22-07-2021, 18:48
T10 is already a thing in the Middle East, and there's a very real sense around the Hundred that the ECB wanted something brand new that they could own all the rights and licensing to, because they let T20 slip from their grasp in that regard. (Also, there's an argument to be made that once you shorten a game beyond a certain point, it becomes less interesting as a contest; taking a wicket means nothing when the batting team can afford to lose one every over, and there's barely any time for twists and turns to develop in the balance of play).
The drinking culture is probably a factor, but Edgbaston has had the right idea for years in designating separate party stands and family stands, and stewarding them accordingly. No idea whether other grounds do that, but it's a simple concept that should satisfy everyone. And I've felt for years now that modern cricket walks the perfect line between accommodating the good-natured rowdiness (and booziness) of a football crowd minus the violent knobhead element, whilst allowing space for the more prim and prudish lot with a stick up their bum and generations of snobbery behind them. (This is in stark contrast to rugby union, where the latter type still rule the roost with a permanent chip on their shoulder about football, and a determination to keep anything that reeks of football fan culture well out of their sport).
Mixed-sex teams work at village level, where you've got young lasses in their physical prime competing against blokes like me who've acquainted themselves with one too many pork pies through the years, but at the highest level, top male athletes are always going to outrun and outhit top females. While it's occasionally okay in a charity context (like Soccer Aid), in an actual competitive situation it would be deeply unfair for the women to feel like they're token representatives in every match, hearing groans from the crowd when their shots don't reach the boundary or they don't sprint fast enough to cut off a four, etc. They deserve to be best in their own field, by their own standards; they just need a boost to establish themselves and attract the kind of crowds that women do in sports like tennis.
The drinking culture is probably a factor, but Edgbaston has had the right idea for years in designating separate party stands and family stands, and stewarding them accordingly. No idea whether other grounds do that, but it's a simple concept that should satisfy everyone. And I've felt for years now that modern cricket walks the perfect line between accommodating the good-natured rowdiness (and booziness) of a football crowd minus the violent knobhead element, whilst allowing space for the more prim and prudish lot with a stick up their bum and generations of snobbery behind them. (This is in stark contrast to rugby union, where the latter type still rule the roost with a permanent chip on their shoulder about football, and a determination to keep anything that reeks of football fan culture well out of their sport).
Mixed-sex teams work at village level, where you've got young lasses in their physical prime competing against blokes like me who've acquainted themselves with one too many pork pies through the years, but at the highest level, top male athletes are always going to outrun and outhit top females. While it's occasionally okay in a charity context (like Soccer Aid), in an actual competitive situation it would be deeply unfair for the women to feel like they're token representatives in every match, hearing groans from the crowd when their shots don't reach the boundary or they don't sprint fast enough to cut off a four, etc. They deserve to be best in their own field, by their own standards; they just need a boost to establish themselves and attract the kind of crowds that women do in sports like tennis.
"I would rather spend a holiday in Tuscany than in the Black Country, but if I were compelled to choose between living in West Bromwich or Florence, I should make straight for West Bromwich." - J.B. Priestley