The Hundred

Richard Pryor

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Posts
6,946
Likes
8,717
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#51
100 balls is a gimmick too far. Almost comes across as England being offended at the Indians making T20 a success and want to make their own format successful instead of being second.

Would be worth it if they can bring cricket back to the common man in the country though. Someone said something about England falling to T20, if you ask me it's much better than England fully falling to soccer.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bomberboyokay

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Posts
24,420
Likes
21,249
Location
The Temple, Boyle Heights
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
West Ham, Roosters, Mets
Thread starter #52
100 balls is a gimmick too far. Almost comes across as England being offended at the Indians making T20 a success and want to make their own format successful instead of being second.

Would be worth it if they can bring cricket back to the common man in the country though. Someone said something about England falling to T20, if you ask me it's much better than England fully falling to soccer.
Apparently BBC (which hasn't shown cricket since 1999) refused to give ECB over three hours per game. So 20 less balls per innings.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Posts
27,696
Likes
19,985
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
#55
Because the only reason matches aren't fitting within the timeframe 'required' by the Beeb is because some of the over rates in T20 are shocking, just as they are in ODIs and Tests. Ultimately I doubt 20 balls will make a huge difference if over rates aren't dealt with, because they'll just draw it out anyway, and there will be some matches that go over for unforeseen reasons, as that's just the nature of sport.
 

Bomberboyokay

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Posts
24,420
Likes
21,249
Location
The Temple, Boyle Heights
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
West Ham, Roosters, Mets
Thread starter #56
Because the only reason matches aren't fitting within the timeframe 'required' by the Beeb is because some of the over rates in T20 are shocking, just as they are in ODIs and Tests. Ultimately I doubt 20 balls will make a huge difference if over rates aren't dealt with, because they'll just draw it out anyway, and there will be some matches that go over for unforeseen reasons, as that's just the nature of sport.
BBL games go longer than 3 hours. It's the format.
 

Damon_3388

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Posts
30,504
Likes
23,272
Location
Headed for Kirribilli House
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red WIngs
#60
100 balls is a gimmick too far. Almost comes across as England being offended at the Indians making T20 a success and want to make their own format successful instead of being second.

Would be worth it if they can bring cricket back to the common man in the country though. Someone said something about England falling to T20, if you ask me it's much better than England fully falling to soccer.
A reminder - cricket, T20 cricket and association football were first played in England.
 
Top Bottom