Any cricket lovers on here?

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

I think Bairstow wouldn't be getting so much love if Root hadn't taken that catch.

Quite. Every replay of the catch reminded me of the wicketkeeping problem.

The most stunning thing was that there was no movement from him whatsoever.

Could they have told him not to even try to catch anything on the side where 1st slip is?

Tashman

bobmcstuff said:

Tashman said:

Now all that Test nonsense is out of the way, we can at least start to focus on the Nottingham Fizzy Prawn Snacks vs Southampton Bear Munchies. Proper Creeekit

So many gimmicks - we have had an on-field interview with a fielder and a camera on the keeper's head so far.

Plus some gormless explanations of the powerplay which probably don't help a new viewer at all - best just ignored I think.

I might dip in to the BBC games, but won't go out of my way. The cricket itself can be great and spectacular, you know, just like the Blast, but why introduce a format that nobody else plays or will ever play. The fielder interview I saw them do at the Big Bash. I wouldn't mind a camera on the umpire sometimes as that would be a great perspective with some decisions, but then I'm a geeky umpire myself.

bobmcstuff

I'm dragging a load of colleagues who've never been to a cricket game to the Hundred at Old Trafford after work on Monday now though so that's got to be a good thing.

Pross

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

My parents watch the Hundred. My dad had never previously watched any cricket in his whole life. Small sample size, but I think that is the point.

I mostly just watch proper cricket.

bobmcstuff

Pross said:

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

I mean it's just t20 but each innings is 3.2 overs shorter in the end isn't it (because apparently 6 is too complicated), I think the biggest thing is that it is a) short like a t20 and b) not behind a paywall so normal people can actually watch it.

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

My parents watch the Hundred. My dad had never previously watched any cricket in his whole life. Small sample size, but I think that is the point.

I mostly just watch proper cricket.

It is much easier to get non-fans to watch it but that's partly because it's free-to-air. The in-ground tickets are cheap too (we are going for £20/head, which for 2 games is pretty good value - although the women's is during the working day so we won't get there till the men's. If you had kids off on school hols I can imagine it being quite appealing).

JimD666

bobmcstuff said:

Tashman said:

Now all that Test nonsense is out of the way, we can at least start to focus on the Nottingham Fizzy Prawn Snacks vs Southampton Bear Munchies. Proper Creeekit

So many gimmicks - we have had an on-field interview with a fielder and a camera on the keeper's head so far..

Sky have been doing that with the T20 almost since it's inception so it's hardly a Hundred thing

bobmcstuff

JimD666 said:

bobmcstuff said:

Tashman said:

Now all that Test nonsense is out of the way, we can at least start to focus on the Nottingham Fizzy Prawn Snacks vs Southampton Bear Munchies. Proper Creeekit

So many gimmicks - we have had an on-field interview with a fielder and a camera on the keeper's head so far..

Sky have been doing that with the T20 almost since it's inception so it's hardly a Hundred thing

See above re: it not being behind a paywall then. I've not watched any of the t20 games really (apart from finals day this year) because I got a deal on sky sports on NowTV just for the Ashes.

bobmcstuff

Tashman said:

Now all that Test nonsense is out of the way, we can at least start to focus on the Nottingham Fizzy Prawn Snacks vs Southampton Bear Munchies. Proper Creeekit

Skips and Pom-Bears are more meaningful to me than most of the England sponsors are tbf. Took me a while to figure out what Cinch is.

And if you can't pick a team you can just root for your favourite crisps...

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

My parents watch the Hundred. My dad had never previously watched any cricket in his whole life. Small sample size, but I think that is the point.

I mostly just watch proper cricket.

Is that just because it's available, or is there something about the format that makes it easier to understand? I have to admit when I've seen bits of it on the TV I can't work out what everything round the screen is trying to tell me.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

My parents watch the Hundred. My dad had never previously watched any cricket in his whole life. Small sample size, but I think that is the point.

I mostly just watch proper cricket.

