Kent Cricket | Page 7 | Vital Football

Kent Cricket

chris who

Vital Football Hero
Anyone else on here boycotting the "Hundred" like me?

It will be the death of county cricket. Any "supporter" of a so called team will automatically be a plastic imo. Rather like the tossers who claim to be Liverpool/Manure fans.
I haven't really been into cricket that much but but give me a 4 day county game over a 20/20 as for the hundred sorry forget it cricket is not played over a few minutes.
 

SteveTreacle

Vital Squad Member
Anyone else on here boycotting the "Hundred" like me?

It will be the death of county cricket. Any "supporter" of a so called team will automatically be a plastic imo. Rather like the tossers who claim to be Liverpool/Manure fans.
I have about as much interest in it as the IPL and women's cricket (not being sexist, just honest). I guess I will technically be boycotting it due to the damage it will do to county cricket and Kent CCC, but even if I wasn't, it has no interest to me and I wouldn't be watching it anyway.

I got my son into cricket a few years ago and got him down to Canterbury for his first matches two seasons ago pre-Covid as a 7 year old - he went to a couple of Blast and OD games in his half term and summer holidays. This summer, all we have to entertain him is a half-hearted, second-XI 50 over tournament and Kent, in their great wisdom, have decided to play all of their summer holiday games in London! As my son is massively into football and other sports, he could easily be lost to the game thanks to the ECB and a lesser extent KCCC. It seems the ECB don't want kids like my boy - from a very similar background to the vast majority of the current hugely successful England team - but are only interested in getting mums with babes in arms and rap and grime music fans into the game, provided they live in big cities, of course!
 

SteveTreacle

Vital Squad Member
If you’ve not been before, Radlett is a gorgeous little ground. Kent are there on 6 Aug. I’d go to Beckenham, but it isn’t a very good venue. Massive pavilion, strange stand and naff all else.
Agree on Beckenham. It's not really in Kent, the ground is a bit tinpot and I got called a p*key there by one of the locals for wearing my Gills shirt, proving my first point - imagine wearing a Kent football shirt to a Kent game!
 

PhilK66

Vital 1st Team Regular
Anyone else on here boycotting the "Hundred" like me?

It will be the death of county cricket. Any "supporter" of a so called team will automatically be a plastic imo. Rather like the tossers who claim to be Liverpool/Manure fans.
Well said. I'd include the bish bash T20 stuff in that comment too.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
Agree on Beckenham. It's not really in Kent, the ground is a bit tinpot and I got called a p*key there by one of the locals for wearing my Gills shirt, proving my first point - imagine wearing a Kent football shirt to a Kent game!
Kent's county ground was Catford in the early 20th century.
Beckenham IS in Kent.
Best crowds for Kent are in the west of the county. As one of the many Kent fans in the west I can tell you we are mighty pissed off with the overwhelming concentration on Canterbury.
As for the ground, ok not great but Canterbury is shit now. Like a housing estate thanks to inept leadership/administration over the last 40 years.
 

SteveTreacle

Vital Squad Member
Kent's county ground was Catford in the early 20th century.
Beckenham IS in Kent.
Best crowds for Kent are in the west of the county. As one of the many Kent fans in the west I can tell you we are mighty pissed off with the overwhelming concentration on Canterbury.
As for the ground, ok not great but Canterbury is shit now. Like a housing estate thanks to inept leadership/administration over the last 40 years.
The postcode of Beckenham would suggest otherwise (i.e. London Borough of Bromley). I accept that Beckenham, like our old friends Charlton, was in Kent, but it aint now. And don't get me wrong, I don't want to see a Canterbury monopoly and don't mind a few games being played in the west of the county, even if that does mean straying into SE London, but equally, we should still be playing games in the heart of Kent, such as Maidstone and more games at Tunbridge Wells. However, too many games are being played in Beckenham these days for me and playing all of the games there for an entire tournament is ridiculous. I also dispute that Beckenham gets better crowds than Canterbury. Where I do agree is the admin of the club has been appalling in recent times. I simply cannot understand how the clubs have sold half of the ground at Canterbury for dozens of houses, old people's homes, shops and the like and haven't got millions in the bank. Something has gone very wrong with the management of the finances.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
We've just lost our county match at Beckenham. The 50 over match replacement is a sop.

As for county boundaries, would Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbro no longer count as Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire respectively?

Perhaps you should tell Gloucester to stop playing in Bristol !!
 

Bert

Vital Youth Team
We've just lost our county match at Beckenham. The 50 over match replacement is a sop.

As for county boundaries, would Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbro no longer count as Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire respectively?

Perhaps you should tell Gloucester to stop playing in Bristol !!
The difference between the Counties you quote is that no other County lays claim to any of those Cities. London is basically the home of Slurrey and Middlesex. The decision to play at Beckenham is purely financial.

The ridiculous thing is that Kent often play Slurrey there effectively giving Surrey an extra home game.

