County Competitions viability now in question

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/doubts-grow-over-viability-of-county-competitions-as-clubs-face-difficulty-putting-out-sides-1269618

Partly due to COVID partly due to the 100. How would members feel if all the RLC Games were called off ?

Would you want to buy membership for next year if this happened, and at at what point would squads be so decimated that you could not call it professional cricket ?

Surrey have I think 17 players available for the RLC so should be able to put out a decent side, even if the squad is overloaded with pace bowlers.  We have a big squad to cope with IPL and international calls.

Possible team - Stoneman, Amla, Evans, Patel, Smith (w/k), Clark, Overton, Clarke, Batty (c), Moriarty, Virdi.   This leaves a vulnerable tail and bowling would be spin orientated.   The other available players Reifer, Kimber, Taylor, McKerr, Atkinson, Dunn.  Little cover for batsmen, none for keeper and spinners, but we never get injuries do we?  

The ECB have said this is now a development competition so it is no consequence to them presumably.   Of course if one of the franchises gets covid that will be a pretty pickle, I'm sure they would plunder the counties for yet another squad of players.   The ECB have made it clear they are trying to get rid of county cricket.   I just fervently hope the Horrid Hundred is a disaster.

offdrive4 wrote:Surrey have I think 17 players available for the RLC so should be able to put out a decent side, even if the squad is overloaded with pace bowlers.  We have a big squad to cope with IPL and international calls.

Possible team - Stoneman, Amla, Evans, Patel, Smith (w/k), Clark, Overton, Clarke, Batty (c), Moriarty, Virdi.   This leaves a vulnerable tail and bowling would be spin orientated.   The other available players Reifer, Kimber, Taylor, McKerr, Atkinson, Dunn.  Little cover for batsmen, none for keeper and spinners, but we never get injuries do we?  

The ECB have said this is now a development competition so it is no consequence to them presumably.   Of course if one of the franchises gets covid that will be a pretty pickle, I'm sure they would plunder the counties for yet another squad of players.   The ECB have made it clear they are trying to get rid of county cricket.   I just fervently hope the Horrid Hundred is a disaster.

Ben Geddes can also be added to that list. Presumably we're expected to plug any gaps with non-contract/academy players, or just field a hopelessly unbalanced team? I don't suppose the ECB really cares.

This is outrageous.

The ECB's agenda to destroy county cricket is now as clear as daylight. They had originally planned to do it fairly gradually over a period of a decade or so, but the pandemic has given them a gift-wrapped opportunity to do it sooner and more brutally.

There was little justification for them taking as many as 19 players away from their counties a week ago to cover a handful of internationals against a poor Pakistan side. Taking Will Jacks as an example, he was not required for either the 50 over or T20 matches. They could have taken 13 for the 50-over tournament, and then reviewed the position before the T20s start this Friday, taking anyone else out that they needed (as it happens, the cavalry are back from self-isolation).  

There is no justification for taking players who are not remotely suited to The Hundred from counties to cover the gaps left by England players and others dropping out like flies. It makes a mockery of the whole concept. I am very tempted to go along to see Ryan Patel entertain the women and children who have been promised fireworks. I don't care how much money they have spunked up the wall over it, if they cannot field teams of players remotely suited to the nonsense then they should simply ditch it again.

I don't want anyone to become seriously ill, but I sincerely hope there will be positive tests in all of the franchise teams early in the tournament forcing the whole lot to go into self-isolation. Along with than the joy of seeing Ashwin today, that would be the highlight of my summer.

Pink Panther wrote:

offdrive4 wrote:Surrey have I think 17 players available for the RLC so should be able to put out a decent side, even if the squad is overloaded with pace bowlers.  We have a big squad to cope with IPL and international calls.

Possible team - Stoneman, Amla, Evans, Patel, Smith (w/k), Clark, Overton, Clarke, Batty (c), Moriarty, Virdi.   This leaves a vulnerable tail and bowling would be spin orientated.   The other available players Reifer, Kimber, Taylor, McKerr, Atkinson, Dunn.  Little cover for batsmen, none for keeper and spinners, but we never get injuries do we?  

The ECB have said this is now a development competition so it is no consequence to them presumably.   Of course if one of the franchises gets covid that will be a pretty pickle, I'm sure they would plunder the counties for yet another squad of players.   The ECB have made it clear they are trying to get rid of county cricket.   I just fervently hope the Horrid Hundred is a disaster.

Ben Geddes can also be added to that list. Presumably we're expected to plug any gaps with non-contract/academy players, or just field a hopelessly unbalanced team?  I don't suppose the ECB really cares.

I believe from that list that Evans, Clark and Overton are involved in the Hundred.

Stewie said there was a squad of 14 for the RL Cup at the forum

Chappers wrote:Stewie said there was a squad of 14 for the RL Cup at the forum

Presumably it's 14 of these 15 then:

Stoneman, Amla, Patel, Smith (w/k),, Clarke, Batty (c), Moriarty, Virdi, Geddes, Reifer, Kimber, Taylor, McKerr, Atkinson, Dunn.  

