Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Latest Matches => Topic started by: t2ylo on October 28, 2018, 04:48:47 PM
-
Am I the only cricket fan that gets really annoyed that I pay for Sky Sports, they have a cricket channel but don’t seem to show much live cricket???
Recently this has got worse, not better.
Surely it can’t be that expensive to show India & West Indies and Australia & Pakistan???
I’m listening to it on the radio like some sort of caveman ;-)
-
It’s declining massively. Simply a bunch of re runs with the odd very random game shown. Given how much seems to be paid there is now even less shown on paid tv.. let alone free
-
What pissed me off was the T20 highlights that lastesd 2 hours inc the rain break waffle, surely they can chop all that out and make the highlights shorter so we actually get to see the game not Nasser, Key and Ward chatting for 30 mins at 11:00pm!
-
Don’t worry they’ve got full coverage of the women’s World Cup! Can’t wait for that rubbish
-
100% agree.
Seems to me the coverage of cricket around the world including other teams has declined. Much more focus on England sides. Constant 're runs, and the women ODI replays is getting very very dull
All of this is pretty much available on catch up and on demand as well, so just a waste of a channel and money really.
Is the Big Bash going to be on BT again? That started out on sky in the beginning, Indian test matches usually shown a lot more too in the past and that seems to have dwindled.
Much prefer some live action regardless of the teams, than Cricket World cup classics for the 19th time
-
Good points, I agree.
Really frustrates me during summer when I know there’s County Chamionship games on and Test Series overseas and sky sports cricket has a re-run of an England test match from 2003!
-
The only rights they have away are West Indies and South Africa now. They’ve lost everything else
BBL is on BT. I’m sure sky will bid on the SA t20 competition (or it might be included in their coverage)
-
England are the cash cow, but sky coverage just like the game itself sadly, is on the decline.
Anyone know if they already have the Ashes of next year and what about the World Cup? Would that be multi channel, maybe spilt with highlights on BBC / itv/ BT....
-
Perfect example is I went to switch on India vs West Indies ODI, but there was only highlights on. Baffles me why they have a cricket channel that just shows england men and women and nothing else.
-
That's is precisely why I will not buy Sky again! They have been on the decline for a while now.
If Sky suddently shows lots of decent matches then I will get Now TV and buy a week pass to Sky Sports!
-
Cancelled my sky sports package about a year ago and don’t miss it really, I have BT sport included in my WiFi and telephone package as they are the only company that provide WiFi in the tiny village I live in and must say I find the channel 5 highlights good enough for the Tests over here or I can find online easy enough and stream, even been able to watch the Pakistan vs Aussie series on some random Asia channel and commentary in English so happy days
-
Sky have every game of the world cup live for this tournament and 2023. And Champions Trophy and T20 World Cup for similar time frames.
It's November and December that often see a peak in my off season cricket viewing on Sky, usually a home NZ series with nice viewing times for a night owl like me (approx 10pm start)
In November they have the Womens World Cup T20 and the Sri Lanka v Eng test series.
Moving into Dec they have the NZ v Sri Lanka test series, and the SA v Pakistan test series.
As well as more tests, the white ball cricket between SA and Pakistan continues on until Feb on Sky. By then the Windies v England is well underway.
I must say the 'how the 2018 IPL was won' is starting to grate, it seems to be on an almost constant loop.
Over the Winter BT has the Aus v SA, Big Bash, Aus v India and Aus v Sri Lanka series, and is currently showing the West Indies 50 over comp which i've watched a bit of.
-
Can't even find highlights of the England t20 on Saturday, just the full game which I really don't have time to watch. So you can watch the whole game on demand, but not the highlights. What's the point
Oh but I can watch a sky sports cricket special about West Indies women cricket team. Kill me now
-
It hurts but i cant justify the cost of sky. Miss test cricket.
-
Sky have every game of the world cup live for this tournament and 2023. And Champions Trophy and T20 World Cup for similar time frames.
It's November and December that often see a peak in my off season cricket viewing on Sky, usually a home NZ series with nice viewing times for a night owl like me (approx 10pm start)
In November they have the Womens World Cup T20 and the Sri Lanka v Eng test series.
Moving into Dec they have the NZ v Sri Lanka test series, and the SA v Pakistan test series.
As well as more tests, the white ball cricket between SA and Pakistan continues on until Feb on Sky. By then the Windies v England is well underway.
I must say the 'how the 2018 IPL was won' is starting to grate, it seems to be on an almost constant loop.
Over the Winter BT has the Aus v SA, Big Bash, Aus v India and Aus v Sri Lanka series, and is currently showing the West Indies 50 over comp which i've watched a bit of.
Realistically though, that’s not very much for the cost
-
Sky have every game of the world cup live for this tournament and 2023. And Champions Trophy and T20 World Cup for similar time frames.
It's November and December that often see a peak in my off season cricket viewing on Sky, usually a home NZ series with nice viewing times for a night owl like me (approx 10pm start)
In November they have the Womens World Cup T20 and the Sri Lanka v Eng test series.
Moving into Dec they have the NZ v Sri Lanka test series, and the SA v Pakistan test series.
As well as more tests, the white ball cricket between SA and Pakistan continues on until Feb on Sky. By then the Windies v England is well underway.
I must say the 'how the 2018 IPL was won' is starting to grate, it seems to be on an almost constant loop.
Over the Winter BT has the Aus v SA, Big Bash, Aus v India and Aus v Sri Lanka series, and is currently showing the West Indies 50 over comp which i've watched a bit of.
Thanks Jake I feel slightly more optimistic - I guess for the money I expected even more live cricket & less re-runs.