At the back of my mind I think that the ground at Beckenham is actually owned by Kent c.c.c. and given the national shortage of housing suggest that development permission should be sought. A successful application would secure the future of the County Cricket Club for many years. Alternatively it could be turned into a large "Traveller" site, although perhaps the London Borough of London is exempt from the legal requirement placed on other Counties to provide a minimum number of such sites?
 

MedwayModernist

Vital Squad Member
Anyone else on here boycotting the "Hundred" like me?

It will be the death of county cricket. Any "supporter" of a so called team will automatically be a plastic imo. Rather like the tossers who claim to be Liverpool/Manure fans.
Mate, I think that is a HUGE overstatement, and a little bit Dad's Army tbh.

The big bash hasn't killed off state cricket, nor the IPL Indian first class, nor any else.

The t20 hasn't killed off county cricket as a whole, more so it's actually boosted it. Same with the one day comps. Kent selling out county grounds for T20 for the first time in a long old time.

As for the hundred itself, I just don't see how it will negatively affect county cricket.

It's been created as a separate entity, and all the proceeds go back to the ECB to be distributed out to the counties, I also don't see how it'll take fans away from the counties.

It's aimed at getting kids into cricket, as a more fun accessible version of the t20 comp, where all the England players they know are playing for one of the sides, along with a few OS guys from the IPL that they might know.

End of the day, the counties had their chance to do some restructuring, but getting 18 old fuddy duddies to agree on something was never gonna happen.
 

MedwayModernist

Vital Squad Member
The difference between the Counties you quote is that no other County lays claim to any of those Cities. London is basically the home of Slurrey and Middlesex. The decision to play at Beckenham is purely financial.

The ridiculous thing is that Kent often play Slurrey there effectively giving Surrey an extra home game.

At the back of my mind I think that the ground at Beckenham is actually owned by Kent c.c.c. and given the national shortage of housing suggest that development permission should be sought. A successful application would secure the future of the County Cricket Club for many years. Alternatively it could be turned into a large "Traveller" site, although perhaps the London Borough of London is exempt from the legal requirement placed on other Counties to provide a minimum number of such sites?
Beckenham is the hub for all the West Kent players coming through the youth setup. If it didn't exist they'd end up playing for Surrey.

So basically Zak Crawley, Alex Blake, Daniel Bell-Drummond and Sam Billings would all have been lost.

The boroughs of Bexley, Lewisham, Bromley and Greenwich are all historically kent, and within the Kent CCC catchment area, and have a population of around 1.2m people combined. The population of modern Kent is 1.8m, so you'd be frankly stupid to just sack off that many cricket mad people.

The top flight of the Kent Cricket League is also currently made up of ten sides, with Bexley top, Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks, Bickley Park, Blackheath, Holmesdale CC, Beckenham and Bromley - ALL OF WHOM ARE WEST KENT.

Sandwich and Lordswood are the only non west kenters up there - basically Kent should be focussing MORE on the west then the rest.
 

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
Mate, I think that is a HUGE overstatement, and a little bit Dad's Army tbh.

The big bash hasn't killed off state cricket, nor the IPL Indian first class, nor any else.

The t20 hasn't killed off county cricket as a whole, more so it's actually boosted it. Same with the one day comps. Kent selling out county grounds for T20 for the first time in a long old time.

As for the hundred itself, I just don't see how it will negatively affect county cricket.
.
Yep, I'm going to have a look and see, rather than adopt the standard "I'm not going to like this, and you shouldn't either" response. Not sure who we are supposed to be supporting though, and it just looks like the same band of cricket mercenaries getting another pay day. Don't think I'll watch the women's version either, but we'll see
 

SteveTreacle

Vital Squad Member
We've just lost our county match at Beckenham. The 50 over match replacement is a sop.
Maidstone - a traditional venue in the heart of the county and the closest ground to Medway, so where I saw my first county cricket and got the buzz to go to lives matches, lost all Kent Cricket years ago; even Tunbridge Wells, famed in the whole country as being one of the most traditional, Kentish and idyllic venues about has lost all first XI games, so I think a South East London Borough has done pretty well to cling on to half a dozen 50 over games, even if the tournament isn't what it was and should be;)
 

LancsGordoRoad

Vital Football Hero
Must admit, not being that much into cricket, i`d never heard of The Hundred ! First reaction was a Kerry Packer moment. But, having just read a few items about it, I might just give it a try on TV. For the non-purists, like me, it seems it could be quite entertaining. Bash it big........
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
Maidstone - a traditional venue in the heart of the county and the closest ground to Medway, so where I saw my first county cricket and got the buzz to go to lives matches, lost all Kent Cricket years ago; even Tunbridge Wells, famed in the whole country as being one of the most traditional, Kentish and idyllic venues about has lost all first XI games, so I think a South East London Borough has done pretty well to cling on to half a dozen 50 over games, even if the tournament isn't what it was and should be;)
Agree re Maidstone amd T Wells.
I actually saw my first Kent county game at Gillingham.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
Mate, I think that is a HUGE overstatement, and a little bit Dad's Army tbh.