Geddes, Reifer, Kimber and Taylor have barely played any first team cricket and Virdi has never played a white ball match, while Amla, Clarke and Batty have a combined age of about 120.

Thanks PP, my mistake, I missed Geddes. My list was based on the original picks and it is possible Overton etc were added later and I missed it or I just got it wrong! The situation is worse than I thought. We, and other counties, may have to play academy players if problems arrive.

It is 14. There isn't anyone else. According to a report by George Dobell there is a fair chance the whole competition will be pulled anyway to save the possibility of the 100 collapsing and going down the toilet. Infections,in the short term,will go up a lot and will likely hit both the 100 and the Tests (3 in August) regardless. I couldn't give a shit about the 100 and would gladly ping all 8 franchises. The next two CC games starting August 30th will be away which means the next cricket at the Oval excluding the 100 will be in mid September, 2 months away. And that if we are lucky. I hope it doesn't happen but we just might have seen the last proper cricket this summer. But to strangle the 100 will be some compensation. I hope the ECB goes bust.

A decision will apparently be made tomorrow as to whether the Royal London Cup can go ahead by the Counties - See attached links

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57843984

And David Hopps cry of anguish for county cricket contained in a match report
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/county-championship-2021-1244186/durham-vs-nottinghamshire-group-1-1244297/match-report-4

I can understand if Surrey vote not to go ahead but I am furious with the ECB

I note that this BBC article says nothing about why it may be scrapped. They wouldn't would they because the reason is to prop up the 100 with reserve players, which they have paid a load of licence fee money to screen.

Hmmm I notice the One Day Cup has a sponsor here and would they be less than pleased with this. Perhaps they are insured for this or have priced this in. Surely the competition has to go ahead and if Stewards were a problem, well I'm sure there are some people who would happily volunteer.

As for players being plundered from the Clubs, I am curious about this. Are these players contracted by the board or to their clubs. Totally unfamiliar with this. What is the financial incentives to release players to the Hundred or to England for that matter? When Stewart talks of England first is this just pride or has the financial element taken over here.

The financial incentives seems a little perverse but perhaps there is some self preservation at stake. Personally I am inclined to go to the 100 next week, just purely because there is little to do for a few weeks and curiosity as to whether I will see a full ground (Would be the first time), along with if there is perhaps a more diverse attendance. However I can see those who have devoted plenty of time and effort down the years do deserve better.

I was slightly miffed about missing the real action against Somerset but did feel sorry for members who would possibly wait weeks for further action and face the prospect of an uncertain future.

Players don't have to play in the 100. It's their choice. But Virdi and Smith have already declined. Most will because they get paid a lot to do so. The 100 has nothing to do with Surrey or any other club, it's a franchise. Surrey had a golden opportunity to scupper the whole shit show by refusing to host it. They didn't because of a veiled ECB threat to move the Test match to Southampton. Never would have happened of course, and Surrey should have called their bluff. There is no power in the counties to remove the ECB cronies since they stupidity handed over all power to them by voting to remove the First Class Forum some years back. Now they have dragged cricket into the gutter, gave a v sign to the real fans, and blackmailed the counties into submission just to host crickets version of HS2, the vanity 100. I sincerely hope it fails and the ECB goes bust. Cricket needs to be rebuilt and protected and not have its soul sold to the devil.

Basileus1453 wrote:Hmmm I notice the One Day Cup has a sponsor here and would they be less than pleased with this. Perhaps they are insured for this or have priced this in. Surely the competition has to go ahead and if Stewards were a problem, well I'm sure there are some people who would happily volunteer.

As for players being plundered from the Clubs, I am curious about this. Are these players contracted by the board or to their clubs. Totally unfamiliar with this. What is the financial incentives to release players to the Hundred or to England for that matter? When Stewart talks of England first is this just pride or has the financial element taken over here.

The financial incentives seems a little perverse but perhaps there is some self preservation at stake. Personally I am inclined to go to the 100 next week, just purely because there is little to do for a few weeks and curiosity as to whether I will see a full ground (Would be the first time), along with if there is perhaps a more diverse attendance. However I can see those who have devoted plenty of time and effort down the years do deserve better.

I was slightly miffed about missing the real action against Somerset but did feel sorry for members who would possibly wait weeks for further action and face the prospect of an uncertain future.

Curiosity killed the counties.

The squad of 14 that Alec said he would be forced to pick from looks pretty good on paper. The only worry is injuries, which, for the last 3 years, have been a recurring factor.

Perhaps members of county's like me who really like the county championship should get together in some way to protest against the ECB at there offices. I would certainly be up for it.
If the fixtures format is the same for next season I wonder how many members would consider not renewing there membership. I have only championship and one day cup on my membership not interested in going toT20 or the 100.
The only thing that would make me keep my membership is the people I've met at matches over the last 4 years at the oval .not the dreadful fixtures format we could have again next season.

