmingham’s batting line up is an absolute bomb squad. Led by Mousley, with support from Livingstone, Smeed, Benjamin and Moeen too. Fun!

Rehan Ahmed playing in the opener… Chance for him to plant a flag.

Jake Lintott and Rehan Ahmed in the same side and neither has bowled before ball 40 - cancel James Vince imho

Only 5 balls for Ahmed. James Vince won't be forgiven for his (till he leans on one gloriously through cover in about 25 minutes).

Manchester Originals bowling lineup is properly rubbish - who the heck was drafting for them

Brave drop Rehan Ahmed for George Garton and he has gone for 43 off 15. That’ll teach them.

Watching QDK, Stirling, Stoinis and David try to chase 180 could be very fun though.

Take a bow Will Smeed. Excellent innings. Could only have been improved if it was in front of a wobbly one camera set up at Canterbury.

Dropping Rehan should be a fireable offence

Smeed is seriously seriously pushing for white ball honours and a spot on that Pakistan trip (especially considering his PSL success)

Going to the Oval this afternoon for the Invincibles games. Some might expect an old duffer like me to be a Hundred Hater. Even though many of my likes and prejudices are firmly ingrained, I don't mind a new competition with a different take on things. I went to one game last year - enjoyed it as I nearly always do all forms although too frantic and noisy to be a personal favourite. Good to see a lot of young couples together at the ground even if wine drinking took preference over the cricket.

What I do dislike immensely though is how it's effectively downgraded the RL50 to a second XI competition and blown Championship cricket out of the water for all of August. Imo, if one had to give it should have been the Blast - two comps of 100 balls and 120 seems unnecessary. Better still, retain the Blast without The Hundred with a greater investment in the former and some additional funding to promote 50 over and four day cricket. 

Anyway, that didn't happen and we are where we are. Maybe not ideal but I'll be watching some quality cricketers (mens) this sunny afternoon whilst enjoying a pint with friends and then doing the same this evening as the women get top card billing - life could be worse!

My take (admittedly after too many beers).

Narine is a crap fielder but an outstandingly clever bowler.

If it was raining soup outside the Oval, Roy would be walking down the Harleyford Road with a knife and fork.

I find Narine fascinating. The way he's gone away and reinvented himself over the years is remarkable. Firstly adding the pinch hitting that made him an all-rounder for a brief moment until teams figured out what and where to bowl. Then reinventing his bowling by replacing his offie with a knuckle ball.

Even before the reinvention his bowling was already so interesting too. Finding that length where batters couldn't sweep him or use their feet but due to his trajectory and pace he couldn't just be played off the back foot either.

A very clever player indeed.

I agree with many of your points there guildford but on the RL50 being relegated to a second XI competition I think it is important to note that domestic 50 over comps all over the world have been on a downward slope. It's a hard format to work domestically. I often felt 40 over was much better for County cricket.

50 overs at international works as needing to find those 10 overs outside your bowlers at 8-11 rewards sides with genuine all-rounders. Teams having players such as Jadeja and Shakib should of course be rewarded. At domestic level though you just don't get those sort of 5th bowlers. Even in the very rare cases that international quality all-rounders are coming through domestic cricket but yet scooped up internationally they will be front line bowlers for their counties! Hence domestic 50 over cricket often ends up with a lot of dawdling overs in the middle. For that reason I always enjoyed the 40 over county comps more.

I've been to a few Hundred games and enjoyed them. Overall I'd say I'm agnostic. I think the smaller number of teams and concentrating on big cities has helped some friends and family who had never engaged in cricket before have a look which was part of the plan. As said before it also helped get my cousins daughters into the game which I adore.

I do think the shorter nature of the Hundred (games played and teams involved rather than balls per innings...) makes it easier to push to new demographics too. 8 teams playing 4 games home and away as opposed to 16 teams playing 7 games home and away. Altering that within county crickets structure is incredibly difficult as the counties need to agree and would never want to shorten their most lucrative offering.