Is that just because it's available, or is there something about the format that makes it easier to understand? I have to admit when I've seen bits of it on the TV I can't work out what everything round the screen is trying to tell me.

I think free to air and retirement are factors, but the format has helped a lot too. They also assume viewers know nothing about the game, so have really basic explanations.

I found also found it hard to follow, but I didn't try very hard.

Pross

The screen looks like a 1990s computer game.

bobmcstuff

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

My parents watch the Hundred. My dad had never previously watched any cricket in his whole life. Small sample size, but I think that is the point.

I mostly just watch proper cricket.

Is that just because it's available, or is there something about the format that makes it easier to understand? I have to admit when I've seen bits of it on the TV I can't work out what everything round the screen is trying to tell me.

Balls count down on one side and runs count up on the other? They show balls rather than overs because they assume people are too stupid for overs.

verylonglegs

Pross said:

The screen looks like a 1990s computer game.

80's I think, computer games were already looking much better by the 90's.

The point about the hundred as TBB says is that it's on terrestial TV. Cricket has been hidden behind a paywall for far too long. Stokes said in his interview with BBC after yesterdays conclusion that he hoped to inspire a new young generation to play cricket with that series yet from what I recall there was not an awful lot of youngsters in the crowd and this was the school holidays, the current test audience is old. Families do seem to be making an effort to get in grounds and watch the hundred.

They do need to make a choice and decide whether they are going to back it fully or the T20 competition in my opinion, having both is too much.

TheBigBean

Lords was £160 a seat this year. That's not a family day out price.

bobmcstuff

There were a lot of kids in the crowd at Old Trafford - they featured heavily in the concourse cricket while it was raining...

In fact I don't remember the crowd being noticeably or surprisingly old, although obviously there were a lot of old people there (including my dad whos 70th birthday present the Friday tickets were, and who got me into cricket). Although I was in the party stand on Saturday which is cheaper I guess. And less popular with old people.

bobmcstuff

Apparently Jafer Chohan for Southern Brave is a potential future England player.

In other news I bought some Pom-Bears on my way home, forgot they existed!

bobmcstuff

Oh Rehan Ahmed bowling as well, that's cool.

It's confusing with the lack of overs anywhere, it's all just on balls - and they don't make any fuss out of the change in ends. But I guess that is probably easier to understand for noobs.

kingstongraham

In the 1 minute I just watched, I was cheering for Pom Bears because they are obviously superior to Skips.

bobmcstuff

kingstongraham said:

In the 1 minute I just watched, I was cheering for Pom Bears because they are obviously superior to Skips.

I agree but my wife is team Skips. I really enjoyed my whim-bought pom bears.

The game was quite good I thought, as good as any t20 really. Helps that it was a tight chase I guess (obviously pale compared to yesterday, it's like methadone).

verylonglegs

I have a near zero sweet tooth so I'll always back the savoury option. Saqib Mahmood was on comms due to injury just like he was last year iirc..another semi-permanently crocked fast bowler it seems unfortunately.

I'll be attempting to do my bit by trying to introduce a friends kids to cricket at the weekend, thankfully they are still too young to realise that despite my love of the game I was always useless at it.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

In the 1 minute I just watched, I was cheering for Pom Bears because they are obviously superior to Skips.

Now you’re just being silly. That’s the sort of trolling I expect from Stevo!

surrey_commuter

bobmcstuff said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

My parents watch the Hundred. My dad had never previously watched any cricket in his whole life. Small sample size, but I think that is the point.

I mostly just watch proper cricket.

Is that just because it's available, or is there something about the format that makes it easier to understand? I have to admit when I've seen bits of it on the TV I can't work out what everything round the screen is trying to tell me.

Balls count down on one side and runs count up on the other? They show balls rather than overs because they assume people are too stupid for overs.

Stumbled across it last night and as the runs were counting down I assumed so were the wickets they had seven left, apparently not.

Am I the only one who keeps doing the math to work out RPO.

