I really, really wanted to give The Hundred draft a chance. I really did. Oh who am I kidding? I hated the idea from the start. It’s almost impossible to like the idea. It’s like forcing yourself to be objective about genital herpes. Not. Gonna. Happen.
However, my initial doubts concerning this tawdry and quite ridiculous competition seem increasingly prophetic every day. My stomach turns every time additional details reach the public domain. The latest concerns the player draft they’re holding on October 3rd. No wonder so many people oppose the concept.
Now I’m not against drafts per se. I love the NFL draft. It’s the process by which the best up and coming players from college football are allocated to professional franchises. The team with the worst record from the previous season gets to pick first, and the reigning Super Bowl champions pick last. It’s a simple concept.
The Hundred Draft, on the other hand, is completely different. And it doesn’t half seem complicated (a bit like the playing regulations themselves). So much for making cricket simpler.
So how’s it going to work? I’d like to tell you in detail but I got half way through reading this Cricinfo summary and suddenly lost the will to live. However, I did manage to glean that England players will be allocated first.
Each terribly named franchise – I still think “Trent Rockets’ is possibly the lamest name in the history of sports – can pick one England player from their ‘catchment area’ i.e. the counties who make up that region; so the Leeds Super Dooper Chargers (or whatever they’re called) could choose any player from Yorkshire or Durham i.e. Stokes, Root or Bairstow.
If there isn’t an England player in a particular area – for example I’m struggling to think of one that the Southampton Softies (or whatever they’re called) could pick – then they can choose an England player ignored earlier in the process. For example, if Leeds chose Root then Stokes or Bairstow would be available to the Softies. Lucky them!
Now if you thought the above involved a lot of fuss over players who’ll only play a couple of games anyway (because they’ll mainly be playing test cricket during the window), then wait until you cop a load of this. The ECB may also allocate ‘non-playing players’ to certain franchises to serve marketing roles.
That’s right folks. Players who don’t normally play much short form cricket (like Jimmy Anderson) will be rolled out to smile politely, wave to the crowds, sign a few autographs, kiss a few babies, and then make a sharp exit. How lovely for everyone concerned.
The next stage in this joyous and not at all convoluted process involves franchises reserving up to two ‘local icons’. A local icon could be any player who currently plays for a county in a particular catchment area. One assumes this might be a folk hero who isn’t quite good enough to play for England e.g. Peter Trego.
Although this seems like a good idea on the surface – after all, it might help fan engagement if there’s a known quantity on a franchise’s books – the ECB seem to have forgotten that this competition isn’t for existing cricket fans. It’s for people who don’t currently like cricket. Therefore the uninitiated will have no idea who the hell Peter Trego is anyway. So what exactly is the point of this aspect of The Hundred draft?
Finally, the ECB have decided that each team will be permitted three overseas players. Personally I’m surprised by this. I thought they might allow unlimited overseas players based on who they’ve selected as coaches for the tournament. That’s right folks, all eight tasteless teams have appointed foreign coaches:
Leeds: Darren Lehmann
Cardiff: Gary Kirsten
Birmingham: Andrew Ronald McDonald
London A: Shane Warne
London B: Tom Moody
Manchester: Simon Katich
Nottingham: Stephen Fleming
Softies: Mahela Jayawardene
I’m afraid that each and every one of these coaches has gone down in my estimation since signing on the dotted line. I don’t begrudge them earning a buck but some of them have acted particularly shamelessly. Take Warney, for example.
When The Hundred was announced Warne seemed quick to criticise the new format. And yet suddenly, after a big bag of banknotes was waved under his eyes, he’s now all in favour.
August 2018: “I’m not sure I’m a fan of ‘The 100’ … we’ve got three formats that work really well and you don’t need to confuse spectators with any more.”
August 2019: “I love the concept of The Hundred and it has grabbed my attention in the same way the IPL did”.
I’m also somewhat riled by the inclusion of Darren Lehmann. This is the coach who was in charge of Australia during the sandpaper ball tampering affair. He was also the man who hoped Australian crowds would make Stuart Broad cry in 2015. And of course, let’s not forget Lehmann’s racial slur against Sri Lankan players back in 2003.
It’s one thing for the ECB to hand out lucrative contracts to overseas coaches whilst ignoring every single English coach; it’s quite another to hand them out to a pantomime (or actual) villain like Lehmann.
And don’t forget folks, it’s us – the supporters who buy match tickets, pay our licence fees, and fork out for our Sky Sports subscriptions – who are essentially paying for this car crash.
Right. I’m off to lie down in a darkened room. If you’d like to read more about The Hundred draft just Google “stupidest competitions in cricket”. You won’t be surprised what comes top of the search results.
