Cricket

[harper11]

cricket am and soccer are the worst sports shows on tv

sunday supplement and cricket writers on tv however are great!

[worm]

Nothing - Worm cited statistics that Sky has had a massively positive impact on both viewing and participation in both the men's and women's game on a global scale. I suggested those figures were plainly nonsense

It televises the British local game to the rest of the world and vice versa.

[worm]

cricket am and soccer are the worst sports shows on tv

sunday supplement and cricket writers on tv however are great!

I think they're all crap. Soccer AM particularly. Never seen Cricket AM.

[llcoolphil]

Because it targets a different audience. One geared at a diversity of sports, borrowing from football etc. The 20/20, one day games and even county matches are being televised and hyped during football's off-season. There's even a Cricket AM.

But its viewing figures are appalling for most of it. How much influence can it have on people if next to nobody is watching?

[oafc0000]

Sky's coverage raised the figures in male participation by 27% and female participation by 49% (figures according to Sky of course). Sky's money and coverage has increased the capicity of participation in playing and viewing the sport at a vast level, including the global. C4 couldn't and didn't do that. As good as C4 was, it didn't change the game much (apart from briefly in 05 due to England's Ashes victory). It was a local station aiming at the sensibilities and traditions of a specific demographic. Sky destroyed that.

I am sorry but I reckon that is 100% bollox.... And I am surprised someone like you would get roped in by such bollox which is clearly marketing bullshit...

Now you can get all socialist if you like and talk of the participation coming from the middle class (Sky subscribers), but I'm not in the least bit interested to be frank.

I aint no socialist

Fact is less and less schools are playing cricket than every before. Less and less children get exposed to the sport of cricket than ever before. Both in school and on TV. I simply do not see how any sort of rise in parciption could of taken place. Its bollox. Unless you reckon a ton of middle class fat blokes are playing the sport more

We are heading the way of the West Indies...

Edited July 19, 2009 by oafc0000

[worm]

But its viewing figures are appalling for most of it. How much influence can it have on people if next to nobody is watching?

You asked how Sky destroyed this form of presentation.

[worm]

I am sorry but I reckon that is 100% bollox.... And I am surprised someone like you would get roped in by such bollox which is clearly marketing bullshit...

The figures followed the research I was analysing last spring.

I aint no socialist

I know. Yet you're going off a socialist ethic of poorer standard distribution over better diversification/progression of quality. See below..............

Fact is less and less schools are playing cricket than ever before. Less and less children get exposed to the sport of cricket than ever before. Both in school and on TV. I simply do not see how any sort of rise in parciption could of taken place. Its bollox. Unless you reckon a ton of middle class fat blokes are playing the sport more

Is any of this qualified or is it taken from newspapers and television? Just asking, because you seem to have discredited all media - not a bad thing.

[oafc0000]

The figures followed the research I was analysing last spring.

I know. Yet you're going off a socialist ethic of poorer standard distribution over better diversification/progression of quality. See below..............

Is any of this qualified or is it taken from newspapers and television? Just asking, because you seem to have discredited all media - not a bad thing.

Five live & talksport have recently had discussion about the amount of cricket being played in school. They where actually pointing to some survey which is sent out every couple of years to schools.

Sorry but I thought you was qouting numbers from SKy

I would be amazed if you could prove that such incrases have happened considering millions less are watching...

No doubt you can back your stuff up? If I am a wrong and people are playing it more then that would make me happy

Edited July 20, 2009 by oafc0000

[worm]

Five live & talksport have recently had discussion about the amount of cricket being played in school. They where actually pointing to some survey which is sent out every couple of years to schools.

Fair enough. It's always very generalised on such media, as I'm sure you already appreciate.

Sorry but I thought you was qouting numbers from SKy

Yeah, I gave those figures because it was a post regarding a small matter of opinion rather than something I consider complex and important.

I would be amazed if you could prove that such incrases have happened considering millions less are watching...

I don't believe that millions less are. We all know that you can do a lot with figures. You can also do a lot with words. For example, 'participation in schools' sounds like a curriculam driven notion, which is already extremely bias.