English domestic cricket has evolved to a system that you would never design by choice. Altering that system is incredibly difficult but due to unavoidable fact that most counties are broke some changes will inevitably need to come. At the moment it's propped up by the England men's team playing non-stop. In the short term it's destroying our best players. In the long term there will be a point of diminishing returns. I mentioned during the Windies tour that it was the first England Test series I could remember just not being very bothered about engaging in for instance. And that's coming from a guy obsessed with the game to the point he will viciously argue with strangers that Mike Proctor deserves to mentioned in the same conversations as Sobers when discussing "players from the past who would thrive in T20".

As said in others threads some of the changes I find just silly and think they will fade away but some I really like - changing ends less especially. Cricket has always evolved through this trial and error. The good changes stay, the unnecessary drifts away. The Hundred is far from the first and wont be the last to try to evolve things.

You still need/needed a fifth bowler in the 40 over game though, eight as opposed to ten.

guildfordbat wrote:My take (admittedly after too many beers).

Narine is a crap fielder but an outstandingly clever bowler.

If it was raining soup outside the Oval, Roy would be walking down the Harleyford Road with a knife and fork.

He'd probably whack his bread roll straight to cover as well!

VTR wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:My take (admittedly after too many beers).

Narine is a crap fielder but an outstandingly clever bowler.

If it was raining soup outside the Oval, Roy would be walking down the Harleyford Road with a knife and fork.

He'd probably whack his bread roll straight to cover as well!

Soul Requiem wrote:You still need/needed a fifth bowler in the 40 over game though, eight as opposed to ten.

General consensus was that batting 40 overs rather than 50 made it easier to have more bowlers in the team as the longer tail wasn't as much of an issue. The shorter innings also made it more of an attacking format meaning those middle overs didn't meander around as much.

Whenever I've watched domestic 50 over cricket (not just county stuff either) I often feel like I'm watching mid-noughties ODIs where the games really did tend to start enjoyably, float about for a while, then maybe end excitingly.

From the more casual spectators perspective as well a 50 over game takes an average of around 8 hours I believe. I'd love to know what that could be cut down to with a 40 over game where you only change ends every 10 overs for instance. As said I don't think losing those 10 overs hurts domestic list-A and I definitely don't think changing ends less would make the cricket less enjoyable.

England need to recognize it is Will Jacks szn already for crying out loud

That's insane, made 108 not out in a total of 142! Roy opened the batting with him and was abject again. The likes of Hales, Jacks and a few others are going to be hard to justify not replacing him for England

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:England need to recognize it is Will Jacks szn already for crying out loud

One day he’ll do something Will Smeed hasn’t achieved first…

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:England need to recognize it is Will Jacks szn already for crying out loud

One day he’ll do something Will Smeed hasn’t achieved first…

More runs in fewer balls, and as pointed out, a ridiculous proportion of the runs in the innings (target was 138)

Interesting but completely unrelated fact but I believe % of runs in an innings was one of the first stats outside of the established averages, fifties, tons, etc used in picking a player when England went for Trescothick.

Whilst always unbelievably talented, he captained England at most age grades, Tres had a rocky start to his senior career and his CC stats weren't anything too striking when picked. He was however frequently making half centuries that made up a large proportion of Somerset's runs in an innings. Scouts saw him doing so and felt he looked a cut above but when those that didn't see it live saw his overall stats they were sceptical. Hence the % of runs in an innings coming to the fore.

I sincerely thank you for allowing me to waste part of your day with that.

KC

Didn't Trescothick also have a really big innings for the Somerset second XI early on in his career (just checked Wikipedia, he got 322 in a 2nds match in 1997). One of those who the coaches and selectors saw something outside of the base stats that suggested he had more than enough to be a very good international player (Gower and Vaughn fall into the same category)

king_carlos wrote:Interesting but completely unrelated fact but I believe % of runs in an innings was one of the first stats outside of the established averages, fifties, tons, etc used in picking a player when England went for Trescothick.