Looking at the comments - even the die-hard fans don't think it's great value and are voting with their feet.
The sad bit it that it is not to watch better coverage elsewhere, but to stop watching all together.
-
Thanks Jake I feel slightly more optimistic - I guess for the money I expected even more live cricket & less re-runs.
Looking at the comments - even the die-hard fans don't think it's great value and are voting with their feet.
The sad bit it that it is not to watch better coverage elsewhere, but to stop watching all together.
I only have sky sports as we got a good deal through virgin media (I also watch loads of sport not just cricket)
-
Tbh filling an entire channel with cricket in the summer is a bit of a stretch. It does get somewhat boring flicking over to the channel and see the same repeats. I can only assume the channel must have been part of the new agreement, it’s a good idea in theory.
Having just got into baseball since going to a game this year when in NYC I love their susbsxription model. Pay for the app you can watch on a device or an app on your smart tv. Choice of games and highlights. They clearly have more infrastructure and demand for people to watch it compared to cricket but it’s the best way to show sport in the future in my opinion. It’s the same with football, I’d rather pay just to watch arsenl’s Games than watching Burnley vs Huddersfield!
-
I've had sky sports for ~ 4 years now, and its always been bad value and the cricket offer was never brilliant. When they launched the separate cricket channel I thought they might improve things, but dismayingly, its got worse - far, far worse, to the point I barely bother hitting 404 anymore when I turn the tv on.
At least in the past there have been non-England test series to watch, now there is just nothing. The coverage is utterly pitiful. Even when there is live international cricket going on, its just repeat after repeat - and none of the games they repeat are any good - its never any of the classic test matches from the 90s or 2000s, always some boring and forgettable ODI.
I like sky for other reasons - the movies are good - but I'm actually thinking of cancelling sky sports. Its got that bad.
-
Tbh filling an entire channel with cricket in the summer is a bit of a stretch. It does get somewhat boring flicking over to the channel and see the same repeats. I can only assume the channel must have been part of the new agreement, it’s a good idea in theory.
Having just got into baseball since going to a game this year when in NYC I love their susbsxription model. Pay for the app you can watch on a device or an app on your smart tv. Choice of games and highlights. They clearly have more infrastructure and demand for people to watch it compared to cricket but it’s the best way to show sport in the future in my opinion. It’s the same with football, I’d rather pay just to watch arsenl’s Games than watching Burnley vs Huddersfield!
I assume you mean winter?
There is so much professional cricket going on round the world that really sky cricket should be able to show at least one live cricket match every single day of the year. If not international, than foreign domestic cricket. Anything less is inadequate, given the money people pay for the channel (£20 a month ON TOP of a basic sky tv package)
Its not like the footage to foreign test matches or domestic games are going to set them back millions of pounds. They could pick them up for pennies and simply rebrand them or put some additional English commentary over the top.
-
A dedicated channel for cricket when you dont have rights to 70% of the overseas games is definitely a bit of a stretch.
-
A dedicated channel for cricket when you dont have rights to 70% of the overseas games is definitely a bit of a stretch.
When you think that the cricket channels costs the exact same as the premier league channel, and they pay however many billions for premier league coverage but then can't even be bothered to pay the pittance required for various overseas rights, the entire channel strikes you as being a massive pisstake. sky are mugging cricket fans off.
-
I assume you mean winter?
There is so much professional cricket going on round the world that really sky cricket should be able to show at least one live cricket match every single day of the year. If not international, than foreign domestic cricket. Anything less is inadequate, given the money people pay for the channel (£20 a month ON TOP of a basic sky tv package)
Its not like the footage to foreign test matches or domestic games are going to set them back millions of pounds. They could pick them up for pennies and simply rebrand them or put some additional English commentary over the top.
No I meant summer. Only one game a day shown which if they aren’t test matches don’t fill a lot of the schedule even in summer
-
No I meant summer. Only one game a day shown which if they aren’t test matches don’t fill a lot of the schedule even in summer
There's a game somewhere in England pretty much every day between April and September. Show live cricket whenever there is live cricket happening, and then highlights and recaps for the rest of the time.
I mean, sky don't even show county highlights packages, which is pathetic, given that they already own the rights. Even worse than that, they often don't show any cricket AT ALL, even whilst there are county championship games going on, preferring to show the 8,000th repeat of some old boring documentary. I had to watch the Somerset vs Notts T20 quarter final on a dodgy streaming connection, because sky were showing a masterclass that I'd already seen 30 times before instead. At that point I thought "what on earth am I paying for here?"
-
I can agree with all the comments posted so far, Sky are clearly just going for the England games and nothing else. Sadly Sky's excuse will be;
a)Premier League Rights have cost them as lot of money
b)they have given so much to the ECB through tv rights etc etc
c)they will be able to come up with stats that say no one wants to watch overseas games where England are playing
As much as we can complain the only way it will change is if we fight with our wallets and refuse to pay. Only worry is is that it could back-fire and Sky chooses not to show any cricket at all and we'll be forced to watch games on obscure Asian channels or streams......or even worse through BT!
-
Thanks Jake I feel slightly more optimistic - I guess for the money I expected even more live cricket & less re-runs.
Looking at the comments - even the die-hard fans don't think it's great value and are voting with their feet.
The sad bit it that it is not to watch better coverage elsewhere, but to stop watching all together.
Its still not great as others have pointed out, but there is at least some high quality non-England international cricket coming soon.
-
There's a game somewhere in England pretty much every day between April and September. Show live cricket whenever there is live cricket happening, and then highlights and recaps for the rest of the time.
