Sam Curran: English cricket needs to accept the H*****d

This is what our players think of the 100, and by extension, the Championship. Those of us who love four day cricket aren’t just fighting against the administrators, it’s also the players who see it as “uncool”, and want to earn big money playing T20 across the globe.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcricket%2F2023%2F08%2F25%2Fsam-curran-english-cricket-needs-to-accept-the-hundred%2F

If Sam Curran wants to pick the Hundred, good luck to him. He will ultimately be on the wrong side of history. The bubble has burst, crowds and TV audiences are generally in decline. In 10 years time the Hundred will be a footnote in history.

Release him.

Sack a player for having, er, free speech? That would be like communism, Vic.

I suspect there's an ulterior motive at work here as he has emerged as favourite to succeed Buttler as white ball captain for England.

Wonder if his hundred/IPL team will step up next time he’s injured or whether he’ll come running back to Surrey like they always do

"You need to accept this thing that is making me rich"

Releasing Sam Curran would be absolutely nothing like communism.

We should probably not be surprised by this article although it just confirms yet again how money is at the root of all evil and cricket is no different to the rest of life. However to read this attitude from one of our top players is so depressing. He (and of course his brother who has also shown the same attitude by taking a so-called break from red ball cricket) obviously now has no regard for Surrey or the history of county cricket. One only has to look at the kind of crowds that are going to this Mickey Mouse form of the game. They are just there for a couple of hours entertainment with the ball being hit as hard as possible and as far as possible. There is no understanding of the game or its subtleties. I find it very depressing and if this attitude is now spreading to loads of other current players, the wonderful game that we all love could well be finished in a few years.

VicNorth wrote:Release him.

Good to see you taking the players at their word when it suits your agenda.

It makes me weep that we can find a way to retain someone with such indifference bordering on disdain for county cricket year after year, yet we cannot find a way to persuade Dan Moriarty that he has a future with us as a county cricketer.

I wouldn’t get too worked up. He’ll be getting paid to say that. It’s just another marketing push by the ECB to rubbish the county game. Sam is currently getting rich off the H*ndred, so of course that’s what he’s going to say is wonderful. If he was getting rich off the T20 Blast, he’d say that was wonderful. (“Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome.”)

Cee Gee wrote:

VicNorth wrote:Release him.

Good to see you taking the players at their word when it suits your agenda.

Releasing players who never play for Surrey?

Add Topley to the list to be released too. If they’re not prioritising Surrey over their other teams/competitions, we don’t need them. If it means we have to play the kids, then fine, at least we have a team full of players who want to play for Surrey as their first priority.

VicNorth wrote:Release him.

Agreed! His brother,Roy and Topley can go with him.I've been saying this for a few years now.I used to be in a very small minority but many others have since  climbed on board.

Of course, know all/clever bollocks younger supporters will have a different view having been born and brought up in a very different society.

I can see the player’s point of view ,a big extra financial bonus on top of their normal salary,especially if you’re in the team bracket.However is it good for English cricket?? what’s more is it better than the Blast. I think the answer to both is an emphatic “No”, However having committed to a Sky contract,I can’t see what we can do about it!

dougieginn wrote:I can see the player’s point of view ,a big extra financial bonus on top of their normal salary,especially if you’re in the team bracket.However is it good for English cricket?? what’s more is it better than the Blast. I think the answer to both is an emphatic “No”,  However having committed to a Sky  contract,I can’t see what we can do about it!

I agree with all of the above. I think unfortunately we have to wait it out.

My slim hope is that (1) the two Richards have arrived at the ECB and realised how much money the H*ndred is costing and (2) the Cricket Supporters Association survey questions (e.g. about playing the T20 Blast over an extended period and moving it to two divisions promotion/relegation) are a lead indicator of the ECB re-negotiating the Sky contract to replace the H*ndred from 2029 ... and you don't need to tell me the above is an unrealistic guess at the future, I know it is!

The cheek of Sam Curran turning up at Taunton to prepare! And of Topley playing in the 50-over warm-up!

I loathe and despise the Mickey Mouse/Circus as much as the next person but when one of our sons talked me in to going the other week i was astonished at how many were there.I arrived during the second innings of the ladies match and the ground was fairly packed at that stage ,more came in later but not that many.

If it's "going skint" as people keep saying - how ? Are all these punters being let in for nothing or what?

Badges wrote: If it's "going skint" as people keep saying  - how ? Are all these punters being let in for nothing or what?

It's more that the H*ndred's finances don't work - it loses money when you factor in all the costs. George Dobell has done the heavy lifting on this, see below & there is lots more out there.