Whilst always unbelievably talented, he captained England at most age grades, Tres had a rocky start to his senior career and his CC stats weren't anything too striking when picked. He was however frequently making half centuries that made up a large proportion of Somerset's runs in an innings. Scouts saw him doing so and felt he looked a cut above but when those that didn't see it live saw his overall stats they were sceptical. Hence the % of runs in an innings coming to the fore.

I sincerely thank you for allowing me to waste part of your day with that.

It's also the longest standing record in test cricket*; Charles Bannermans 165 in an innings of 245 is the highest proportion of runs scored by a batsman.

*the first ever test innings

dummy_half wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:England need to recognize it is Will Jacks szn already for crying out loud

One day he’ll do something Will Smeed hasn’t achieved first…

More runs in fewer balls, and as pointed out, a ridiculous proportion of the runs in the innings (target was 138)

Typical Surrey bias on this forum. Won’t let a kid from Somerset have anything.

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Interesting but completely unrelated fact but I believe % of runs in an innings was one of the first stats outside of the established averages, fifties, tons, etc used in picking a player when England went for Trescothick.

Whilst always unbelievably talented, he captained England at most age grades, Tres had a rocky start to his senior career and his CC stats weren't anything too striking when picked. He was however frequently making half centuries that made up a large proportion of Somerset's runs in an innings. Scouts saw him doing so and felt he looked a cut above but when those that didn't see it live saw his overall stats they were sceptical. Hence the % of runs in an innings coming to the fore.

I sincerely thank you for allowing me to waste part of your day with that.

It's also the longest standing record in test cricket*; Charles Bannermans 165 in an innings of 245 is the highest proportion of runs scored by a batsman.

*the first ever test innings

When they had the ‘County showcase’ a few weeks ago - Shropshire played Derbyshire (not sure whether it was a full list A match) and the Shropshire opener carried his bat for 69* out of 89 all out. 77.5%! I would imagine that would take some beating in a completed white ball innings?

JDizzle wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:England need to recognize it is Will Jacks szn already for crying out loud

One day he’ll do something Will Smeed hasn’t achieved first…

More runs in fewer balls, and as pointed out, a ridiculous proportion of the runs in the innings (target was 138)

Typical Surrey bias on this forum. Won’t let a kid from Somerset have anything.  

Well, I lived around Kingston on Thames for 5 years, so maybe. More normally get accused of Yorkshire bias

dummy_half wrote:KC

Didn't Trescothick also have a really big innings for the Somerset second XI early on in his career (just checked Wikipedia, he got 322 in a 2nds match in 1997). One of those who the coaches and selectors saw something outside of the base stats that suggested he had more than enough to be a very good international player (Gower and Vaughn fall into the same category)

As said he was always talented so the dialogue that Fletcher plucked him from obscurity is a bit overdone at times. He was an Ian Bell type talent at age grade always being an opener who then briefly stuttered in county cricket, ended up batting in the lower middle order and bowling second change seam! It's an interesting aside that % runs was used in his selection though.

Vaughan is an interesting one statistically as his Test career fell between 25 and 34. He's often raised as an example that batters should be able to average more in Test cricket than F-C but his career is different to most as he wasn't picked very young and struggled as most do, he didn't keep going that long due to his knees. Hence there's the argument that had he been in F-C cricket during those peak batting years his F-C average would have risen similarly to his Test average. I believe Vaughan unlike Tres had a run of big scores just before first being picked too?

At his peak as an opener so predominantly facing pace Vaughan was fantastic to watch though. Certainly a player who benefitted from being encouraged to be more attacking with the bat which is an interesting parallel to Bairstow and Bazball. He tended to lose his shape defensively early on and wasn't the best player of spin but when encouraged to be aggressive hence using his drive and pull he was fantastic at times. That ability to drive anything slightly over pitched or pull anything slightly short gave seamers a very low variance in length they could bowl.