Rashid Khan has pulled out of the tournament so that is me done.

bobmcstuff

Yeah I also keep trying to work out rpo and required run rate per over, but when you just look at it in terms of runs per ball it's quite simple - I can see it being easier for a new fan, usually when someone asks questions about cricket I can see them start to glaze over about when you start explaining what an over is.

One thing I twigged yesterday is they bowl ten from each end but each bowler only has to do 5 in a row (but can do 10) - couldn't figure out why the strike wasn't rotating like I expected.

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

I think Bairstow wouldn't be getting so much love if Root hadn't taken that catch.

That highlights a further problem of using a sub-standard keeper. First slip has to stand that bit finer, so the 4th slip then becomes the 3.5th slip etc. and there's less chance of something going between the traditional 4th slip position and gulley being snaffled etc.

And if the bowling side lacks faith in the keeper (as must have been the case given Baitstow's various "crimes against the gauntlets" despite the public statements) then it affects the bowlers too, as if you've got no confidence that the keeper will take an edge, then you're less likely to put the ball in the area to induce one. I speak from experience here, as my nickname during my wicketkeeping days in the village 2nd XI was "Teflon", as nothing ever stuck.

He improved through the series, but still isn't test class, and as others have said, the Ashes is no place to be finding your match fitness.

Without the benefit of hindsight, before the series, I'd have canned Crawley, and sent Pope in as opener with Root at 3. I know Root prefers 4, but he's England's best batsman and someone has to do it. Brooke 4, Bairstow (specialist batsman) 5 and Stokes (specialist batsman by default as he can't bowl) 6 with Foakes at 7.

There was a podcast thing before the final test with Aggers, Vaughan etc. in which the Bairstow situation was discussed. Vaughan said he'd have gone with Bairstow (assuming he was fit) as keeper, which isn't surprising as he picked Geraint Jones as keeper over the clearly superior Chris Read. But he did add that in Bairstow's case, this was heavily driven by the fact that though Crawley was the obvious man in the frame to be dropped to accommodate Foakes, the absence of alternative opening batsman options tipped the balance in Crawley's favour.

bobmcstuff

Crawley had a good series in the end, I would have binned him off before the series too.

I wonder how he will go in Australia now as he seems to have improved since last time and he had one decent score - since he always seems to get out nicking off, and seems to be OK with bounce, you'd think he has more potential there maybe? Presume he will be in for India.

Tashman

surrey_commuter said:

bobmcstuff said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

I'm still struggling to understand the need for The Hundred. I like the franchise idea and that's what Twenty20 should have done and the mens and womens matches together is good but other than that it really doesn't offer enough of a difference from the 20 over format and the on-screen graphics give me a migraine.

My parents watch the Hundred. My dad had never previously watched any cricket in his whole life. Small sample size, but I think that is the point.

I mostly just watch proper cricket.

Is that just because it's available, or is there something about the format that makes it easier to understand? I have to admit when I've seen bits of it on the TV I can't work out what everything round the screen is trying to tell me.

Balls count down on one side and runs count up on the other? They show balls rather than overs because they assume people are too stupid for overs.

Stumbled across it last night and as the runs were counting down I assumed so were the wickets they had seven left, apparently not.

Am I the only one who keeps doing the math to work out RPO.

Rashid Khan has pulled out of the tournament so that is me done.

Your use of the phrase "doing the math" is almost as offensive as those awful graphics

wallace_and_gromit

bobmcstuff said:

Crawley had a good series in the end, I would have binned him off before the series too.

I wonder how he will go in Australia now as he seems to have improved since last time and he had one decent score - since he always seems to get out nicking off, and seems to be OK with bounce, you'd think he has more potential there maybe? Presume he will be in for India.

Hopefully he's turned the corner mentally and will do full justice to his obvious huge natural talent.

bobmcstuff

Tyrell's vs KP tonight

Pross

bobmcstuff said:

Tyrell's vs KP tonight

The crisp derby