Well I'd be up for it but they probably won't take any notice. I don't think they want traditional cricket followers any more, be that at their peril to kick us in the face.
I agree the people you meet are a big part of it. But quite frankly if it goes on like this next year I'd seriously consider renewing as well.
You know I would not mind seeing any more cricket this year (a distinct possibility) if Covid pings it's way through the whole lot, Tests as well. No serious illnesses of course, but that's probably the only way the ECB can be brought down. And infections are rising again very fast.

Basileus1453 wrote:

As for players being plundered from the Clubs, I am curious about this. Are these players contracted by the board or to their clubs. Totally unfamiliar with this. What is the financial incentives to release players to the Hundred or to England for that matter? When Stewart talks of England first is this just pride or has the financial element taken over here.

Well all 18 Counties were guaranteed a 1.3 million payment every year…..

Greed coming before the game…..

words fail me, they really do

How did no one see that by playing 2 competitions at the same time, 1 of those competitions was going to suffer, let alone that this is happening whilst there is still problems with the pandemic

I, along with may others, hope that The Hundred is a huge flop, but it will never been seen as that, it will be dressed up as a success whether it is or not.

as for the RL Cup, I cant see how Royal London will be too happy as sponsors. And as per usual, it seems Surrey will be suffering the most I put on an earlier thread the following team

Jacks, Roy, Evans, Pope (wk), Burns, Curran, Clark, Curran, Overton, Topley, Dernbach with Plunkett as 12th man

these are players that Surrey wont be able to choose for the RL cup as they are playing in The Hundred. That team would probably beat most other teams in the competition. Instead we will probably end up with a side similar to this

Stoneman, Amla, Patel, Geddes, Smith (wk), ? , Clarke, Atkinson, Dunn, Batty, Moriarty

with the ? being filled by a youngster who has played very little, if any, 1st class cricket

Chinaman wrote:Players don't have to play in the 100. It's their choice. But Virdi and Smith have already declined. Most will because they get paid a lot to do so. The 100 has nothing to do with Surrey or any other club, it's a franchise. Surrey had a golden opportunity to scupper the whole shit show by refusing to host it. They didn't because of a veiled ECB threat to move the Test match to Southampton. Never would have happened of course, and Surrey should have called their bluff. There is no power in the counties to remove the ECB cronies since they stupidity handed over all power to them by voting to remove the First Class Forum some years back. Now they have dragged cricket into the gutter, gave a v sign to the real fans, and blackmailed the counties into submission just to host crickets version of HS2, the vanity 100. I sincerely hope it fails and the ECB goes bust. Cricket needs to be rebuilt and protected and not have its soul sold to the devil.

This is absolutely correct. I spent an hour in Richard Gould's office in November 2017, at the time Surrey were making all the right noises about opposing the concept which was still in the early stages of design. He said to me "we're on the same side". I asked him "so will Surrey ultimately refuse to sign the contracts to agree to the use of our ground?" He smiled and said "well we hold the keys...." then paused and talked about the ECB's threats (never sure whether implicit or explicit) to take away our international allocation and award it to The Ageas. The rest is history.

It is for this reason that I cannot exonerate Surrey from letting the competition through the door, and the devastating consequences we are now witnessing.

It is why I will not allow Surrey to keep all of the "Covid Guarantee" refund they will be obliged to offer us in respect of the cricket we will have lost this year. They might not have been able to do anything about the first two championship matches, but if the Royal London Cup is also obliterated or turned into a complete farce to make way for the Hundred then Surrey have to pay the price for lacking the courage of their convictions.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-hundred-2021-tom-harrison-defends-hundred-disruption-believes-reluctant-fans-will-find-a-place-for-it-1269829

You'll just love this tripe from Harrison. Interesting that they are looking at a 60% capacity and 350,000 tickets have been sold and given away. No split figure though!

as you say, what alot of tripe

I notice that Harrison starts talking about there is an increase in free to air coverage, yet the head of the Womens competition is delighted that all games are on Sky TV. Isnt that contradiction

Like to know how Harrison is confident that cricket lovers will find a place for the tournament. Wonder how sure he is that will happen, or is it just that he doesnt really know the true supporter of CC

Nail hit head from Dobell for the most part

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-hundred-2021-with-friends-like-these-a-hundred-reasons-why-the-ecb-has-failed-the-game-1269911

Also they have given away 350,000 tickets, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-hundred-2021-tom-harrison-defends-hundred-disruption-believes-reluctant-fans-will-find-a-place-for-it-1269829?platform=amp&__twitter_impression=true

If they don't sell or give out any more tickets it'll work out to just a few hundred a game taking in both men and women's games. If it's not pulled, the ODC could well have more spectators! Another reason for them pulling it is they hope more will come to the Wokey 100, but being the great % is county members that's unlikely. I fear many counties may lose members next year though if it is pulled.

If the 100 goes down the toilet, so will Harrison and possibly the ECB. They've invested too much in it for it to fail.