I mean, sky don't even show county highlights packages, which is pathetic, given that they already own the rights. Even worse than that, they often don't show any cricket AT ALL, even whilst there are county championship games going on, preferring to show the 8,000th repeat of some old boring documentary. I had to watch the Somerset vs Notts T20 quarter final on a dodgy streaming connection, because sky were showing a masterclass that I'd already seen 30 times before instead. At that point I thought "what on earth am I paying for here?"
Let's be realistic, no one else is going to televise CC games because it's just not financially viable. The Somerset v Notts game didn't get on TV because it moved to the reserve day which clashed in their schedule.
-
I think most are missing the point, Sky Sports is essentially a showcase for British sport. Prior Sky Sports no England away series was televised in the UK. Naturally Sky will go big on the PL football as it has a massive fan base and it is an English product. Once they lost the champions league, Sky was always gonna go all in on EPL. Sky probably did away with subcontinent cricket rights, aside from England tours, as the viewing numbers at 4/5am in the morning are pretty low. Sky has all England rugby union coverage bar 6 nations. I don't understand why they invested so heavily in F1 and NBA with are niche markets - that said I follow both of them.
-
I had to give up Sky Sports over a year ago, due to costs - even if I could afford it, never had time to watch it like I used to. So I've had to find alternative solutions - there's an app on istore called Live Cricket Matches - dodgy streaming but works well. Channel 422 has had some live cricket on it recently (think it was the Pak/Aus tests) and was able to watch some of the Pakistan/Australia T20 on Channel 729 on Sky. The Sri Lanka Cricket You Tube page as had 25min highlights of each ODI game so far - hopefully it will for the tests too. And it made me listen to TMS more than I ever had done - which wasn't a bad thing.
Unfortunately, the arrival of BT didn't create better deals for the sports viewer, it just meant you pay the same for sky sports as you did before, just with much less content.
-
I must be one of the few reasonably content with what I get from Sky but then I am just about old enough to remember the days when there was no live coverage of England's overseas tours. I also watch other sports as well as cricket so subscribe to the full sports package so there is no actual cost to me in having the cricket channel. Personally, I have never seen so much live coverage of domestic and international cricket and the masterclasses and documentaries are first rate. I have far greater resentment over buying a TV licence than I do over my Sky subscription.
I am also a little surprised over the negativity towards covering the women's game. Some of the most exciting games of cricket I have seen recently have been from the women's game.
-
Let's be realistic, no one else is going to televise CC games because it's just not financially viable. The Somerset v Notts game didn't get on TV because it moved to the reserve day which clashed in their schedule.
Define "not financially viable"? Add up all those £20 per months for sky cricket and tell me they couldn't afford to send a few cameraman and a commentator down to a county ground for the afternoon.
-
I must be one of the few reasonably content with what I get from Sky but then I am just about old enough to remember the days when there was no live coverage of England's overseas tours. I also watch other sports as well as cricket so subscribe to the full sports package so there is no actual cost to me in having the cricket channel. Personally, I have never seen so much live coverage of domestic and international cricket and the masterclasses and documentaries are first rate. I have far greater resentment over buying a TV licence than I do over my Sky subscription.
I am also a little surprised over the negativity towards covering the women's game. Some of the most exciting games of cricket I have seen recently have been from the women's game.
The masterclasses and documentaries are ok.... the first time you see them. But they're repeated virtually every day! For £20 a month I expect £20 worth of NEW content - not the same old documentaries they've been showing for the past 3 years.
I like watching the women's game, my main moan is the weeks that go by without any live cricket whatsoever. It really wouldn't cost them much to pick up some external broadcast feeds and it would at least give cricket badgers something to watch in between England tours.
They're also obsessed with white ball cricket. They don't seem to understand their audience - most people who subscribe to sky cricket do so to watch the test matches.
-
Define "not financially viable"? Add up all those £20 per months for sky cricket and tell me they couldn't afford to send a few cameraman and a commentator down to a county ground for the afternoon.
They already have a reporter there for sky sports news and a camera, so a few more couldn't hurt the budget too much. Not too much to ask surely
-
Define "not financially viable"? Add up all those £20 per months for sky cricket and tell me they couldn't afford to send a few cameraman and a commentator down to a county ground for the afternoon.
You're going to need a minimum of about 7 cameramen (that's the lowest I've seen sky use at a game therefore evidently what they deem to be the lowest amount required for a TV quality broadcast), at least 4 commentators, a director, the people managing the technical side of the broadcast and the equipment required to output that broadcast (which usually involves hauling a specialist truck around the country). Those employees are mostly going to be away from home for about 6 days in which they also have to be putting them up in accomodation. For the amount of people likely to watch it that's clearly not going to get the go-ahead.
-
You're going to need a minimum of about 7 cameramen (that's the lowest I've seen sky use at a game therefore evidently what they deem to be the lowest amount required for a TV quality broadcast), at least 4 commentators, a director, the people managing the technical side of the broadcast and the equipment required to output that broadcast (which usually involves hauling a specialist truck around the country). Those employees are mostly going to be away from home for about 6 days in which they also have to be putting them up in accomodation. For the amount of people likely to watch it that's clearly not going to get the go-ahead.
You don't need 7 camera men. You could easily get away with 3 or 4 and still have a decent broadcast with the usual mix of close ups and wide shots. And noone else needs to be at the ground, they can commentate from their London studio.
Who cares if the broadcast isn't test match quality? We're comparing showing live cricket to showing repeats of old documentaries. You could send an intern with an iPhone and it would be an improvement.
-
If you are brought up watching cricket, there are certain things in life only you can relate to :)
-
You don't need 7 camera men. You could easily get away with 3 or 4 and still have a decent broadcast with the usual mix of close ups and wide shots. And noone else needs to be at the ground, they can commentate from their London studio.
