Cricket thread

[newts]

It's a no from me! Mrs Newts says she prefers the longer format (of the game).

 

[CanucksTraveller]

It's okay.... different. I've actually watched all the women's and men's games so far and it's entertaining enough, but in an odd way for a purist test match fan, it's a bit like car crash cricket where there are huge risks being taken with every shot. Joey Whizzbang circus cricket.

One big plus is the chance to watch Harmanpreet Kaur bat some more, she is just fabulous to watch.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I've watched a bit of the hundred and I'm struggling to see how it's different to/better than 20/20.

Has it just been invented for IP licensing reasons or something like that?

 

[AndyRM]

As I understand it, the format is designed to attract younger viewers, and provides an equal platform for women's teams with matches played back to back and an even split of the prize money.

I've not had a chance to watch any yet, but I'm glad it's free to air, I get that without Sky's money the game would struggle financially but I do find it frustrating the way they monopolise so much sport.

 

[Dogtrousers]

As I understand it, the format is designed to attract younger viewers, and provides an equal platform for women's teams with matches played back to back and an even split of the prize money.

I've not had a chance to watch any yet, but I'm glad it's free to air, I get that without Sky's money the game would struggle financially but I do find it frustrating the way they monopolise so much sport.

I've watched some. In my uneducated opinion it's broadly the same as 20/20. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not convinced that there's a long term future for both of them.

 

[AndyRM]

I've watched some. In my uneducated opinion it's broadly the same as 20/20. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not convinced that there's a long term future for both of them.

Yeah, I'd agree with that, main difference seems to be the prize money which I think is a good thing.

I'm not really a fan of 20/20 - there is little skill involved, just battering the ball. I don't mind 50 overs, almost like a condensed Test.

 

[Pale Rider]

Purists were very sniffy about 20/20 when that started - some still are - but it seems to me it has now taken over from 50 overs as the top short form, nationally and internationally.

The Hundred looks similar to 20/20 to me, although I believe there are some rule differences to keep the game moving.

A team loses a close in fielder for the last few 'sets' if they miss a time cut off - which was clearly news to Bairstow in the last game he captained.

Field changes are not allowed unless the batsmen changes, not such a bad idea because some later overs had become more about the captain and bowler talking to each other than bowling any cricket balls.

Having the women's and men's game the same day makes sense from a spectator point of view, creating a 'day at the cricket' rather like the old 40 over Sunday league.

The telly graphics look garish to me, but it's a good enough watch apart from that.

 

[Toshiba Boy]

Got to say, myself and my wife are hooked, but then again her eldest son (my stepson) is playing in it ( as he does in the T20s) so we do have a tiny tad of a vested interest.

Would agree with Pale Rider's comments above.

It is very much designed to attract new/younger audiences, to a sport that on the whole, outside of T20, has been very gradually dying a slow death (International test matches apart).

 

[Pale Rider]

but then again her eldest son (my stepson) is playing in it

That'll be Tom Banton, obviously.

The Somerset hotshot hasn't quite fired so far.

Perhaps he needs some of his mum's home cooking.

 

[Toshiba Boy]

That'll be Tom Banton, obviously.

The Somerset hotshot hasn't quite fired so far.

Perhaps he needs some of his mum's home cooking.

Not quite so obvious Pale Rider.....

Although my wife is a chef, and her son (who is not Tom Banton) does love his Mum's food (as do I).

 

[Grant Fondo]

What with all this distraction from Tokyo .... Eng v India TOMORROW

 

[Grant Fondo]

Tend to agree with the pundits, but who knows?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58023809

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Tend to agree with the pundits, but who knows?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58023809

A couple of pundits mention the loss of Woakes. I haven't ever got the impression that he was ever considered vital to the England team before. Admittedly, I don't have the figures in front of me but he's always seemed to be on the possible list more than the probable list anyway.

 

[AndyRM]

A couple of pundits mention the loss of Woakes. I haven't ever got the impression that he was ever considered vital to the England team before. Admittedly, I don't have the figures in front of me but he's always seemed to be on the possible list more than the probable list anyway.

He's not vital, but he's totally underrated. Great player.

I think England are going to take a hiding in this series, though I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Just back to the Hundred for a second, I'm enjoying it a lot but does anyone know if there's a "mute Kevin Pietersen" button on the Sky app?
You can see how a whole dressing room fell out with the boorish peanut. I took to Twitter to see if it was just me, but no, seems there's not a lot of love for KP on comms.