A week of The Hundred: What is the point of the new competition?

HUW TURBERVILL: Exciting? Yes, it’s okay, if you like that sort of thing: though the first two men’s matches saw 140 play 140, and 140 play 140. But aspirational? How? Why more than other sports?

What is the point of The Hundred?

My old friend – a fan of cricket but not an absolute badger – asked me this on Saturday.

I trotted out the same things I have been writing in articles for the last year or so (he obviously doesn’t read them).

The ECB wanted to invent a new format (definite) – which they hope to sell.

The ECB wanted to wrest control away from the counties (disputed). 

They needed a match to last for no more than 150 minutes for the BBC (probably – whether the BBC asked for this or they pre-empted that is a moot point).

The BBC wanted something original (not just the Manchester team name) – so new teams were created (allegedly).

“But isn’t it just a T20 with 20 five-ball overs?” my friend replied. “Am I missing something? It just doesn’t feel different enough to T20 to justify its existence. I don’t dislike it. It just feels like T20.”

No, you are not missing anything...

^{The Hundred has been going for a week, and there is a split of opinion about the new tournament}

Sanjay Patel, the managing director of The Hundred, is acting like he’s the greatest inventor since Brunel.

“A huge thank you to Sky and BBC for their ongoing support and commitment to making The Hundred accessible, aspirational and exciting.”

I’ll give him accessible – the tickets are cheap. Some are free.

Exciting? Yes, it’s okay, if you like that sort of thing: though the first two men’s matches saw 140 play 140, and 140 play 140.

But aspirational? How? Why more than other sports? Or other cricket formats?

He concludes: “We’re only at the beginning with a lot of cricket and music to be played, so the hard work has just begun.”

Music?! He thinks he is at Latitude!

Not one of my three kids know the acts playing. Two of them are going to Reading later this summer, so they know their onions. The music is a gimmick. They tried it at the start of T20, with Atomic Kitten. It was soon dispensed with.

It all rather smacks of Lord Percy in Blackadder 2 I am afraid, and his attempts at producing gold via alchemy.

“Can it be true? That I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest… Green?"

There’s no denying that The Hundred has got people talking.

There has been interest from people who don’t normally message me about cricket.

I have said before that my son, 16, and his mates have bought tickets off their own bat for Oval Invincibles v Welsh Fire on August 2.

My daughter, 12, likes the graphics (although there are complains that they don't fit on some people's tellys).

^{Reece Topley celebrates a wicket for Oval Invincibles}

Ian, a Manchester City fan, got quite engaged watching the Originals lose to the Invincibles; and quizzed me as to why they were given that weird name (goodness knows). He has never followed Lancashire, he says (the heathen). He says all win margins should be by runs.

My wife thought it “was all a bit naff”, however.

So at the moment it is engaging people.

But let’s be objective about it.

George Dobell wrote a tremendous piece about it on ESPNcricinfo likening some of the coverage so far to “the Kim Jong-un school of journalism” and he’s right.

He pointed out that the crowds for the men’s matches at the Kia Oval and Edgbaston were no greater than you’d expect for Surrey and Birmingham Bears matches in the Blast – 18,126 and 12,137 respectively.

I fully accept that some people like it. There are things that are good about it. But surely it can’t all be fantabulous, as some of the commentators would have us believe.

For instance, the commentators were talking about the helmets. Glistening in the sunshine. “They are great, aren’t they? Like baseball!”

Why does being like baseball make them great?

Is it not enough to be like… cricket?

The Hundred Hub: News, stats, analysis, features