Who cares if the broadcast isn't test match quality? We're comparing showing live cricket to showing repeats Is old documentaries. You could send an intern with an iPhone and it would be an improvement.
If Sky felt 3 or 4 cameramen were adequate enough to feel something was of the threshold quality to be shown on TV then they'd already be doing it for the county games they do show. They're going to have their own minimum broadcasting standards set and clearly don't feel that would meet them. 7 cameramen is going to be far from test match quality as it is.
-
I’d settle for the feed from already televised tests & ODIs. Just buy the rights for Sky Sports Cricket Channel please.
Somerset’s YouTube style coverage is enough for hardcore fans and expect more of than model next year & That’s two static cameras.
-
If Sky felt 3 or 4 cameramen were adequate enough to feel something was of the threshold quality to be shown on TV then they'd already be doing it for the county games they do show. They're going to have their own minimum broadcasting standards set and clearly don't feel that would meet them. 7 cameramen is going to be far from test match quality as it is.
Sky do whatever makes them the most profits. They spend the absolute minimum on cricket coverage they they think they can get away with without people cancelling. The fact is, they have a virtual monopoly so there are limited other options for cricket fans, so they are basically able to take the piss.
The fact that they get away with not bothering to turn up and broadcast games they have the rights to does NOT mean that to do so must therefore be financially unviable. It just means they think they can get away without doing it.
-
Seen as it's England it would have been nice for some coverage from the warm up games. If even settle for 30mins highlights
-
You don't need 7 camera men. You could easily get away with 3 or 4 and still have a decent broadcast with the usual mix of close ups and wide shots. And noone else needs to be at the ground, they can commentate from their London studio.
Realistically how many people do you think are there for a sky Broadcast, county or International.
It’s a complete oversimplification to think even a 10 man crew could produce something worthy of being shown on air.
-
Seen as it's England it would have been nice for some coverage from the warm up games. If even settle for 30mins highlights
Sky don’t send their own production crew to SL, they just take the video from the local broadcaster and re package it with a different commentary. So you’ll never see a warm up game broadcast.
-
Don’t worry they’ve got full coverage of the women’s World Cup! Can’t wait for that rubbish
I appreciate its not everyone's cup of tea, but as someone who is assistant coach to a women's Premier team, including ESWA, England, Sussex, Kent and Essex players I think it's a bit harsh to call it rubbish.
The best innings I saw all season was a 15yo women's opener who batted through the innings for a 100 just under a run a ball. The women's game may lack in power at times (I've seen one of our girls hit further and bowl quicker than a lot of blokes) but the skill set is certainly not lacking.
-
I also appreciate the women’s game. It’s good for my daughter, who loves her cricket, to see women play. Also it is far closer to the standard I play than any other cricket on TV.
Some of the fielding in particular is a bit shoddy but that’s the same at my level.
In general players have a much better attitude than some of the male pros and it refreshing to see people playing for the fun of it and engaging a previously untapped resource of players and supporters of an otherwise dwindling game.
As time goes by the standard will increase and the gap between the best and worst teams and players will diminish and closer games ensue.
Oh, they also use a more diverse range of kit which is also good to see.
-
Agree with the 2 views above me. Fact of the matter is womens cricket participation is expanding, has been for a while and shows no sign of slowing. Can we say the same about the mens game?
I also think that most on here could take alot from watching the womens game as its closer to the level we play. With their physical attributes being less than their male counterparts the womens game on the whole relies on intelligence, technique and innovation (natmeg anyone?).
Dont think womens cricket will be getting cancelled by Sky anytime soon - sorry!
-
Realistically how many people do you think are there for a sky Broadcast, county or International.
It’s a complete oversimplification to think even a 10 man crew could produce something worthy of being shown on air.
Sky currently prioritise vastly overproducing their broadcasts to produce slick-looking graphics over providing a breadth of daily cricket content. That's a decision they make, but its not a decision that I, as a subscriber, agree with.
It would not affect my viewing enjoyment one iota if they halved the number of commentators, analysts, camera men, blimp operators, graphics generators, stats reseachers, live pitchside reporters at the test match. All of that stuff is peripheral to the cricket action and a complete waste of money. As long as I have a reasonable view of the pitch from behind the umpire's head and can hear a commentator telling me the score, everything else is unnecessary.
What DOES affect my viewing enjoyment is when they don't show live cricket, or even highlights of cricket, but instead show a repeat of an old documentary. I'd happily go back to the crappy production standards of the mid-90s if it meant I actually got to watch some cricket most nights!
I AM PAYING for this service, I have every right to tell them that they're misusing MY money - and judging from this thread, most other subscribers agree with me.
-
I'm totally for all of the womens cricket they show on Sky and I'm a bit shocked at some people's attitudes on here towards it. I have 2 young daughters that find it much more appealing and one of them just 'might' have the cricket bug through watching it - surely that can only be a good thing.
Also, I totally agree with @Gurujames that the standards of some women's games, whilst not as powerful or technically as proficient as the mens are either way more entertaining, or more relatable as it's closer to the standard I play.
The thing I don't like about it is the lack of live cricket, ether international or county championship, it just seems to be an ever decreasing part of their output and they're pushing rerun after rerun.
-
Whenever this topic comes up, it makes me so cross it's actually quite crazy really!
You really do not realise how lucky you are, what Sky has done for cricket coverage is ridiculous, access to an enormous amount of cricket - England's overseas games, games of other countries (eg. SA vs AUS), Women's Cricket, ICC tournaments, T20 tournaments. Then there's the Masterclasses and documentaries etc.... on top. Yes they maybe re-run a number of times but there isn't live cricket 24/7 that they have rights to - simple as that.
