Welcome to our forums.

Am I the only person here into cricket?

A very considered answer Jo that I’m pretty much in line with (although I have been to one T20 game and a pitiful batting display by Hampshire made it a poor spectacle).

Essex UK

Oh the angst in cricketing circles about the Hundred.

I see that they want to find ways to make the game exciting for young people – cricket needs gate money in order to survive. And the gates that attend county matches – and thus feed the test team – are pitiful. And, given that they want to attract young people, it makes sense to run in during the school holidays.

Having said that, I wish they had simply revamped the current T20 competition – running yet another takes time out of the county games – and thus players have even less opportunity to practise the long game.

But I’m not against the short form in principle. Me – I prefer a classical concert to a rock concert – but that doesn’t mean that one is a more valid form of music than another, they are simply different. I love test cricket, enjoy 50 over cricket, but am unlikely to go to a shortened form. So I don’t wish them ill – and hope they find ways to make sure the income trickles down into the long form, where good coaches are sorely needed.

The video in the link gives a high level explanation of next years “The Hundred” tournament.


What do we think. An exciting addition to the season or another nail in the coffin of Test cricket?

Essex UK

Well done Essex Eagles for winning the T20 Blast final in another last ball thriller.

Essex UK

Well I didn’t expect the muppets to come away with a first innings lead but Archer bowled his socks of and the catches stuck. Lets hope they can do something with it today and press on for the win.

Essex UK

coolonespa wrote:

On the back foot again

It’s the ‘Muppet Show’


On the back foot again :-( That score is unlikely to be enough on this pitch.

Essex UK

This is a very interesting one and I have to say I have much empathy with both of your views. So I went back to the definition of what a knighthood is:

“A Knighthood is a title that is given to a man by a British king or queen for his achievements or his service to his country. A man who has been given a knighthood can put ‘Sir’ in front of his name instead of ‘Mr’.”


So if we see this simply as a reward system for achievements or service, their criminal record is irrelevant. They achieved, they get rewarded.

On the flip side, should we feel a knighthood should be representing the best of being British including an admirable moral compass, then of course it should be withheld or stripped as appropriate. Looking outside sport at Sir Philip Green as an example of questionable moral values somewhat devalues the honour.

Essex UK

JoCarroll wrote:

Even disputed speeding offences (heard in a criminal court), @Fossil, or stupid things done by adolescents (minor shoplifting, smoking cannabis)?

Speeding although dealt with in a criminal court does not attract a criminal record. A criminal record is given for an offence that can attract a prison sentence, that is the easiest way I can put it. As for things done as a juvenile, in most cases these are not taken into account on reaching I believe the age now is 21 years unless they were indictable offences. Certainly I believe anyone who is convicted under the Serious Crime Act 2015 or the acts that preceded this should not be considered.

Unfortunately Jo we will have to differ, probably because of my life before retirement.


Even disputed speeding offences (heard in a criminal court), @Fossil, or stupid things done by adolescents (minor shoplifting, smoking cannabis)?

You might have led a totally blameless life, Alan – and well done if you have. But many people do stupid things when they’re young or life is tough – and I don’t think they should be defined by that. If people put things right – appropriate remorse, working make changes etc – then I think they shouldn’t be excluded from rewards in later years.

1084 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top