No doubt you can back your stuff up? If I am a wrong and people are playing it more then that would make me happy

The research I was doing was concerning the change in the sport, rather than viewing figures. It was taking for granted (i.e. based upon previous findings) that the audience for the sport was larger and wider reaching and that it was changing dramatically to appeal to this audience (Sky is global and already has a hierarchy of sports, which sees cricket high up). The aim of the work was to identify to what degree this had a negative affect on loclised cultural, rather than strictly cricket based, participation. Cricket extends beyond the sport. For example, in the West Indies, the drop off in cricket could be a political expression of the culture. In India, it is akin to movie fanaticism. In Britain, it is being used as a vehicle for community building, which Sky is helping to fund. Quite a shift from the broken up elitist culure it was once represented by.

I suppose it's unwise to declare whether something has failed or is failing when it is going through change. But on a purely personal level, I do like what Sky have done with cricket, which I do believe would have all but died out had they not focused upon it. The cricket itself must continue to re-vamp though. The same can't be said of football as it has an established classless culture all of its own. Cricket is still diversifying.

Edited July 20, 2009 by worm

[Steve P]

I suppose it's unwise to declare whether something has failed or is failing when it is going through change. But on a purely personal level, I do like what Sky have done with cricket, which I do believe would have all but died out had they not focused upon it. The cricket itself must continue to re-vamp though. The same can't be said of football as it has an established classless culture all of its own. Cricket is still diversifying.

Whilst I think Sky's coverage of cricket is very good, I don't agree that cricket would have died out without their cash. The Ashes in 2005 generated such interest because everyone could follow it on TV, and i'm sure that's why general participation has picked up because all of a sudden we could all recognise the players. People were aspiring to be them and wanted to go out and play. When the 2005 generation of players have all retired (only 2 to go now really) then how are kids going to find new faces to inspire them? An hours highlights on channel 5 every evening isn't going to have the same effect as watching a full days coverage. An increased global awareness of the english game means nothing if when aren't getting new players into the game.

As for re-vamping, well I suppose the eventual slide to 20-20 is inevitable. It will change the game forever though. The skill sets required for 20-20 are totally different to that of playing a test match. Test matches are going to die out completely if things carry on the way they are and I personally think that's incredibly sad.

[worm]

Whilst I think Sky's coverage of cricket is very good, I don't agree that cricket would have died out without their cash.

That wasn't what I was getting at. I meant that it would have still have been a rustic sport that didn't get any sustained recognition apart from the odd centre piece that tapped into nationalism. You wouldn't have county games etc being shown on a medium presenting a diversifying culture of sports.

[Gre]

Regarding the increased numbers playing cricket since sky won the contract for home tests; my completely unresearched gut reaction would be that most of that increase was in late 2005-early 2006, technically during Sky's tenure, but actually a direct result of the increase in interest in the sport during the 2005 Ashes, ie when everybody could easily watch it.

That wasn't what I was getting at. I meant that it would have still have been a rustic sport that didn't get any sustained recognition apart from the odd centre piece that tapped into nationalism. You wouldn't have county games etc being shown on a medium presenting a diversifying culture of sports.

Its still exactly like that. Going back 10-15 years you had the Sunday League on the BBC, major one day games on the BBC, test matches live on the BBC... despite the relatively low quality of the coverage, it was there. Speaking only for myself, that's how I got into cricket, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I know you can't really compare because of difference eras and ~30 channels even on freeview today as opposed to 4 back then, but even nowadays having something on the 5 'main' channels virtually guarantees a greater audience, which naturally leads to greater participation.

A comparable example, perhaps, is American football. Over my years in the sport, (anecdotally) the number of people I met who got into it by watching on Sky is minuscule compared the number who saw it on Channel 4 or 5.

I'm not sure I agree about the world-wide influence either; are you seriously saying people in India with Star Sports are watching Hampshire vs Durham in any meaningful numbers? I don't know how much cricket Fox Sports shows in Australia (I thought it was all on Channel 9 still, but turns out I'm wrong), but I can't see the English game having any effect on them, given the strength of their domestic scene.

And then in non-cricketing nations, other than the ex-pat and immigrant communities who may be happy/willing to pay a premium for a speciality cricket channel, I just can't see it making any impact.

Annnyway.... Haddin gone, 6 down, I reckon (weather permitting), we've got this in the bag.

[worm]

having something on the 5 'main' channels virtually guarantees a greater audience, which naturally leads to greater participation.

I disagree with this logic. There is a great deal of interest in violent films, yet little correlation to participation. You need to identify with something for it to become part of your identity i.e. participate in it. This requires an image. An image of a boring and toffish game is not going to get people participating.