I maybe getting on a bit but to have the ability to watch the above is amazing compared to when i was growing up, to turn on a channel and see some form of cricket (no matter what it is) is quite frankly brilliant - i can show my son the game i love anytime i like!! my father couldn't do that for me when i was growing up.
Yes Sky's rates are high i agree, but so are the rights prices the Boards are charging.
And if you don't want to pay it........ you don't have to!
-
Whenever this topic comes up, it makes me so cross it's actually quite crazy really!
You really do not realise how lucky you are, what Sky has done for cricket coverage is ridiculous, access to an enormous amount of cricket - England's overseas games, games of other countries (eg. SA vs AUS), Women's Cricket, ICC tournaments, T20 tournaments. Then there's the Masterclasses and documentaries etc.... on top. Yes they maybe re-run a number of times but there isn't live cricket 24/7 that they have rights to - simple as that.
I maybe getting on a bit but to have the ability to watch the above is amazing compared to when i was growing up, to turn on a channel and see some form of cricket (no matter what it is) is quite frankly brilliant - i can show my son the game i love anytime i like!! my father couldn't do that for me when i was growing up.
Yes Sky's rates are high i agree, but so are the rights prices the Boards are charging.
And if you don't want to pay it........ you don't have to!
Parochial, short sighted and naive. Compared to almost every other sport in the world, sky's coverage of cricket is (No Swearing Please) (No Swearing Please). Utterly abysmal. An embarrassment. A disgrace.
At a time when almost every other sport is becoming more accessible, with wall to wall coverage of every possible game for bargain prices, cricket coverage has gone backwards.
I live in the UK, and can readily access sports from all over the world for pennies, but I can't watch professional cricket being played down the road. This is supposed to be our national summer sport and there's an effective blackout on coverage. It's a national scandal.
A total, total disgrace. You need to wake up.
-
one thing im not sure if anyone else remembers being touted by the ECB 3 years was cricket on subscription TV was being 'looked at' to 'redress the balance'
absolutely nothing happened, it may be the way of the world now but the horse has been flogged to death.
personally I find BBC text and coverage of test matches perfectly fine...but then I grew up with it.
There's nothing outstanding about Sky's coverage of test cricket, the County Chairman love the hand outs from the ECB from TV rights, meanwhile the amateur game is dying.
There's really nothing to be cap in hand thankful for.
-
It is almost as though cricket is stuck in the dark ages. Who'd have thought. No broadcaster is a charity. Cricket is on a level with athletics and snooker for national interest and if someone was whinging about needing wall to wall local snooker 24/7 you'd think they were nuts. Cricket has to be worth more and sell itself better, and the increase in broadcasters dilutes things for all sports besides football
Despite the ongoing effort of the ecb and sky to eliminate any interest in cricket, its still significantly more popular than snooker.
You don't seem to understand the direction of causality here. Cricket is unpopular because of sky's poor coverage, sky's coverage isn't poor because cricket is unpopular
-
The games that are covered a great. Do we need that level at CC games.. no
Do I enjoy women’s cricket.. to a degree yes as it is like watching our games in terms of quality/pace etc. However, it isn’t that good really and certainly not worth sacrificing county champ games for if I personally had to choose.
Sky has pumped money in but that just shows the ECB put money ahead of the game. Amateur cricket is dying and few women’s games or funding disabled teams isn’t going to help. Women’s game is growing now but over time it’ll collapse as well as I can only assume this is the same initial growth as men’s cricket will have had.
I would be interested in the costs for 2/4 cameras and then sync the local radio coverage (don’t need a presenter etc). Those cameras could be static so you don’t need to make it fancy for live streaming intially. Grow the ‘brand’ and then it might grow the game and so attract sponsors which fund better coverage.
Chicken and egg but also putting the money into what matters .. that’s not wages btw
-
I totally agree that cricket should be shown on FTA TV! That is the sports current biggest hurdle in engaging and maintaining an audience.
However the quality of the broadcast provided by sky is actually one of the best in the world but it is a premium production. Some of the broadcaster from around the cricket globe really do not stack up in terms of the product provided.
-
I totally agree that cricket should be shown on FTA TV! That is the sports current biggest hurdle in engaging and maintaining an audience.
However the quality of the broadcast provided by sky is actually one of the best in the world but it is a premium production. Some of the broadcaster from around the cricket globe really do not stack up in terms of the product provided.
I've no issue with paying for a dedicated cricket channel should that channel give me access to myriad Test series and more from around the globe. Completely agree with you on FTA though - at the very least all England Test Series should be on FTA TV, and ideally all England games, and ideally the entire World Cup. Too much to ask?
-
Whenever this topic comes up, it makes me so cross it's actually quite crazy really!
You really do not realise how lucky you are, what Sky has done for cricket coverage is ridiculous, access to an enormous amount of cricket - England's overseas games, games of other countries (eg. SA vs AUS), Women's Cricket, ICC tournaments, T20 tournaments. Then there's the Masterclasses and documentaries etc.... on top. Yes they maybe re-run a number of times but there isn't live cricket 24/7 that they have rights to - simple as that.
I maybe getting on a bit but to have the ability to watch the above is amazing compared to when i was growing up, to turn on a channel and see some form of cricket (no matter what it is) is quite frankly brilliant - i can show my son the game i love anytime i like!! my father couldn't do that for me when i was growing up.
Yes Sky's rates are high i agree, but so are the rights prices the Boards are charging.
And if you don't want to pay it........ you don't have to!