The big bash hasn't killed off state cricket, nor the IPL Indian first class, nor any else.

The t20 hasn't killed off county cricket as a whole, more so it's actually boosted it. Same with the one day comps. Kent selling out county grounds for T20 for the first time in a long old time.

As for the hundred itself, I just don't see how it will negatively affect county cricket.

It's been created as a separate entity, and all the proceeds go back to the ECB to be distributed out to the counties, I also don't see how it'll take fans away from the counties.

It's aimed at getting kids into cricket, as a more fun accessible version of the t20 comp, where all the England players they know are playing for one of the sides, along with a few OS guys from the IPL that they might know.

End of the day, the counties had their chance to do some restructuring, but getting 18 old fuddy duddies to agree on something was never gonna happen.
I'm not against county T20. I'm against county cricket being replaced by ersatz "stars" in made up teams. No affiliation or belonging to such stuff.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
The difference between the Counties you quote is that no other County lays claim to any of those Cities. London is basically the home of Slurrey and Middlesex. The decision to play at Beckenham is purely financial.

The ridiculous thing is that Kent often play Slurrey there effectively giving Surrey an extra home game.

At the back of my mind I think that the ground at Beckenham is actually owned by Kent c.c.c. and given the national shortage of housing suggest that development permission should be sought. A successful application would secure the future of the County Cricket Club for many years. Alternatively it could be turned into a large "Traveller" site, although perhaps the London Borough of London is exempt from the legal requirement placed on other Counties to provide a minimum number of such sites?
Somerset have a claim on south Bristol and I can remember them playing games there.

Surrey only have about a dozen fans. The rest join to get Test tickets. The Oval is effectively a home game for Kent as the majority there are Kent fans when we play them (or the plastics mentioned above).
 

SteveTreacle

Vital Squad Member
Mate, I think that is a HUGE overstatement, and a little bit Dad's Army tbh.

The big bash hasn't killed off state cricket, nor the IPL Indian first class, nor any else.

The t20 hasn't killed off county cricket as a whole, more so it's actually boosted it. Same with the one day comps. Kent selling out county grounds for T20 for the first time in a long old time.

As for the hundred itself, I just don't see how it will negatively affect county cricket.

It's been created as a separate entity, and all the proceeds go back to the ECB to be distributed out to the counties, I also don't see how it'll take fans away from the counties.

It's aimed at getting kids into cricket, as a more fun accessible version of the t20 comp, where all the England players they know are playing for one of the sides, along with a few OS guys from the IPL that they might know.

End of the day, the counties had their chance to do some restructuring, but getting 18 old fuddy duddies to agree on something was never gonna happen.
Disagree with nearly all of that. T20 didn't kill off County Cricket as it involved all of the counties and excluded no teams or fans. Also, the concept of 20 over matches is a well-known and loved we - we all started playing 20 over matches as kids didn't we and a lot of clubs played this even before the invention of T20. Also, the IPL and Big Bash basically transferred over old state and regional teams to new franchises. The Big Bash for example transferred over all of its state team to City franchises with the addition of another Melbourne/Victoria franchise, so it wasn't exclusionist like the Hundred ommitting 10 teams and all of their fans.

The line the ECB keep trotting out is that its aimed at a new audience and they keep rambling on about it being aimed at more diverse audiences and the like and they've said they are going to get rid of the likes of Sweet Caroline, Queen and Hi Ho Silver lining to be replaced by rap and grime music - I'm sure the whole crowd will be belting out the great tuneful singalongs of Stormzy and co at the matches. If anyone has seen the England v Pakistan T20s, they'd have seen diverse crowds of different ages and sexes and young and old, male and female, England and Pakistan fans belting out Sweet Caroline and We are the Champions. What's the problem and wrong with that?

The Hundred is not wanted or needed and the money could have easily been thrown at the current T20 Blast by the ECB (which it never has been before), got the international and England stars involved in that, with draft systems and razmatazz and half of the country wouldn't be excluded from it. I gave the example above of my son having experienced his first cricket at Canterbury as a 7 year old two years ago in his summer and Easter Holidays, watching the Blast and 50 over comp. He's desparate to go again this season, but there is no cricket at Canterbury this summer, thanks to the Hundred the ECB's decision to downgrade the Royal London Cup to a second-rate tournament and Kent's decision to play all games at Beckenham. He's bang into football and could easily be lost to the game. He's fromt a similar background to a lot of the current successful England team and I would suggest is the future of England cricket rather than these new city-only fans who have previously shown no interest in cricket.

Is this ill-conceived punt on getting new fans into the game from cities only (and no one actually knows who these fans are) really worth alientating and excluding current fans and risking kids wgo would readily get into the game losing interest due to lack of exposure to seeing cricket in the flesh?