Of course there was interest in 2005. That's because it was a national spectacle and extremely exciting. Essentially, hype. But hype doesn't last. It isn't a sustainable image. I do believe that Sky has married Cricket as part of a diversity of sport and so diverse identity i.e. you like football, you watch a bit of cricket. It's having a strong identity of its own in this country that is the main current topic of discussion.

[llcoolphil]

As I was saying...

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Well done to England

[Gre]

I disagree with this logic. There is a great deal of interest in violent films, yet little correlation to participation. You need to identify with something for it to become part of your identity i.e. participate in it. This requires an image. An image of a boring and toffish game is not going to get people participating.

Of course there was interest in 2005. That's because it was a national spectacle and extremely exciting. Essentially, hype. But hype doesn't last. It isn't a sustainable image. I do believe that Sky has married Cricket as part of a diversity of sport and so diverse identity i.e. you like football, you watch a bit of cricket. It's having a strong identity of its own in this country that is the main current topic of discussion.

I think you're being pernickity and have chosen an extreme example. Again, I can't be bothered to research and bring up figures, so this is anecdotal, but look at tennis for the 2 weeks Wimbledon is on - more people on the tennis courts in parks etc.

The main part of the criticism at the time of the ECBs decision to sell the contract to Sky was that it would lead to a loss in momentum of the hype generated by the 2005 ashes. Of course the reasonable to poor performances of the next 18 months didn't help.

But anyway... woo England and all that 1-0.

[worm]

I think you're being pernickity and have chosen an extreme example.

Ah well.

[Gre]

Ah well.

[llcoolphil]

As for re-vamping, well I suppose the eventual slide to 20-20 is inevitable. It will change the game forever though. The skill sets required for 20-20 are totally different to that of playing a test match. Test matches are going to die out completely if things carry on the way they are and I personally think that's incredibly sad.

Id disagree with you there. The demise of Test cricket has been forecast with every new development in the game - the end of the gentlemen and players era, the introduction of one day cricket, the Kerry Packer circus, the end of uncovered wickets, the introduction of 20/20 cricket to name but a few. Test cricket will always be with us because it remains the pinnacle of the game. 20/20 in it's current format wont last another 5 years before it needs revitalising with some innovation or another. There might be tinkering with the test game - day/night matches if they can get round the problem of which ball to play with, but it wont die out. The crash, bang, wallop of 20/20 will lose it's appeal in time - people will get bored of it (and that's not to say it's been a bad thing, I don't think it has. There is room for many different versions of the game).

[harper11]

KP gone

not sure it makes much difference as he has been in pretty bad form

[sifi]

Id disagree with you there. The demise of Test cricket has been forecast with every new development in the game - the end of the gentlemen and players era, the introduction of one day cricket, the Kerry Packer circus, the end of uncovered wickets, the introduction of 20/20 cricket to name but a few. Test cricket will always be with us because it remains the pinnacle of the game. 20/20 in it's current format wont last another 5 years before it needs revitalising with some innovation or another. There might be tinkering with the test game - day/night matches if they can get round the problem of which ball to play with, but it wont die out. The crash, bang, wallop of 20/20 will lose it's appeal in time - people will get bored of it (and that's not to say it's been a bad thing, I don't think it has. There is room for many different versions of the game).

I agree. If I'm watching cricket, I want to watch a test match, five days. I've watced an occassional 20/20 and whilst it's fun for a bit, it's not what I want;. I want the intricacies of the test match. I love the idea of a game that can last for so long and still end up as a draw. Sure run-rates have gone up at test level because of the arrival of the new shortened game, but for me it's the real deal.

Like you, I don't think the 20/20 game will destroy the test match. If anything, it'll see the end of the one dayer.

[llcoolphil]

Good morning for England - Ausies 202 - 7 - Anderson on a hatrick

Edited to add

Anderson missed hatrick - Onions took 2 in 2 earlier in the session too.

Edited July 31, 2009 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

203 - 8 at lunch

[modey]

what a fantastic bit of play this morning, 7 wickets, australia were looking good overnight but have jut been destroyed

[Gre]

So yeah... its gone well in the last week, eh? A day washed out, and some bowling last week about as threatening as my nan.

And 42-3 at the time of writing...