Cricket

[llcoolphil]

They'll do it in two days. It's still a problem though.

The chances of them having two days are slim though

[harper11]

amanzing they didnt get any rain at lords

had heaps of rain here today

umpires had a bad day...mostly rudy

another interestng game but the series hasnt really grabbed the public interest like 2005

[llcoolphil]

amanzing they didnt get any rain at lords

had heaps of rain here today

umpires had a bad day...mostly rudy

another interestng game but the series hasnt really grabbed the public interest like 2005

All the luck's gone England's way all test, but we'll see what tomorrow brings - you'd rather be in England's shoes from here but still got it to win.

I think the lack of terrestial coverage has a lot to do with not grabbing public interest

[harper11]

was it on 4 in 2005?

cant remember

[llcoolphil]

was it on 4 in 2005?

cant remember

Yeah, it was on 4 (whose coverage was excellent and innovative)

[oafc0000]

Yeah, it was on 4 (whose coverage was excellent and innovative)

Skys converage has been the best I have seen... HD really is fantastic for cricket... and Skys team couldnt be better...

Although I echo the dissapointment that something has big as the Ashes is not on terristial TV...

Edited July 19, 2009 by oafc0000

[harper11]

what were they going on about today saying 3D tv isnt far off

[worm]

The chances of them having two days are slim though

Well today went well weather-wise.

[worm]

Skys converage has been the best I have seen... HD really is fantastic for cricket... and Skys team couldnt be better...

This is very true. Although C4 was excellent, Sky has done a great deal for cricket. Shame they can't do anything but blight football though.

Although I echo the dissapointment that something as big as the Ashes is not on terristial TV...

I don't.

[oafc0000]

This is very true. Although C4 was excellent, Sky has done a great deal for cricket. Shame they can't do anything but blight football though.

I don't.

I dont from a coverage point of view...

From the point of view of loving the sport and realising that this doing nothing to attract kids to the game I do...

[harper11]

sky has lots of subscribers though?

[oafc0000]

sky has lots of subscribers though?

Subscribers to the sports package ? I dont think they do...

Tradtionally people will add and remove the sports packages for the football season as well... I would imagine the number you have sky sports to be quite low this time of the year...

Also during a recessions I would imagine the number if going down not up...

Over 8 million watched the climax to the Ashes in 2005... I cant see Sky getting anything like that...

By comparison, the highest ever recorded viewing figures for cricket on Sky were the 1.5 million who watched England's defeat of India during the Twenty20 World Cup.

It is likely that well below one million people will be watching Sky's Ashes coverage most of the time whereas, for example, 11 million people watched the men's Wimbledon final last Sunday.

When i was a kid i got into cricket watching it on the BBC / C4... If it wasnt for this free to air access I wouldnt be watching Cricket now...

Edited July 19, 2009 by oafc0000

[harper11]

its never going to be on bbc/c4 again though

the amount of money the new mercenary players like KP want to not just piss off and play IPL means they need big money

freddie is seting a bad example by just playing the easy money games too

suprised if freddie or KP are fit for the next test by the look of them hobbling around

[oafc0000]

its never going to be on bbc/c4 again though

Freddy and KP can only demand large pay days if there is people watching to pay for it...

Yes today with the Indian IPL etc their is money to be made...

But what happens in ten years time ? When the next generation arent playing cricket ? Look at the West Indies...

Edited July 19, 2009 by oafc0000

[harper11]

just get more south africans in the england team i guess

[worm]

From the point of view of loving the sport and realising that this doing nothing to attract kids to the game I do...

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.

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.

Edited July 19, 2009 by worm

[llcoolphil]

Sky's coverage raised the figures in male participation by 27% and female participation by 49% (figures according to Sky of course).

In what sense was Sky directly responsible for this? To raise male participation in this country by 27% would require a greater increase in numbers than actually watch cricket on Sky - a take up in participation of its audience of over 100%. On a global scale, it most certainly hasn't had that impact in Asia, participation in the West Indies is falling and I doubt that they have had that impact in Australia either. In terms of female participation up by 49%, it's a misleading statistic - a 49% increase of f*ck all is still f*ck all.

Have you got a link for these stats?

[llcoolphil]

Well today went well weather-wise.

Aye - and England looked very relieved that the Aussies took the bad light

[harper11]

Aye - and England looked very relieved that the Aussies took the bad light

they what?

[llcoolphil]

Sky's money and coverage has increased the capicity of participation in playing and viewing the sport at a vast level, including the global.

The viewing figures for this series on Sky and the 2005 series on C4 don't even begin to compare - Sky's figures are millions down. How is significantly fewer people viewing the sport a vast increase?

[harper11]

In what sense was Sky directly responsible for this? To raise male participation in this country by 27% would require a greater increase in numbers than actually watch cricket on Sky - a take up in participation of its audience of over 100%. On a global scale, it most certainly hasn't had that impact in Asia, participation in the West Indies is falling and I doubt that they have had that impact in Australia either. In terms of female participation up by 49%, it's a misleading statistic - a 49% increase of f*ck all is still f*ck all.

Have you got a link for these stats?

what has sky got to do with cricket in asia, the west indies or australia?

[llcoolphil]

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.

It didn't change the game much, but it changed the coverage substantially and Sky took every improvement C4 made.

How has Sky destroyed that?

[llcoolphil]

what has sky got to do with cricket in asia, the west indies or australia?

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

[worm]

In what sense was Sky directly responsible for this?

Coverage and money into sports programmes.

Globally, people can now view cricket via Sky.

[worm]

How has Sky destroyed that?

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.