If the H*ndred was making money, you can guarantee the ECB and their paid shills would be broadcasting the news ... the fact the ECB is refusing to share the numbers, and the pundits are quiet, suggests that the H*ndred is actually losing money as George Dobell and Fanos Hira (the Worcs chair) and others have said.

The worst of it is that all of these millions in marketing and players salaries and the like could have been spent on the T20 Blast, the women's game, schools and club cricket. Instead these millions have been pissed away on a bunch of garish advertising hoardings and some ugly snack-sponsored kits while massively damaging the county game.

e.g.

https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/ecb-premium/report_ecb_finances_true_cost_the_hundred.html

"While the former ECB regime, led by chair Colin Graves and CEO Tom Harrison, claimed it brought a windfall for county cricket, it emerged they were not including the annual £1.3 million payments made to each first-class county (and the MCC) in the costs."

"While the competition has helped cricket return to free-to-air broadcast platforms, there is little evidence of other nations adopting it while there is increasing doubt as to whether it has covered its own costs."

"While there is a long-term broadcast deal which would render any change difficult until 2028 and it is widely acknowledged that the competition has been highly successful for the women's game, any suggestion that the competition is losing a significant amount of money could change things. The ECB's chief executive, Richard Gould, was among the competition's most vocal critics ahead of its launch"

Thankyou SimonH.

NP.

I'm not a great stats man but this is interesting: The tv viewing figures for the 100 last year were down 20% on the BBC. The first match this year had a sky/bbc combined  total of 550,00. Down on the previous year. Conversely the Ashes had 17.8million across all tests with 1.8million watching the last day of the 5th Test alone. Imagine what it would be if it wasn't behind the Sky pay wall?
The BBC has had just one HYS on the Hundred this year on its website. Last year there were dozens, and probably half the comments not censored by this now woke of a Broadcaster were negative, some on the extreme.I'd assume yet again they have squandered licence payers money on this junk and can't take the flack.
If Curran wants to sell his soul to the McDonald's generation, be my guest, but I'm not happy about these money grabbing mercenaries representing their counties when they feel like it. I'd rather they pissed off to the hit and giggle franchise circuit. Bring on people who want to play county cricket for their county. Oh how they'll be remembered for their exploits in the junk.

Chinaman wrote:I'm not a great stats man but this is interesting: The tv viewing figures for the 100 last year were down 20% on the BBC. The first match this year had a sky/bbc combined  total of 550,00. Down on the previous year. Conversely the Ashes had 17.8million across all tests with 1.8million watching the last day of the 5th Test alone. Imagine what it would be if it wasn't behind the Sky pay wall?
The BBC has had just one HYS on the Hundred this year on its website. Last year there were dozens, and probably half the comments not censored by this now woke of a Broadcaster were negative, some on the extreme.I'd assume yet again they have squandered licence payers money on this junk and can't take the flack.
If Curran wants to sell his soul to the McDonald's generation, be my guest, but I'm not happy about these money grabbing mercenaries representing their counties when they feel like it. I'd rather they pissed off to the hit and giggle franchise circuit. Bring on people who want to play county cricket for their county. Oh how they'll be remembered for their exploits in the junk.

Any statistics man, great or small, would warn against taking much notice of opinions as expressed in HYS, online opinion polls or whatever, because only the most opinionated tend to post or respond. In the case of the Hundred, the most opinionated are surely the opponents so much as I would like to claim that the HYSs show widespread opposition, I can't do so with my statistical hand on my heart (yes, I do have one).

The editors of the BBC cricket page online have clearly been instructed in what line to take, hence the large number of links to and clips of "incredible", "unbelievable" or "astonishing" catches or whatever. They do take care to maintain a fig leaf of impartiality by putting the words in quotes but if so many catches fall into that category they are no longer incredible, unbelievable or astonishing. Granted they probably would have been thirty years ago but as far as the scribblers are concerned that is before Year Zero (and before they were born).

Well you can apply that to almost anything including this blog. We all have strong opinions but as a general they are discussed and debated sensibly. The problem with the BBC is that why they bleat on about impartiality, they are anything but. Any opinion that is in the slightest "off topic", or "likely to offend" is moderated and removed. Basically if it doesn't fit thier woke agenda they'll remove it. Consequently you can't have a discussion without being shouted down by the wokeists. Look at their news reporting: just recently they have hardly touched the issues that matter to people such as ULEZ, Just Stop Oil, the migrant crisis, the banking scandal and more, but are happy to headline a Spanish footballer being kissed. I don't listen to their news anymore, most of the TV is crap, yet they expect the tax payer to fund them and insulate them from the real world. Probably won't renew my licence next time around. Sad really that a once great organisation has gone down the toilet.
At least Marcus won't delete me for being off topic!