Hundred ideas

https://archive.ph/Yol3z

it seems there are a number of ideas on the table. We all know the best 1 though, but we also now it wont happen

F*** it off.

The interview with our new chairman Oli Slipper on the Surrey website indicates that he wants Surrey to buy the Oval Invincibles (all franchises are currently owned by the ECB). Not sure what to think of this.

We would be the only County likely to be able to afford to do so. The situation would be marginally improved if Surrey players and staff formed the Oval Invincibles team, but there would still be one competition too many. No, scrap the horrid hundred and reform the Blast.

Scrap the h****** and the Blast?

Paywalled article, but according to the DT, the H*****d is about to be expanded to 10 teams and opened up to private investment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/11/20/hundred-expand-10-teams-private-investment-ecb/

Clutching at straws for a small victory, I hope the Surrey do purchase (as rumoured) the artificial entity which occupies the Oval during August. It could then be re-branded to a far more marketable name. I would suggest "Surrey CCC".

Bin the hundred serves no purpose. No other country plays the format so there is obviously no World Cup. If they are forced to keep it play it in October after the first class season.

This always was the Two Dicks evil plan. How can more money benefit Surrey, we are already the richest club in England by a long way. It’s not like football where more money buys bigger players etc. it’s rediculous. We need to bin the idea of owning a bloody 100 franchise.

If the Hundred is to be expanded what will have to make way for it?. Either the Blast or more likely the County Championship. The latter is unacceptable to me. Is this the beginning of the end of county cricket?. Some would say the process started when the Hundred was introduced in the first place. I find all this very concerning.

Further to my post above county members should insist on proper consultation and a vote before anything goes ahead. This is potentially very serious.

Wokoval wrote:Further to my post above county members should insist on proper consultation and a vote before anything goes ahead. This is potentially very serious.

Didn't we do that before?

Don’t think so, the issue about private investment is new as far as I can recall. We’re you thinking about the Strauss review?.

Yes. Same rules apply. They'll take no notice.

I think the counties were forced to take notice when their members objected to the proposed reduction in the County Championship in such force. Surrey were forced to have consultation meetings and there has been no change in the number of games for the time being. That was a battle won but not the war. I know it is a constant battle but we can’t afford to give up. If we let private investment in our influence, such as it is, will be reduced to practically nothing.

I guess I meant they didn't take any notice that no-one wanted the damn thing.

IMO each Hundred "franchise" should be made up of 3 counties, eg Oval Invinclibles = Surrey, Kent and Sussex and you take 4 players from each of those teams + add foreign players. Then you could play county matches at same time if all counties lost the same number of players and sides could mitigate for missing only 4 one day specialists. You might also stop county sides like Sussex etc losing all their players if they are assured 4 Hundred places in their squad. Likewise Dan Lawrence might not move to Surrey if he isn't assured a Hundred spot, and stay at Essex. Surrey might be the biggest losers in that we have 15-16 Hundred players in our squad, but realistically we have too many white ball specialists now who seem totally in it for themselves when they miss the start of the T20 because they are in the IPL and disappear for semis and finals for some other tournament (eg Narine last year)

That's far too sensible, Peter. Doubtless many of our "loyal" players would also be aggrieved at not being awarded a H*****d contract due to the limit of four per county.

In terms of fairness to the counties the above plan has its attractions but in the real world it would be totally unworkable. Players simply would not accept it. Dan Lawrence is moving to Surrey to advance his England career. Loyalty to your county is seemingly a thing of the past. Nottinghamshire taking 3 players from Worcestershire a prime example. As cricket supporters we don’t change counties unless, perhaps, we move location. The bottom line about the Hundred is that it should be scrapped. There is simply no room in the schedule for a 4th format. It is, in my opinion, how the T20 competition should be rebranded without impinging in a harmful way the Championship and the 50 over cup. The Championship must be the central competition which the other formats revolve round. Personally, I have always been against the T20 format but I have to recognise that many people like it and it has become of key importance to county finances. It has now become a monster with T20 leagues springing up everywhere. Everybody will have their own views of course and I am not claiming to have all the answers!.

The plan all along is that the 100 really wanted to be T20. So what the ECB have done is to make the English calendar over crowded, whilst at the same time built its expensive money losing franchise model, the 100.
Its simple, they now cancel the county T20, and the 100 (or at least mens 100) changes to a T20 format.
This will make the teams massively more valuable. IPL owners will be queuing up to pay tens of millions for the new T20 teams. They will promise Indian players playing in the tournament. Huge world wide audiences, and huge sponsorships.
To placate the counties they will introduce more teams (more money) and will indeed have greater riches to offer to all counties even more millions to keep quiet.
I guarantee this will happen.

It seems mental to have a Hundred team "Oval Invincibles" that has a backbone of Surrey players and then you farm out Laurie Evans and Jamie Overton to Manchester originals, Ollie Pope to Welsh Fire, Chris Jordan to Southern Brave, Jamie Smith to Birmingham Phoenix, Daniel Worrall to London Spirit and Reece Topley to the Northern whoever. There has to be a cap on how many players a side loses surely? Presumably Dan Lawrence will re-sign for the team based at Lords too? ... and capping each Hundred side to 4 players from each county is obviously pie in the sky utopian stuff, but shouldn't the ECB be trying to strengthen English cricket by redistributing some of the wealth so teams like Kent, Sussex etc so they put up a but more of a fight and perhaps develope better players as a result.
Honestly I think the Hundred is great for Womens cricket but its a totally lame turnament for the Men, has to be re-branded as a T20 and eat up the Vitality Blast calendar

Of course the Hundred doesn’t help counties like Kent, Somerset and Sussex because they have very little apart from the downgraded 50 over competition while the Hundred is on. Players see moving to a Test match/ Hundred venue as a good career move these days. Expansion of the Hundred rumoured to be Bristol and Durham so those counties will be even further disadvantaged. Surely women’s cricket can now survive on its own, the women’s Ashes proved it but have no objection to women/men’s double headers. Not sure a women’s Hundred and a men’s T20 on the same day would work but other people may disagree. It’s a real mess of the ECB’s making.