Cricket has been looking to reinvent itself and appeal to new audiences for the best part of 50 years. Those at the top of the game realised that the way to introduce people to the sport was not to force them to sit and watch a match for five days with it all eventually ending in a draw.

Personally, I love the drama of a five-day Test match and the tension that occurs when a team is simply looking to save the match. I can, however, appreciate that this is not everyone’s cup of tea as people are looking for more fast-paced and dynamic sports, which give them quick thrills. 

This is particularly the case in the modern age where we find ourselves demanding constant action and fancy news flashes every few seconds.

With this in mind, cricketing authorities came up with the one-day format just over 50 years ago in a bid to bring in a younger audience. This horrified the traditional cricketing gentry, but it did work and it undoubtedly brought a new audience to the sport.

As is always the way, however, people quickly get tired and start searching for new options. This led to the much faster Twenty20 format being introduced in the early 2000s. It seemed to be the perfect formula – just about long enough to contain the drama and tension that cricket so often provides but also quick enough to ensure that storylines were constantly evolving over a short period of time.

From personal experience, it was watching T20 that initially got me hooked on the sport. I am sure I am not the only one who became enthused by five-day cricket after being introduced to the game through the more user-friendly T20 format.

It seems, however, that his has once again be deemed insufficient as the ECB have announced the introduction of a 100-ball format, which has been designed to attract a new audience by being quicker and having a countdown from 100, rather than the 120 we currently see in T20 cricket.

The new format is due to start in 2020 with teams set to be based in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds, London, Manchester and Nottingham in a five-week tournament. The idea of city-based teams, as opposed to the traditional cricketing structure of county teams, is nothing new with several teams having adopted city names for their T20 franchise with many arguing that going for the more "football-orientated" approach of team’s being named after cities being much easier to market.

ECB director of cricket Andrew Strauss, a former England captain, recently told the BBC that the new format was aimed at "mums and kids".

"What we're trying to do is appeal to a new audience, people that aren't traditional cricket fans," he said. "We want to make the game as simple as possible for them to understand."

The last line, in particular, grabbed my attention. The 100-ball countdown is arguably easier to understand than a 120-ball countdown and it certainly has a more catching sound to it. However, I take issue with the idea that the 100-ball format would be easier to understand.

In T20, the 120 balls are made up of 20 overs which each contain six balls - 20x6=120 - meaning each over is identical.

Using simple maths, we can work out that 100 is not divisible by six and, therefore, we cannot have traditional overs throughout the innings. 

The proposal is that the new format would see 15 traditional overs of six balls bowled along with a rather convoluted over of 10 balls, which can be bowled at any time. The sudden change in the number of balls in an over does not seem complicated on the surface, but it certainly seems messy whilst it is against law 17.1, which stipulates that overs must contain six balls.

Then there’s the argument of who bowls that final over. It has been reported that the ECB are currently considering an option where up to three bowlers could bowl the final over. I do not understand how this makes the game easier for newcomers.

Imagine this situation - a new spectator is watching their first ever cricket match and they grasp the fact that an over contains six balls and can only be bowled by one player. Then, suddenly, everything turns upside down as the number of balls and bowlers in an over changes before returning back to normality.

How does this convoluted idea make the game easier? 

If anything, it makes it much harder and I do not quite see how it makes it appealing to "mums and kids". In the words of former England bowler Chris Tremlett, "Why are we trying to get funky?"

The new format also has unintended consequences for one of the most important aspects of the game – statistics.

Many are understandably bored by the rather overbearing number of statistics that cricket produces,but it must be remembered that statistics are a vital part of, not just cricket, but of sport. 

Whether we talk about batting and bowling averages in cricket, number of goals in a football World Cup or a record time in the 100 metres, statistics are the only way to measure performance and progress. T

he new 100-ball format with its uneven overs could really distort the game’s statistics and make it almost impossible to compare with other formats of the game. 

This is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things but it once again introduces that element of confusion.

One good thing to come out of the new format, however, is the move of cricket to terrestrial television, which Strauss claims will be the case with the new tournament. 

"We want kids to be able to go to bed earlier and it is worth saying it is going to be on terrestrial TV," he said. "We want the more casual audience."

Getting cricket back on terrestrial television has long been the argument from those who fear for the future of the game. 

Everyone can appreciate that Sky’s, and now BT’s, coverage of the game has been first-class over the last few years, with excellent analysis for the traditionalist mixed with all-out entertainment for the casual viewer, bu there can be no doubt that putting the game back on terrestrial television would help grow the sport.

It allow those who cannot afford an expensive television package to fall in love with the game - bringing in a new audience who could become ‘customers’ [cringe] for life.

It is almost impossible to argue against the idea of at least some form of cricket being on terrestrial television. 

However, it must be said, no matter how much terrestrial airtime you give to cricket, if people find it confusing, they will turn off and watch something else.