A straw in the wind from ECB CEO Tom Harrison that that “The Hundred” is on, or heading for, the scrap heap

 
International match programmes at the grounds in England are so much better these days. This year, under John Stern’s skilled editorship, they have a new format with high quality matt paper on which colour photos reproduce well and above all good writing. In the edition for the India Test Matches Stern has interviewed ECB Chief Executive Tom Harrison – including about the future of the domestic game. It’s a good article and reveals the man behind the besuited image well. He’s clearly deep down a cricket fan which has to be a good start!

Stern asks Harrison “What are the principles behind the new domestic competition that will launch in 2020” – a cleverly phrased question. Harrison’s answer is illuminating and worth quoting in full:
 

“Firstly we are extremely proud of the job that cricket is doing in this country with its core audience. The engagement with our tournaments this year has been massive. But we have to find a way of reaching communities who have not felt part of English cricket for whatever reason. County cricket is going through a really successful period, but the game can be so much bigger. We know there are around 10.4 million cricket followers in this country, but only around one million of these people regularly attend our existing competitions. It will still be cricket to all those people who cherish the game, but it can be bigger and better if we’re prepared to think differently.

The Vitality Blast is generating huge local interest, but if we’re going to sit at the top table of short- form cricket we need to think on a global level. We want something that has global relevance, real commercial power, something that the whole game has ownership of and that reduces our reliance on international cricket, which is currently responsible for more than 90% of our revenue. It’s a huge opportunity for the game and we’ve already generated free-to-air coverage on the back of a new deal”
 
The rationale for a high profile competition which creates international interest and makes lots of money is well put and the benefits are clear. But note that John Stern refers broadly to a “new domestic competition” and that Harrison is equally vague about what that competition will be. He had the opportunity to namecheck “The Hundred” and explain why it is preferable to T20 but he chose not to do so. This suggests to me that “The Hundred” if not quite yet on the scrapheap is being reconsidered – as it should be. The benefits accruing from a new English “short-form” competition would equally accrue from reverting to the original plan of a T20 competition on the IPL/Big Bash model. Indeed may of us would say that it makes no sense at all to invent a new format and every sense to replicate and improve upon the existing successful domestic T20 tournaments in India, Australia and elsewhere.