Agreed! I grew up having to listen to England's overseas tours on the radio. I have never had access to as much televised cricket as I do at the moment, and in many respects, I wonder how small the viewing audiences are for some of it. Watching earlier in the year the Caribbean T20 competition, late at night in England and with a fairly modest collection of overseas players (star billing being given to one of our old overseas pros, Sohail Tanvir, who didn't set league cricket alight) I did wonder how many people would be tuning in to watch it.
Personally, I can't say that the lack of coverage of the County Championship is impacting on young kids taking up cricket. The biggest impact has to be the lack of internationals on FTA, but then would the BBC or C4 be able to dedicate as much airspace to the domestic T20 comps as Sky does? The interest of younger supporters is in the shortest form of the game. Counties are getting full houses for T20 fixtures but barely need to open the stands when the CC is being played. As hard is it is to admit for those of us who value the CC, there just isn't much of an audience for it so Sky as a commercial broadcaster as going to take their cameras to T20 games because people are likely to watch it.
-
Agree with the 2 views above me. Fact of the matter is womens cricket participation is expanding, has been for a while and shows no sign of slowing. Can we say the same about the mens game?
I also think that most on here could take alot from watching the womens game as its closer to the level we play. With their physical attributes being less than their male counterparts the womens game on the whole relies on intelligence, technique and innovation (natmeg anyone?).
Dont think womens cricket will be getting cancelled by Sky anytime soon - sorry!
I feel I've learnt a lot about my own game from working with the girls, because it makes me think.
I agree with @Gurujames that the fielding can be a pretty low level at times, because generally the gulf in standard is bigger between the top players in a team who've been playing for years and those who've only taken up cricket at uni (for example) as its the first time they've had the exposure to women's cricket. Greater participation, and greater coverage, can only help level the playing field and lead to more, and more competitive teams.
-
There's nothing outstanding about Sky's coverage of test cricket
Really? Watch a few more non-England tests, Sky do a properly fantastic job of test coverage.
I don't really blame Sky for not broadcasting the CC, but the online streaming figures that grow and grow are proving them wrong to some extent. Long been of the opinion that cricket is great and you just need to make it an attractive package to watch - county champs tickets should be way cheaper and the attendance would grow massively, which would have the knock on effect of making it more attractive to broadcast. Preaching to the converted stuff though as I'm not sure getting more county stuff on Sky will make any difference to participation.
Women's cricket is a bit crap, but you'd think more exposure will lead to it improving.
-
Agreed! I grew up having to listen to England's overseas tours on the radio. I have never had access to as much televised cricket as I do at the moment, and in many respects, I wonder how small the viewing audiences are for some of it. Watching earlier in the year the Caribbean T20 competition, late at night in England and with a fairly modest collection of overseas players (star billing being given to one of our old overseas pros, Sohail Tanvir, who didn't set league cricket alight) I did wonder how many people would be tuning in to watch it.
Personally, I can't say that the lack of coverage of the County Championship is impacting on young kids taking up cricket. The biggest impact has to be the lack of internationals on FTA, but then would the BBC or C4 be able to dedicate as much airspace to the domestic T20 comps as Sky does? The interest of younger supporters is in the shortest form of the game. Counties are getting full houses for T20 fixtures but barely need to open the stands when the CC is being played. As hard is it is to admit for those of us who value the CC, there just isn't much of an audience for it so Sky as a commercial broadcaster as going to take their cameras to T20 games because people are likely to watch it.
There is no evidence whatsoever that kids intrinsically prefer shorter formats. That certainly wasn't the case pre 2005, I see no reason why it would be the case today.
-
There is a generational shift in terms of patience though - now you can carry a small machine the size of a wallet in your pocket with which you can contact virtually any other person you know at any time and almost instantly find the answer to almost any question. The information we have at our fingertips is amazing, absolutely staggering, and a wonderful thing, but it is also responsible for expectations changing in terms of how long we wait for what we want.
I do think kids can love the CC games, and in the summer holidays I plan on taking my son, who will be 7 then, to watch a few games, but I do think the counties could do more to keep young families in the grounds. Ticket prices are a factor, but the stadia are also a little restrictive. I've watched games in Australia, and at their games they have other forms of entertainment, where kids can test their batting and bowling skills etc so that parents can enjoy an hour of the game, then have a wander, then take in some more, then grab some lunch and a beer, then carry on again. Essentially, the day is more interactive than it is here.
I'd like national games to be on FTA TV in their respective countries, then all Sky or whomever need to do is pay for those rights, and either add some commentary, or use the local in the case of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
-
There is a generational shift in terms of patience though - now you can carry a small machine the size of a wallet in your pocket with which you can contact virtually any other person you know at any time and almost instantly find the answer to almost any question. The information we have at our fingertips is amazing, absolutely staggering, and a wonderful thing, but it is also responsible for expectations changing in terms of how long we wait for what we want.
I do think kids can love the CC games, and in the summer holidays I plan on taking my son, who will be 7 then, to watch a few games, but I do think the counties could do more to keep young families in the grounds. Ticket prices are a factor, but the stadia are also a little restrictive. I've watched games in Australia, and at their games they have other forms of entertainment, where kids can test their batting and bowling skills etc so that parents can enjoy an hour of the game, then have a wander, then take in some more, then grab some lunch and a beer, then carry on again. Essentially, the day is more interactive than it is here.
I'd like national games to be on FTA TV in their respective countries, then all Sky or whomever need to do is pay for those rights, and either add some commentary, or use the local in the case of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
That in itself is a myth. Thousands of psych studies have looked at this, and kids today are no different from kids 30 years ago.
-
That in itself is a myth. Thousands of psych studies have looked at this, and kids today are no different from kids 30 years ago.
