Print

[alexhilly1492]

thats bonkers!

surely T10 would have been a better way to go, its been done in the UAE and the players seemed to like it, although if we take any more overs off we'll end up with just a coin toss and then whats the point!

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE and fix the causes of the problems and get it back on free to air TV! ARGH!

[Sam]

thats bonkers!

surely T10 would have been a better way to go, its been done in the UAE and the players seemed to like it, although if we take any more overs off we'll end up with just a coin toss and then whats the point!

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE and fix the causes of the problems and get it back on free to air TV! ARGH!

I've seen people suggesting elsewhere that this weird new format is to shorten the game a bit so the BBC can fit it into an evening more easily. Don't know if there's any truth in that.

[Rob580]

The problem isn't with the T20 product / format. It's been proven all around the world that it can work.

The problem lies in the accessibility and the stuffy public school boy image that cricket has with a lot of people in this country.

Get it on free to air TV properly, so as people can actually follow the tournament, rather than just dip in and out. And promote the life out of it, the same as the Big Bash. I understand we're vastly different nations, countries and cultures, but they've shown the way forwards, we need to follow that.

It's not rocket science and they certainly don't need to re-invent the wheel. I find it impossible to believe that people will go:

'Oh, T20 cricket, that's boring'

'100 balls per innings you say? Now you're talking....'

I hope it does work, I really do. But there's more chance of Mr Blobby winning the Grand National.

[iand123]

So... not discounting the thought that the ECB's calendar is out by 18 days, but apparently the new t20 comp won't even be t20 https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/668162/ecb-presents-100-ball-domestic-game-for-men-and-women

100 balls per innings - 15 6-ball overs and one 10-ball over. This has been chosen because of its' 'simplicity'... I am confused.

April 1st was 18 days ago, this must be real, shambles

[KD4]

This will only just confuse the spectators. What an utterly ridiculous suggestion.

[Bats_Entertainment]

Absolutely ridiculous.

[adb club cricketer]

So they will prepare local players for 100 ball format and then make them play T20Is. Seems ridiculous to have so many different formats. As others have pointed, stick to three formats and do free to air TV. Will help the game grow.

[Mister Le Chiffre]

What next 5 balls aside with 1 ball each for 5 bowlers? Nothing wrong with the t20 brand of product.

[bk]

ECB CEO Tom Harrison

"Throughout its development, we have shown leadership, provided challenge and followed a process. We will continue to do that as the concept evolves."

What is he talking about? Utter corporate drivel.

[KD4]

"What we're trying to do is appeal to a new audience, people that aren't traditional cricket fans," said Strauss.

"We want to make the game as simple as possible for them to understand."

The new format will not be simple to understand. He's talking nonsense here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/43854924

[procricket]

CENTURY CITY CRICKET

[richthekeeper]

I'm going to steer clear of the debate about whether change is a Good Thing or not, but let's just take stock for a moment. Cricket has gone through various incarnations of the short form of the game including 20, 40, 50 and 60 over competitions and 4, 5, 6 and 8 ball overs. All of these, I'm sure, made sense at the time of dreaming them up.

If the cricket administrators feel that a 100-ball competition is the way forward, why on earth would they arrange it over fifteen 6-ball overs and one 10-ball over? Why not just have ten 10-ball overs? The latest article talking about the idea of replacing bowlers mid-over is clearly drawn from baseball's "bullpen" methodology, which may actually make some sense.

It could be taken further though - if time is the issue, change ends between innings rather than between overs. What about just having a straight 100-ball innings? Bowlers could be changed whenever you want, and they could have a 20 ball maximum which would penalise the team for no-balls and wides.

Basically if you're inventing a new format you might as well be brave and reinvent the whole construct rather than just shoe-horning a "mega-super over" in at the end to make a round number/for dramatic effect.

[stevat]

Personally from a game perspective, I think it's nonsense.  However, if it is to be on terrestrial TV then it is a great thing regardless of the daft nuances they build into it.

I also think that from a statisticians perspective, using uneven over lengths has to be a nightmare to report on.

Would love to sit and watch some games on TV with my young son and see him gripped by it (without having to give some other broadcaster a fortune each month).

[csnew]

Just read the wage budget is 1m for each team with a 100k salary cap...no chance of attracting any of the top players paying them that little

CPL will be very happy - zero competition from this farce

[Neon Cricket]

That's disappointing, this whole thing is becoming a farce swiftly.

It's almost as if the ECB has gone "that IPL works well, lets do the complete opposite"