The ECB will have its work cut out to see its 10-ball over gimmick come to pass after being told by PCA chairman Daryl Mitchell that it is completely impractical when considering the wellbeing bowlers who would have to bowl it
Plans for a 10-ball over to close out the innings in the controversial “Hundred” concept could be on the scrapheap after meeting with stern opposition from the Professional Cricketers’ Association.
The ECB will have its work cut out to see its 10-ball over gimmick come to pass after being told by PCA chairman Daryl Mitchell that it is completely impractical when considering the wellbeing of bowlers who would have to bowl it.
The death overs of limited-overs cricket are almost invariably the realm of fast bowlers, and Mitchell believes that it would be asking too much of them to bowl a 10-ball over at the speed and intensity generally expected of them in the crunch period of an innings.
“People who are going to bowl at the death are concerned because of the physical demands. I don’t think it would be possible to ask Tymal Mills to bowl a 10-ball over at 92-93 miles per hour…if you throw in the odd wide or no ball then it becomes 12 or 13 balls and I don’t think that’s good for the game.”
Since the ECB announced that the new competition, starting in 2020, will be a bizarrely abbreviated version of the globally popular T20, there have been concerns voiced about how one fits an innings consisting of a century of deliveries into the traditional cricketing DNA of the six-ball over.
PCA chairman Daryl Mitchell has questioned the 10-ball over concept
With the 15 overs of six and one of ten seeming certain to be shelved, alternatives were brought forward in these talks between various players, headed by Mitchell, and the ECB’s marketing specialists at the helm of the “Hundred”’s conception.
“I don’t think [the ECB] want to go too far away from cricket now,” Mitchell continued, “so they don’t want 20 five-ball overs. Maybe we could have eight-ball overs at the start and end of an innings to make up the hundred.”
Another idea discussed is giving the fielding captain power to call time on an over after four balls. This would be used as a tactical decision to stop a thunderous batsman wreaking havoc in his tracks where every ball has disappeared to the fence. It would enable the captain to get the likes of Jos Buttler or AB de Villiers off strike and put the bowler out of his misery.
This would raise the eyebrows of players, pundits and supporters alike just as much as 10-ball over did, and critics will say it is hardly sticking to the ECB’s brief of making the game simpler to a potential new audience.
It is understood that the ECB will meet next month with a working group consisting of numerous high-profile figures, including administrators, broadcasters, coaches and county execs to discuss and dissect just how the Hundred will be constructed.
Posted by Gail Constantine on 03/07/2018 at 11:10
My daughters don't like T20 in this country because the amount of alcohol consumed by the lads... it's not a great night out if you're pestered and have beer spilled all over you! So unless the Hundred is any different in that respect, they won't go.They'd rather go to a rugby match at Sandy Park to watch Chiefs play. I (despite being a mere woman) prefer the long game anyhow.
Posted by Philip Walker on 30/06/2018 at 16:35
The main objection/problem with the 100 is surely that since no one else plays it, it would be redundant, the elephant in the room. In the end games have to be played against somebody and if we're the only ones playing it that rules out touring teams, other countries, international competition. Personally I can't see why the T20 audience would want to switch to this and if they are not the audience do we really want fans with the attention span of a gnat? Surely the aim should be to encourage crossover - county stalwarts going to 50 over cricket (as they do, in numbers) and T20 fans getting hooked on the longer, more subtle form -with a little help from those promoting the game.
Posted by Heather Booth di Giovanni on 30/06/2018 at 11:31
The 100 ball format was a thoroughly bad idea and should be ditched. Shocking to hear that Strauss thought it might appeal to 'women and children' on the grounds that he thinks us too simple for test, ODI, or even T20. It seems blindingly obvious that the main reason the English T20 Blast matches have so much less attraction than their IPL counterparts is that the quality and intensity of the cricket is so much weaker. (Did Strauss imagine Indian women and children to be more intelligent cricket fans than we are in England?) Why? Surely the reason is just that there is much too little competition for player places in the Blast teams, accommodating too much mediocrity. If a larger share of players in each team were passionate young talent from overseas, and the UK players had to compete more vigorously for fewer remaining places, what a difference that could make to quality and intensity of the matches!
Posted by Shaun rhodes on 29/06/2018 at 16:27
I've got the perfect idea why not play 20 x 6 ball ovs
Welcome to www.thecricketer.com - the online home of the world’s oldest cricket magazine. Breaking news, interviews, opinion and cricket goodness from every corner of our beautiful sport, from village green to national arena.