Using your own quote “you need to wake up” if you generally believe that statement to be true, the difference today is massive, not only in terms of Tech but in terms of attitude, respect and everything that goes with it
-
That in itself is a myth. Thousands of psych studies have looked at this, and kids today are no different from kids 30 years ago.
they are different to 10 years ago never mind 30
-
Using your own quote “you need to wake up” if you generally believe that statement to be true, the difference today is massive, not only in terms of Tech but in terms of attitude, respect and everything that goes with it
So just to be clear, you think you know better about psychology then the entire field of professional psychologists?
Two words for you. Dunning, kruger.
-
So just to be clear, you think you know better about psychology then the entire field of professional psychologists?
Two words for you. Dunning, kruger.
I don't, and I am sure Chris wouldn't claim to either, but specific to cricket I do speak to clubs every single day who lament the attitudes of young players nowadays compared to times gone by.
I wouldn't have dreamt of saying no to my first team skipper when called up from the 2nds as a teenager in the early noughties, because I'd 'rather play with my mates' or 'I want to have a bat/bowl and I'm not guaranteed one in the 1st team' - but these seem to be the standard responses nowadays. And not only that, they expect to be considered going forward after turning down the 1st team. I knew i'd never get a look in again if I said no.
In my opinion, many professionals have no connection to the real world at the coal face. Look at the 'qualified' 'professionals' running the ECB.
This topic is wavering far away from Skys (perceived lack of) cricket coverage to be honest. I know what I know, I work in the cricket industry and have done for nearly ten years now. Dropping a few psychology studies into the conversation isn't going to change that.
-
SLA talking out his backside on another topic? who would have thought it...
-
What uni has taught me is that your claims aren't credible without proper reliable information to back you up. Opinions are opinions and everyone has one, we shouldn't belittle those who you may not agree with.
Anyways back on topic, basically everything is less concentrated now and thinly spread out with each media outlet trying to win your service. Gone are the days of having everything in one place aka Sky and it's only going to get worse with the likes of Amazon, Facebook and YouTube now also trying to get views.
Outside of Aisa, cricket is a niche and if you want to watch it all you'll have to pay for it all
-
I wouldn't have dreamt of saying no to my first team skipper when called up from the 2nds as a teenager in the early noughties, because I'd 'rather play with my mates' or 'I want to have a bat/bowl and I'm not guaranteed one in the 1st team' - but these seem to be the standard responses nowadays. And not only that, they expect to be considered going forward after turning down the 1st team. I knew i'd never get a look in again if I said no.
Don't think this is a change in the way kids are now vs then, adults don't want to waste a day getting a tfc in a higher team either - and to an extent who can blame them. For better or worse, sadly everyone is time poorer these days and club cricket hasn't really worked out how to deal with that yet.
@liscon12 is bang on there, it's only going to get worse the more broadcasters decide to compete for rights - just look at football.
-
That in itself is a myth. Thousands of psych studies have looked at this, and kids today are no different from kids 30 years ago.
Yes they are and they are generally more gobby.
-
SLA talking out his backside on another topic? who would have thought it...
Oh do (No Swearing Please) off
-
I don't, and I am sure Chris wouldn't claim to either, but specific to cricket I do speak to clubs every single day who lament the attitudes of young players nowadays compared to times gone by.
I wouldn't have dreamt of saying no to my first team skipper when called up from the 2nds as a teenager in the early noughties, because I'd 'rather play with my mates' or 'I want to have a bat/bowl and I'm not guaranteed one in the 1st team' - but these seem to be the standard responses nowadays. And not only that, they expect to be considered going forward after turning down the 1st team. I knew i'd never get a look in again if I said no.
In my opinion, many professionals have no connection to the real world at the coal face. Look at the 'qualified' 'professionals' running the ECB.
This topic is wavering far away from Skys (perceived lack of) cricket coverage to be honest. I know what I know, I work in the cricket industry and have done for nearly ten years now. Dropping a few psychology studies into the conversation isn't going to change that.
So do i, so do must people here i imagine Your anecdotes are no more valid or conclusive than anyone else's. If that's all you've got, then you've got nothing. Just prejudice and hearsay.
The kids I work with in cricket are every bit as thoughtful, committed, patient, disciplined and intelligent as my generation or any before it. Professional studies back this opinion up.
Feel free to disagree, but the bottom line is, you're as wrong as any flat earther or climate change denier.
-
To lighten the mood I’ve been thinking about the SSC planning meetings.
So this month. We’ve got 31 days to fil. 24 hrs a day. I’m thinking mostly England in Sri Lanka. Maybe some Zimbabwe and then oodles of Masterclasses and How the (insert cup/series) was won... who’s with me?
What about Indian v Windies & Pakistan v Aus? The right would cost bobbins and we can take their feed & comms. I’ve checked with Harmy he’d do studio guest for a small fee plus dinner bed & breakfast in a mid range hotel.
Laughter. No need mate. There’s no chance we are putting some actual live cricket content on this channel entirely devoted to the sport. There’s no Asian fans or cricket die hards that would love an early morning with a cuppa watching international sport. Get out.
Right, back to the meeting, so who wants to see Flintoff bowling yorkers again???
-
What about Indian v Windies & Pakistan v Aus? The right would cost bobbins...
I'd imagine Stars entry into the UK rights has made the India games pretty hard for Sky to get.
-
So do i, so do must people here i imagine Your anecdotes are no more valid or conclusive than anyone else's. If that's all you've got, then you've got nothing. Just prejudice and hearsay.
The kids I work with in cricket are every bit as thoughtful, committed, patient, disciplined and intelligent as my generation or any before it. Professional studies back this opinion up.
Feel free to disagree, but the bottom line is, you're as wrong as any flat earther or climate change denier.
