Hipster Ged, OMG.

I have been known occasionally to rotate my cap, but only if the sun is directly behind me and therefore I feel the need to protect my neck from the sun.

In such circumstances, the sun is in precisely the wrong position for photographic purposes…

…so I think you’ll struggle to find photographic evidence.

As for planning my fun time in a statistical, geeky stylee – forget it.

If Ged has ever worn a baseball cap backwards, and if there is photographic evidence, I think we should be told.

I was quite shocked when I first saw this. At first I thought it must actually be Ged, as the subject was the replacement of fun and spontaneity with statistics. It was also on the BBC, and Ged has always seemed to be the sort who could casually get on the BBC from time to time. But on the other hand, it was also concerning popular culture and cool people, both of which would surely mitigate against Ged’s involvement (I hope).

All these considerations were rendered superfluous by the later photo of the individual in question, in which he is seen wearing a “T-shirt” and a baseball cap backwards. Also, they refer to him as George. Although spookily, the article does say that George had the most obscure music taste, and that he was “irritatingly proud” of this.

To the extent that any of this “Hundred” stuff makes sense, this proposal makes sense.

To help Bail-out get his head around it, think of it is a game where an innings comprises 20 * five ball overs, in which two five ball overs are bowled from one end, then two from the other end until 10 such blocks of 10 balls have been bowled. It is permissible (but not required) for the same bowler to bowl both of the two consecutive overs from the same end, as long as that bowler does not exceed his maximum allocation (four * five ball overs).

It adds a little tactical subtlety to the short form game. It is a yet shorter form.

I don’t think it simplifies the game for those with limited interest or cognitive ability, but then nothing will (other than an altogether simpler bat and ball game – perhaps rounders.

I have always found sexagesimal/senary pleasing enough for games, but then I am a cricket and tennis lover so grew up that way.

For statisticians with limited powers of mental arithmetic, moving to the uber-decimal 100 balls will help, not hinder, I suppose.

But 100 is not as divisible as 60/6 stuff, as the Sumerians and Babylonians worked out long ago…and now the ECB has stumbled across the phenomenon too – well done them.

I wonder if they have to bowl in sets of five, or if they can intermix? Can they both pretend to bowl at the same time (one over, one round?), and hide which one is holding the ball?

How do we tell apart a 10-ball over shared between two bowlers, or two 5-ball overs played without a change of ends? Does it count as “T20” cricket?

I think The Hundred was designed at least in part in order to drive statisticians mad.

The Hundred will have ten-ball overs. Each bowler can bowl up to 20 balls in total but the ten balls from each end can be bowled either by one bowler or two bowling five each — and it will be the captain’s decision