Reply from Kent.
ECB proposes cut in number of county games
The number of County Championship matches could be cut from 14 to 10 with a smaller First Division of six teams under new ECB proposals.www.bbc.co.uk
New proposals from the ECB.
I quite like the suggestions. The one day cup becomes relevant again. Same amount of cricket between May - August but less in April and September when there are usually a fair few dodgy pitches.
Not sure saying this county doesn’t want to be irrelevant could be considered as ‘waffle’
So you are content for The Hundred to stay in its current format in August ?
There's not that much county cricket left! I don't mind the Hundred mainly because I like any cricket, but prioritising it to the point that counties are barely sustainable is wrong in my view.
I'd rather the hundred wasn't here at all but it's clearly here to stay. I'd need to go back over the initial launch but I believe that 16 out of 18 counties voted FOR it so there's almost no chance of getting rid of it now.
I agree the hundred could be shorter, you don't need a separate day for every single game.
But this is Sky's business model
They would still play in every competition they've played in this year so I'm not sure how this announcement makes them irrelevant?
Popular with who? It’s the least popular format as noted by the survey commissioned by the ECB.
Bums on seats seem to be the answer, would suggest more people attend 100 game than attend every day of a county match.
Cheaper and free tickets are the main reason for bums on seats. The attendances are no difference from the T20 blast. I read somewhere ECB have committed to spend over £300m on The Hundred over 5/6 years. So not surprised they have left it where it is in August and the changes to county matches and test cricket have to be planned around it. But if anyone can honestly tell me it's been a success they are bonkers (despite what The ECB marketing people say) and hasn't yet attracted the world stars from overseas to participate it on it. Even Bairstow decided to give it a miss this summer.
Fair enough as I have no interest I just saw clips from a few games of crowded stadiums and presumed that it was genuinely attracting crowds I stand corrected and thanks for explaining
Cheaper tickets and more money spent in the ground plus advertising = new revenue. I'm no fan of the 100 but English cricket has to find some way to compete with the revenue generated by the IPL.
But most people just view it as a drinking session
...........spot on............been to numerous 20/20 games at a packed Lords and the majority aren't even watching the game wilhilst bottles of wine and hampers are passed around............
Just had to google as wasn't sure what you were referring too - just read up on it. I agree, simply not cricket as I know it. Within the laws maybe but not in the spirit of the game. I'd rather lose a game than win like that.
not sure The ECB needed a new format though - just needed to rejig the T20 blast which has been relatively successful in England.
Absolutely fuming it is quite simply not cricket. There are more things to life than winning even more so as India had won the series anyhow and there was still a number 11 at the crease good job they don't play social cricket in England this Indian team would struggle to find opponents to play
I've seen far worse then that in social cricket! Saw worse last weekend!
The thing that got me is she wasn't trying to gain an obvious advantage - she was barely moving and probably wasn't going to try a run anyway. I remember Buttler getting the same least year and that was fair enough because he was clearly looking to nick a run if he could. Precedent set now sadly.
When i coached the colts, they kept trying to do it to the extent that games were overrunning by 30 minutes, as it was happening once an over for no reason.
I hope that the Indian team is proud of itself. Indeed it was building up to a good finish and if that's the way that India want to win a cricket match, then good luck to them. I was hoping that the captain would withdraw the appeal, but sadly no. I heard one or two boos from the crowd and I was booing loudly from my living room.
I think what she's done is well within the rules, granted it's not great to see and there are calls for a "warning" to the batters first before then doing it, should they keep leaving their crease.
No, it's a lot worse IMO, because a wicket is automatically lost because of what she did, which is not necessarily the case with an underarm ball, although I take your point.
I noticed that of Dean. She is a very talented cricketer and has a good future in the game.
No. I hasten to add that this is very different to Ashwin doing it to Buttler - Buttler was trying to seek an advantage whereas Dean simply wandered out of her crease. The still picture of the bowler breaking the wickets is misleading, Dean was no more than a foot outside of her crease when the bowler stopped.
Disagree. As a slow bowler in her delivery stride, she can clearly see the batter ahead of her so has time to change her mind. Batters need to learn.
It would have been an Ivan Toney-esque no look ball then because she wasn't looking down the pitch.
