Scrap the 100-ball format and go back to playing T20 - Chris Waters

But I’m damned if I’m going to let the chance pass by on the final day of its second season.

Whereas last year’s competition was a novelty, with many tuning in to see what the fuss was about, we now have a better idea of the concept in the round.

The main problem with it, as the former Yorkshire and England fast bowler Steve Harmison put it the other day, is that it “just doesn’t work” - a verdict upon which I am unable to improve.

Harmison was articulating what even a blind man wearing a blindfold could see in a pitch-black room - namely, that The Hundred is essentially mediocrity masquerading as excellence.

Forget the peripheral nonsense - the Z-list DJs that no one has heard of, the virtual-reality avatars, the television commentators seemingly high on acid, telling everyone that The Hundred is the best thing since sliced bread.

The concept, the cricket, is simply not good enough.

It is not so much a poor man’s IPL as a beggar’s IPL.

If English cricket is to have a franchise tournament - and it’s too late now to turn back the clock - then let it be a T20 one in line with the IPL and its global counterparts.

The need for a so-called “point of difference” - 16.4 overs per side (100 balls) as opposed to 20 overs per side - backfires for me, regardless of whether that might be best for the television schedulers.

From where I’m sitting, the only real “point of difference” with The Hundred is that it is not as good as T20.

It may not seem much - 100 balls instead of 120, blocks of five balls instead of six-ball overs, and so on - but it equates to unnecessary confusion for players and spectators while the television graphics are all over the shop, which makes the scoring difficult to follow - at least for yours truly.

Of course, I nearly forgot, The Hundred is not for the likes of me, or for Steve Harmison, or for the likes of you perhaps as “proper cricket” lovers.

The Hundred is designed to draw in those who previously thought that “cricket” was a chirping insect - essentially people who don’t like the game but, wooed by the appeal of this incredible new concept, will magically go from apathy and disinterest to pulling sickies at work or at school just to slip into Clean Slate Headingley, say, in their desperation to catch a few overs of a County Championship game.

There is no sign of that transfer of interest happening, of course, and it was never going to happen.

Why, it would be like giving someone a particularly bad novel and expecting their interest in literature to be piqued to the point that they would suddenly start lining their shelves with the work of George Orwell and Ernest Hemingway.

The Hundred is often presented as “the best versus the best”.

Indeed, the low – sorry, the high – performance review presently being carried out by Sir Andrew Strauss and the England and Wales Cricket Board actually states: “The Hundred is committed through to 2028 and is a clear best v best competition.”

Really?

In that case, why are so many big-name players not in it? Why did the likes of Jonny Bairstow and Ben Stokes pull out of this year’s competition?

There are various reasons such as international schedules and the need for rest, but this is hardly IPL standard or indeed the standard on view in other franchise tournaments.

Next year, The Hundred will not be clashing with England’s games in quite the same way.

But if the concept itself is flawed, the problems will remain.

As Harmison said on talkSPORT: “We’ve got to play Twenty20 cricket. The Hundred just doesn’t work. We’ve got to play Twenty20 cricket in line with the rest of the world.

“We’ve tried this new format. It hasn’t worked. I would question whether it is the best quality because I’ve not seen many games going down to the last ball in the two years, or a higher percentage of games going down to the last set of five.

“I think we’ve got to go back to Twenty20 cricket. We can still market it the same way and I think it will make the competition better and get it closer to what the IPL gives you.

"I think it could be the second-biggest and the second-best quality competition in the world in domestic Twenty20.

“I don’t think The Hundred works. I don’t think players know how to play it. I don’t think players understand it properly and I think that’s why we’re not seeing as many closer contests.”

Hear, hear to that.

Hitherto, my objection to The Hundred was not actually the cricket - each to their own - but rather the collateral damage to the men’s county schedule, and in consequence to Test cricket.

That we had no first-class county cricket last month, for example, was a ridiculous state of affairs and an insult to members and supporters who are frankly taken for granted now.

The damage to England’s chances of success at the highest level – purportedly the main objective of the high performance review – was clear.

Yes, the format has been good for women’s cricket, but the women can play T20 too and The Hundred is not played anywhere else – and with good reason. In its efforts to simplify the sport, it has only made it more confusing while the product is average. What’s not to loathe?