Harry Brook claims that excluding Pakistani players would be a significant loss for The Hundred.
Table of Contents
Harry Brook Warns
Can a tournament truly call itself a premier global event if it ignores some of the most explosive athletes on the planet? That is the question hanging over The Hundred as rumors swirl about the potential exclusion of Pakistani cricketers.
Harry Brook, one of England’s brightest stars, didn’t mince words. He called the prospect a “shame,” and he’s right. You cannot claim to showcase the pinnacle of the sport while leaving the world’s most feared fast bowlers and innovative batters in the waiting room.
The Missing Ingredient
Pakistan brings a brand of cricket that is impossible to replicate. It is raw. It is fast. It is fundamentally unpredictable. When you think of the 100-ball format—a game built for speed and spectacle—you think of the very attributes Pakistani players possess in abundance.
- Elite Pace: The ability to turn a game with a single fiery spell is a hallmark of Pakistan’s bowling culture.
- Creative Batting: From unconventional scoops to sheer power hitting, their batters thrive in short-form pressure.
- Global Eyes: Excluding these players doesn’t just hurt the scorecard; it alienates a massive, cricket-mad demographic that lives for every ball.
The “Commercial Blindspot”
Most sports analysts look at player stats, but they miss the Commercial Blindspot. Leagues often prioritize “administrative convenience”—players who are available for every single game without NOC (No Objection Certificate) drama. However, this is a trap.
By choosing a “safe” player over a Pakistani superstar who might only be available for 80% of the tournament, league organizers are trading long-term cultural relevance for short-term scheduling ease.
You lose the chance to tap into the “bridge across borders” that Brook alluded to. You lose the viral moments that define a league’s identity in the social media age. A league without friction is a league without fire.
Availability is a False Idol
Standard wisdom says you build a team around players who are there from start to finish. Here is why that is wrong for a modern franchise league:
- Intensity over Duration: A three-match cameo from a world-class icon creates more buzz and ticket sales than a full season from a mediocre “available” player.
- The Scarcity Model: If a player is only available for half the tournament, every ball they bowl becomes an “event.”
- Scheduling is a Negotiation, Not a Barrier: Instead of complaining about NOC issues, leagues should be the ones moving mountains to ensure the best talent can participate. If the best aren’t there, the trophy carries less weight.
Key Takeaway:
Inclusivity in cricket isn’t a “bumper sticker” slogan. It is a functional requirement for any tournament that wants to survive the crowded sports calendar.
The Final Word
Cricket has always been at its best when it functions as a bridge. As Harry Brook suggested, narrowing the field only narrows the spirit of the game.
If The Hundred wants to move from a domestic curiosity to a global powerhouse, it needs to stop looking for excuses and start looking for the best players—regardless of the paperwork involved.