James Morgan
Subscribe to receive new article notifications via email
The hundred in my view is a disaster waiting to happen. It further accentuates the emphasis on very short form cricket, and will increase the marginalization of long form cricket (the County championship is already confined largely to the beginnings and ends of English seasons, which flatters medium paced nibblers and makes life difficult for batters). It is also going to damage domestic 50 over cricket, effectively turning that competition into a second team/ youth team affair, with the best cricketers being focused on the hundred.
The Hundred bears all the hallmarks of bureaucratic decision making. I used to work in the NHS hierarchy and I found it amazing what people will end-up believing, and voting-for, after being locked-up in a meeting for a few hours.
So long as the people managing the business are getting well paid for it – they do not care a jot if (or rather when) the whole immensely expensive nonsense comes crashing down.
(In the world of bureaucracy, status/ salary/ promotions come from ‘managing’ Big New projects. So long as they are big and new, what happens afterwards is irrelevant.)
The only questions are exactly how long it will take for the ECB to admit that the The Hundred has failed, and how much damage to English cricket it will inflict in the meantime.
If it fails, and I’d help to flush it down the toilet, cricket will take a huge financial hit. The ECB has thrown everything at it. Some second div counties may go to the wall. But it’ll be worth it in the long run. How are they going to develop red ball? Well Giles says it’s now a priority. 3 county games in the whole of June July August. Yeah well…..
I had a similar reaction to the Hundred recruitment rules. I can only think they came up with them at the end of a very long, and very good, lunch. What is the point of getting non-short form playing test players (Anderson, Cook, Burns, for example) to smile and wave to people who (per the blurb) don’t like long form cricket? One can only think that the harebrained element of Harrison’s have a hit has extended to Mr Harrison. I trust these players will get paid for this rubbish.
As far as I can see, the recruitment process gets you about 6 players.Plenty of gaps in the field then.
A lot of the success will depend on the quality of the overseas players: in particular, will the BCCI allow Indian players to take part?
England players: I’d take Stokes over Root or Bairstow any day. Jonny B is one of the most overrated (not least by himself) players around.
Have to agree with your comments about the coaches (though I do think Warne will make a good coach).
The central problem with the Hundred is that there are currently 3 established forms of international cricket: tests, ODI and T20. In format terms, setting up the Hundred is about as relevant to international player development as the John Player (40 over Sunday) League was to ODI’s.
It’s crazy isn’t it. By the way, there’s sod all chance of Indian players being allowed to participate in The Hundred.
Next you’ll be telling me that Boris Johnson is pulling a fast one!
“The central problem with the Hundred is that there are currently 3 established forms of international cricket: tests, ODI and T20.”
…and what has driven given the development of the 16.6 is that the ECB doesn’t own the rights to any of them. The 16.6 has absolutely nothing to do with cricket, and is all about the ECB owning a format, complete with media, marketing and merchandising rights.
For those interested (OK), I’ve found the team names:
Manchester Originals
Northern Superchargers (Based at Headingley)
Birmingham Phoenix
Trent Rockets
Western Fire (Cardiff)
London Spirit (Lord’s)
Oval Invincibles
Southern Brave (Southampton)
Where do we start? From the top:
Why “Originals”?
The Yorkshire crowd won’t like anything without “Yorkshire” in it.
A Phoenix is something that rises from the ashes of a fire. Are they trying to tell us something?
“Trent Rockets”: just Yuk
Western (not Welsh) Fire: not great
I thought “London Spirit” was something to do with gin.
“Oval Invincibles”: wonder how long it will take for the team to prove that name wrong. There’s only ever been one team of Invincibles.
Southern Brave: Obviously the one left over after the “good” names had gone.
There doesn’t seem to be the remotest connection to cricket in any of these.
I appreciate the ECB may not be after cricket fans, but I can guarantee that they are also not after the mothers and children, they are basically after the drinkers – I’m guessing they want to mirror the success of the premier league darts where 15000 lads go to do nothing else but get absolutely bladdered and sing about Yaya Toure
That said, a lot of these lads already go to the T20 blast
I’ve yet to meet anyone who is intending to go and being from Liverpool I’m not going to be going 35 miles to support a Manchester team I’ve no afiliation to
Worst still they are basing the ladies side in the middle of nowhere – maybe they may get one or 2 lake district holiday makers but I doubt it
Well you’re probably right, that IS the audience they’re looking for. What I have always found as a major flaw in the logic (assuming there is some) is why would a non-cricket loving mum take her kids to the Hundred unless she was encouraged by someone who does love cricket? And hopefully all those people will boycott the dratted thing and continue to go to the Blast or take the non-cricket loving mum and kids there. I just can’t imagine who these people they say they are hoping to attract might be.
