It was apart from the vuvuzalas! I know a few people who were there. I know England play this fearless brand of cricket, but they get out to silly shots they don’t need to play. 6 off 6 balls and Morgan tries to hit it to the other Old Trafford. Why?
Iconic COL != iconic STAGE. As far as Pyrenees stages go, "iconic" would be : - Tourmalet + Aspin + Peyresoude (VERY) - Aubisque/Soulor + Tourmalet
So the 100, a new cricket tournament is almost upon us. Over the last couple of days I have waxed lyrical about 20/20 and I love that format, and I see no reason for the introduction of a format that moves even further away from the fundamentals of the game. I expect that I will watch some of it but my main complaint is that I have no team to support. I am have always supported Kent, and I know that I support a London football team, but that was my choice so do I support the Southern team wish I guess are based in Southampton (so no), the team based at the Oval or the London team based at Lords?
Good game in the end, London looked out of it after 18 balls but a great partnership saw them close the game and a last over thrash was a good ending , a good crowd and good to see plenty of youngsters enjoy the night ( not sure about the singer though)
The problem with the T20 Blast is that there are 18 counties, the top overseas players don’t take part (unlike IPL) and so the quality is spread thin. What is needed is a franchise system of 6-8 teams representing city regions to improve the quality and perhaps attract marginal cricket fans and new fans. But the counties would never vote for that - so we have the Hundred instead. Jazzed up a little bit but not too much because the cricket lovers amongst us want it to be recognisable as the game we love. Playing at the big Test grounds guarantees big crowds and a great atmosphere. I think it’s the only way of introducing something that be commercially successful like the IPL. Time will tell.
The Hundred is confusing me, partly because without 6 ball overs I can’t work out if it’s a good score and partly because the Sky commentary is so obviously aimed at a new audience. They seem afraid to use cricket terminology. It’s like watching a football match with an American commentary. Hand violation in the end zone. What?
Because there's nothing quite as strange as sitting down to have your lunch and seeing an oily Tongan boy walk out to the Final Fantasy victory theme...
I’m a big LeBron James fan since he joined the Looney Tunes team alongside Wile E Coyote, Taz, Sylvester, I say I say Foghorn Leghorn and the rest
The former Cleveland Indians announce their new name via Tom Hanks: Not sure what I'd class as a good name for an American sport, to be honest. Other than that basketball team, of course...
Harry Brook looks a talent. England so strong in white ball cricket - from nothing to world powerhouse in half a dozen years.
VAR 1- BOKS 0 , great 2nd half from the Lions , massive game from Itoje ,SA press didn't rate him before the game I'll bet they have changed their minds now
I guess I am just a bit of a traditionalist, but I have embraced 20/20 and thoroughly enjoy it. So far to me the 100 just looks too showbiz the womens games have been better than mens. I really don't see what is wrong with playing any form of cricket in Kent, Sussex, or Somerset, or at fabulous grounds like Canterbury, Worcester or Taunton. Canterbury generates a fabulous atmosphere for 20/20 the place is full with people of all ages enjoying that format of the game. It also gets packed out for any limited overs match, but no matter what we do with short formats, we will never pack out longer forms of the game at a local level. Test match cricket is the only non limited overs format that fills stadia. The 100 is a TV format and whilst it may bring in a few new viewers it will not have much impact on the overall number of fans or the quality of players playing the game.