Oval Invincibles stayed in contention until our last match, which ended up being effectively a straight knockout between us and Trent Rockets, which we lost to finish 4th. We qualified in the women's competition though, finishing 2nd. I see that Southern Brave and Birmingham Phoenix qualified in both.
There was a strange innings last night from Northern Superchargers. Batting against Birmingham Phoenix they were 65/0 after 25 balls and 103/1 after 58 balls, but only managed to total 143/8. So therefore only 78 scored from the last 75 balls despite starting with 10 wickets in hand and only 40 from the last 42 balls despite starting with 9 wickets in hand. Birmingham Phoenix knocked the runs off with 26 balls to spare and top the final table with 6 wins out of 8.
^^ Basically the 3 slowest bowlers strangled the scoring, & the fastest bowler Milne was also hard to get away. TKC took 26 off pat Brown's set off five with a run of 6,6,4,6,4, he didn't bowl again. TKC also lost the strike, he was run out off the last ball of the innings, but faced only 44 balls.
Overall can we say this first season of this competition has ben a success?
Brave beat Phoenix by 32 runs. Southern Brave looked the strongest squad from the outset, & after 2 early losses, they just got better. All bases covered, no weak links. Livingstone almost stole the show, until he was run out, he at least has the consolation of being the tournaments MVP.
Oval Invincibles won the women's final. Whatever anyone thinks of The Hundred, it's been amazing for women's cricket.
How impressive was the 'objective' analysis of the hundred by the BBC?? Isha Guha (employed by the BBC to commentate) brought in to give the review. Hardly likely to pan it now, was she?? And the 'sports' presenter calling all of those (me included) who questioned it - certainly the way it was allowed to take over the entire schedule - 'Purists'. That is the disparaging term always used towards those of us who don't tow the line, and seek to protect what is left of our once great sport.
Whilst I watched some of the coverage of the Hundred on the BBC, I preferred the Sky output. I've never been a fan of celebrities presenting. Wonder how they have gone down with their target audience. This was all about bringing in families, women & children in particular, but they came the the T20 Blast. What the ECB want was a franchise competition, that would in some way match the IPL & Big Bash.
I only watched snippets here and there to see these differentials play out that made it so unique from T20. As far as I could make out greater gimmicks were the only difference. 5 balls instead of six - 100 balls instead of 120 per inns - with the description of balls bowled instead of overs bowled, and occasionally (very occasionally) the same bowler sending down two sets of five in a row. My god, how the ECB must have burned the midnight oil, coming up with that!!
^^ I believe that there was a whole raft of changes, many of which were booted out. One was considered far too controversial, chancing the use of wicket, as a dismissal, for out. Pretty much all of the commentators have had trouble to not use the term over, instead of set. These were all changes for the sake on it, & not improvements, or simplifications.
I don't mind the same bowler having the option to bowl 2 sets of 5 balls consecutively, it's ben an interesting tactical option. 10 balls from each end will help to speed up play. The time limit cut-off penalty, of having to bring in an extra fielder, is a better punishment than the 5 run instant penalty that has been in use in the T20 blast. Although it has back-fired as an aid to speed up the game at times, once a side has been penalized they have then taken their time, so maybe force them to bring in a further fielder in these cases.
the one I have had trouble getting to grips with, has been that when a wicket falls, the new batsman will always be on strike to face the next ball. Cricketers have always made an effort to at least cross when a potential catch is imminent, to ensure that the incoming batsmen isn't on strike immediately. This rule chance is meant to reward the bowler, in some, & give them an extra advantage for taking a wicket. It's not the worst idea. Something that has always annoyed me, in Test Match cricket, is a wicket falling in the last over of a session, or worst still the last over of the day, & they walk off with the over incomplete. The bowler has done something special by taking a wicket, you deny him the chance of bowling maybe a maximum of 5 balls, possibly, at a Nightwatchman, with a potential wicket, or more. It makes no sense, to punish a bowler for his brilliance, & rob the crowd of more excitement. I find it somewhat of an anticlimax.