It’s a revolution that’s too tough to digest for some cricket traditionalists, who may already be sceptical about the radical overhaul to established rules for the tournament’s inaugural edition later this year.Sports writer Glenn Moore added: “As a lifelong cricketer I think the idea of calling wickets ‘outs’ [for the Hundred] is patronising and dumb. But does it make cricket more accessible?
“My personal view is no. The lexicon of a sport is part of what it makes it distinctive, part, even, of its attraction. The more you learn the more you become an insider, it is like a rewards system.Brad Hodge isn’t a fan of the idea. Picture: Tait Schmaal.“It almost feels like they are trying to de-cricket, cricket. They are trying to ensure that this new audience that’s supposedly going to tune into the Hundred, is basically an audience that has zero interest in cricket.
Ex-England captain Michael Vaughan weighed in on social media, asking his followers for their thoughts.
So where is the actual reference to why this was done? Or you making it up? Who you quoting as saying “in a bid to simplify the sport’s terminology “? Lots of quotes on outrage though.
Do something about the promotion of the game and quality matches. That way you'll get more 'ins' than 'outs'. Wait isn't that baseball?
Another symptom of a failing culture; trying to hard to be what you are NOT!!! Didn't Shakespeare say To thine own self be true? I guess that doesnt cut it in the west anymore hey ?
This, ladies and gentlemen is the perfect example of what is wrong with the world today...maybe tennis nets can be changed to ball stoppers. Hang on, that may not work
Cool also bowlers could have just 5 throws per over and they could still call it 20/20 . Wicketkeeper could also be called Outkeeper or just catcher.