Even former India batsman Sunil Gavaskar called the Hundred- 'ordinary and insipid'.
Writing in his column for ESPNCricinfo, Chappell mentioned that, "Apart from reducing the number of balls to obtain a terrestrial television deal, the reasoning behind the Hundred could well be that it improves the chances of cricket fulfilling the Olympic dream. This is often cited as a way to spread the game's popularity to a wider audience. Surely the T20 format could achieve that same outcome without yet another reduction.”
"Cricket is a team game ideally played by 11 members a side. Performance satisfaction is a big reason why youngsters fall in love with the game. Administrators would do well to remember that before they rush into devising shorter forms of the game. The more the length of an innings is reduced, the greater chance that there will be players just making up the numbers. Even those players crave occasional performance satisfaction," he added.
"Innovation is not encouraged and is often misunderstood," R Ashwin finds The Hundred enjoyable
The Hundred format sees teams playing 100 balls per innings with bowlers allowed to bowl 10 balls in a row and other tweaks made to the format to make it more interesting.
Further talking about the new format, Chappell said: "Throughout my playing career I believed there were two possible solutions to a problem: a simple one and a complicated one. I also believed that to the benefit of Australia, England would regularly choose the complicated solution. They've done it again."
“To overcome the perceived problem of public not fully conversant with cricket, they've concocted another form of the game - The Hundred. That's right, they've reduced by a mere 20 balls a format that was extremely popular with players and the public," he added.
The ongoing tournament in England has been criticized by many former cricketers including Sunil Gavaskar who called ‘The Hundred’- insipid and ordinary.
(ANI inputs)