The second worst thing about this whole business is the impact it will have on the women’s game. The worst is the sound of ex international women cricketers who, having taking the shilling, are spouting about how wonderful it’s going to be.
….. and they get double points when they play their joker….
As a Surrey member and supporter I am sick to the back teeth of hearing people say “we want to do all we can to make it succeed”.. It can only succeed at the expense of all other forms of cricket that we recognise and love. Therefore, it absolutely needs to fail. If that means sinking a huge amount of the game’s money in the process, so be it. At least we will have something to rescue from the rubble.
While I love the tradition of an 18-county championship, I have limited sympathy for the small counties who were the first to grab the money which the ECB threw at them. These turkeys frankly deserve Christmas. I am not sure that we can do anything at this stage to save them from the fate for which they have consciously voted.
I would love to see a breakaway organisation from the ECB, akin to what happened in darts a generation ago. Call it the County Cricket Conference. They could re-establish championship matches in the heart of summer, incorporate a 50-over competition and T20 tournament. There should be no salary cap in the breakaway county conference, enabling counties to compete with the ECB for the services of centrally-contracted and overseas players. It isn’t ideal, but it has to be better than the purgatory for which the game is heading under the ECB’s stewardship.
Totally agree Bob.
I don’t know what to think about the 100. I think the ECB have looked at Baseball in the US and NFL drafts and thought we can do that here. The difference is Baseball is the same game now has it’s always been. It’s built for a thousand adverts and is 162 games a year where people follow the stats. This is what the ECB are trying to achieve with the 100. Not the 162 games but all the TV advertising and no doubt the TV punditry that will go with. Cricket the game in this format will be just a bastardised version of it former self. Not a good place to be.
Youve certainly hit the nail on the head when you say you hate the idea of The Hundred James. I respectfully suggest you read The Cricketer editorial on the subject, rather imaginatively titled, ‘How do you solve a problem like The Hundred’. It’s the best I’ve read yet, broadly informative with a clear remit behind it, yet not in any way one eyed.
I’ve always thought one of cricket’s prime problems in getting new fans involved is it’s use of what is now, thanks to the new metropolitan boundary system, an outdated idea of county identity. Apart from the likes of Yorkshire and Cornwall, who have always seen themselves as a country within a country, who thinks of themselves in terms of county identity now? i doubt most school kids could name 20 English counties. With cities broadening their suburban population and the countryside depopulating maybe it’s time to go the footie route, promoting cities to get new fans involved. I’ve always thought of myself as a Warwickshireman, but geographically I clearly am not and haven’t been for years. I am either a West Midlander or a Brummie.
After all in Victorian and Edwardian times most cricketers played for teams who identified themselves with either a sponsor or a town, so the county system we have now is hardly an ancient tradition written in stone.
Maybe it’s time the game in general changed tack to be more relevant to modern society. Traditionally cricket has always done this anyway, reflecting the times better than any other game.
As to foreign coaches and players why not, footie does it all the time and I don’t notice support or interest dwindling there. Fans seem content to carry on supporting whoever pulls on their team’s shirt and give most managers a chance. It’s the boardrooms who sack repeatedly not the fans.
For me the main problem with The Hundred is its dire marketing campaign, which reflects badly on those trying to implement it. There seems very little coherence coming out at the moment, making it difficult to judge one way or the other.
In a sense, your county have already trialled the city-based concept by re-styling the T20 side as “Birmingham Bears” a few years ago. I am not aware that a whole new audience of Brummies flocked to Edgbaston on the back of this. Indeed, a couple of years ago they played a quarter-final at The Oval. The travelling away fans wore “Warwickshire” shirts and chanted “Warwickshire” or “You Bears”. There didn’t seem to be much traction with the city brand.
The point about The Hundred is it’s apparent remit to attract new fans, not just the existing, who of course will be Warwickshire supporters, having always assisciated their team wit the county. We’re talking about the future here not the past.
How many people do you know who claim their county above their city as their home? (Where do you live, Warwickshire. I don’t think so.)
Yes but who is going to travel more than about 20 miles to watch a game lasting 2 hours.? Remember this is only being played in 8 venues. A Somerset supporter told me this year that he’d have to travel to Cardiff to watch a 100 game, but can watch a T20 at Taunton. Which would you choose? The franchise works in Aussie and India because of vastly different demographics and fan base’s.
Another major issue with is, and boy there are hundreds (pun), is that outside of the Oval and Lords people generally do not have the disposable income to go to two similar games that are competing with a whole range of leisure activities waiting to take thier cash.