So my opinion is wrong because it’s an opinion but your opinion is valid because you say that it’s backed by some professional studies.
OK then.
Prejudicce and hearsay? I’m simply stating what I get told on the coal face by clubs up and down the country every single day. I personally quoted over 500 cricket clubs for ground equipment this year for grant funding purposes and as a business we do thousands of these quotes every year. During this process you do actually engage with the person from the club making the enquiry (usually chairman, captain, or committee member) and get to know them and their club. One of the consisten themes is the change in youngsters as I mentioned previously. Not my prejudiced opinion as you are trying to suggest, simply the real life experiences of club volunteers up and down the country.
Resorting to comparing me to a flat earther tells me all I need to know about the sort of person you are. Thanks for the ‘discussion’ but I think I’ll leave it there.
-
Kids are just as committed nowadays though right? Nothing’s changed you said?
I think its always been the case that kids drop out of activities, but the rate of drop-outs has become unprecedented. Whereas it used to be that maybe 75% of kids would drop out, now its 95%. That's quite a big difference, that adds up over a few years.
When I was a kid, me and most of my mates not only played cricket, but also watched it on the tv and supported England. Being interested in cricket never had a stigma attached to it (at least not where I grew up in the midlands).
-
So my opinion is wrong because it’s an opinion but your opinion is valid because you say that it’s backed by some professional studies.
OK then.
Yes. That's how it works. I have both significantly more direct experience working with kids in cricket AND the entire weight of academia on my side, you have a bunch of anecdotes.
You're not just wrong, you're beginning to look like,an arrogant and deluded idiot .
-
I can’t say I disagree with Jake as usual. From what I hear and see, attitudes are the biggest thing to have changed. We are not more time poor than say in 2000/2005 and there are no more or less people suddenly wanting to play win lose or 2020 ..
However, what has changed quite simply is each individual chooses to act in a certain way. We as a society are more agggessive than previously and this manifests itself in an increase in sledging. We have partners who are now less willing to tolerate being away every week and so attitudes change to mean player will happily miss games or even stop playing.
Each individual now has more choice than ever and so, clubs have had to accept that they need to offer each player more than they did in 2005 just to get them to play (feeds in to jakes story about demanding to get a bat and or bowl).
Do I think every player should get a game ? Yes.. why.. because it’s a hobby and is amateur sport so if you don’t get a good game why on earth wouldn’t you walk away and go to somewhere where you can (or leave the game).
Sledging is worse now and is putting kids and players off, people Quote football as being as bad but everyone loves footy right.. wrong.. that is also in terminal decline as a participation sport. Sure tv is strong but Saturday and Sunday league is dying.
Anyway, sky does a great job in what it shows but has declined massively in what it shows and filling it (like it has with football too) with crap to fill the gap isn’t good. I do enjoy women’s cricket but let’s call a spade a spade.. it’s pretty dire quality and certainly wouldn’t choose it over watching more men’s test cricket.
-
Kids are just as committed nowadays though right? Nothing’s changed you said?
Correct. Kids haven't changed, the level of fta coverage had changed, as it says quite clearly in my post.
Thanks for inadvertently further backing up my point.
-
Yes. That's how it works. I have both significantly more direct experience working with kids in cricket AND the entire weight of academia on my side, you have a bunch of anecdotes.
You're not just wrong, you're beginning to look like,an arrogant and deluded idiot .
Everyone’s experience is equally valid because that’s what they experience. Different parts of the county and even the level can make a massive difference to each persons unique experience.
Tbf, I wouldn’t trust so called experts anyway.. it’s not exactly done anyone much good when experts lead reviews or commission reports.
-
I can’t say I disagree with Jake as usual. From what I hear and see, attitudes are the biggest thing to have changed. We are not more time poor than say in 2000/2005 and there are no more or less people suddenly wanting to play win lose or 2020 ..
However, what has changed quite simply is each individual chooses to act in a certain way. We as a society are more agggessive than previously and this manifests itself in an increase in sledging. We have partners who are now less willing to tolerate being away every week and so attitudes change to mean player will happily miss games or even stop playing.
Each individual now has more choice than ever and so, clubs have had to accept that they need to offer each player more than they did in 2005 just to get them to play (feeds in to jakes story about demanding to get a bat and or bowl).
Do I think every player should get a game ? Yes.. why.. because it’s a hobby and is amateur sport so if you don’t get a good game why on earth wouldn’t you walk away and go to somewhere where you can (or leave the game).
Sledging is worse now and is putting kids and players off, people Quote football as being as bad but everyone loves footy right.. wrong.. that is also in terminal decline as a participation sport. Sure tv is strong but Saturday and Sunday league is dying.
Anyway, sky does a great job in what it shows but has declined massively in what it shows and filling it (like it has with football too) with crap to fill the gap isn’t good. I do enjoy women’s cricket but let’s call a spade a spade.. it’s pretty dire quality and certainly wouldn’t choose it over watching more men’s test cricket.
Maybe you just get sledged more. The leagues I play in are pretty friendly. Saw far more intimidation, aggression, violence etc back in the 90s.
Of course, violence as a whole has fallen dramatically across society. Just look at the crime stats. But never let the facts get in the way of a bit of ageist bigotry, eh?
-
Maybe you just get sledged more. The leagues I play in are pretty friendly. Saw far more intimidation, aggression, violence etc back in the 90s.
Of course, violence as a whole has fallen dramatically across society. Just look at the crime stats. But never let the facts get in the way of a bit of ageist bigotry, eh?
Lol
Disciplinary issues are way up compared to historical numbers
-
The last two pages have drifted off topic a lot I will unlock this tomorrow at some point