Who is the mystery audience who would be attracted to this rather than T20? It’s marketing consultants bull shit quite frankly. I’ve seen all Surrey’s Championship away fixtures this year for my sins, and have spoken to members and supporters extensively from Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Somerset, Kent, Notts and Hampshire among others. OK they may not be the “target” audience, but only ONE person said they were actually going to watch it.
Best option? Play it on the dark side of the moon where no one can watch it. But quite frankly it’s insulting to brand a team name Oval Invincibles.
Thousands of people all over the country do a deal more than that to support their footie team, so if you’re looking to encourage more than fair weather support why not make a day of it?
There are such things as credit cards these days which extend people’s supposedly limited disposable income. Generally the cricket fan is better off than the footie yet this doesn’t seem to affect those attendances. They’re all there with their £100 new season shirts, many with season tickets costing a small fortune.
If you go to white ball matches anyway I don’t see the issue with watching The Hundred. All right it’s a marketing disaster, but how does that affect the quality of
cricket. Names can be changed if the fans don’t like them, it’s only cosmetic. The only inspiring footie team name is United. All the rest are a bit of a damp squib, whose inspired by the likes of Rovers, Albion, Wednesday, Hotspur, many teams don’t even have one, just their location. Rugby is even weirder, with names like Harlequins, Saracens and Wasps that give no clue to location, so what’s in a name really. People adapt to supporting almost anything given time.
I agree there may be a lot of folk feeling disenfranchised by the reduction of teams but there are still plenty of punters who live within a reasonable distance to commute. After all this is still in the experimental stages, so it’s early days yet. If it takes off more teams could well be added.
Warne’s comment is genuine. It grabbed his attention in the same way the ipl did. With a big pile of cash. I’d be excited by that concept as well.
If the ECB want to get more people playing cricket, make it more popular, get women playing – they need …
A Soft Ball.
So long as cricket is played with a lethal missile, its appeal will be limited. I have never understood the English obsession with spoiling an enjoyable amateur or kids’ game by playing with a hard ball that requires protective clothing and still causes significant injury.
As a young kid I was really enjoying tennis ball cricket until (aged 9 or 10) we were made to play with a hard ball – split blackened nails, bruised knuckles, jarred fingers, smashed shins… A couple of games, and I was finished with cricket; and avoided playing as much as I could.
Clearly soft ball cricket does not harm skills; since Pakistan are probably the most skilled players in the world, and they have all been brought-up playing tape ball cricket (and it is easy to make a better ball than a tape ball). Something analogous for England – semi professional soft ball cricket – would probably be the best new form of the game for the future.
Nuff said.
I think you make a good point here. Need to continue with the hard ball as well, but the soft ball alternative would certainly keep more kids playing for longer. Hard balls often deterred fielding and catching as well, which after all is what you spend most of your time doing during a match. Personally I never had an issue with it as a kid as we played with tennis balls amongst ourselves all the time as it was cheaper, caused less damage and incidentally was good practice against bouncing deliveries, which seem to cause most problems with the hard ball. Even if you don’t go on to play seriously it’s still a good way to keep kids interested in following the game. You can fling yourself about in the field as well without risking injury.
When I first started playing properly we used a rubber composite ball on matting or concrete so the bounce was slower and more even than grass and as a bowler you could still spin, swing and seam the ball. This is the problem with a soft ball, every ball is potentially cannon fodder and many of the bowling skills are lost.
Oh, and everything in James’s article applies only to the men’s Hundred teams. The women’s Hundred teams will use an entirely different system. Of course — it’s a brand new competition with men’s and women’s teams, so no need for the same rules to apply to both.
Even with the men’s system, the complexity and exceptions are ridiculous. England players not picked by their ‘local’ team nor by a region without an England player then get assigned back to their local team anyway. Every squad has 15 players … except that England players don’t count towards that limit, so squads will actual vary in size based on how many England players they get.
Presumably Joe Denly — recently successful in England’s test team but dropped from the world cup — counts as an England player for these purposes, because he has a white-ball central contract?
There’s an identical budget per squad. Except that England players’ wages are on top of the budget.
Once the England players and local players have been picked, the squads will be settled at the draft. Except for one player who can be added much later. And overseas players, which can be swapped in and out during the tournament.
There’s more strategy in handling the squad-picking process than there will be on the pitch!
Also, it took Cricinfo a while with that story — Tim WIgmore had the the draft and team composition details in ‘The Telegraph’ 3 weeks earlier: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/08/31/exclusive-franchise-hundred-have-least-one-england-test-star/