Topic: Sky Sports Cricket (Read 12353 times)

SLA · « **Reply #30 on:** October 30, 2018, 04:50:24 PM »

Quote from: Sam on October 30, 2018, 01:28:47 PM

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.

SLA · « **Reply #31 on:** October 30, 2018, 05:00:11 PM »

Quote from: SD on October 30, 2018, 03:26:28 PM

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.

cricketbadger · « **Reply #32 on:** October 30, 2018, 05:47:03 PM »

Quote from: SLA on October 30, 2018, 04:50:24 PM

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

Sam · « **Reply #33 on:** October 30, 2018, 06:44:34 PM »

Quote from: SLA on October 30, 2018, 04:50:24 PM

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.

SLA · « **Reply #34 on:** October 30, 2018, 07:08:15 PM »

Quote from: Sam on October 30, 2018, 06:44:34 PM

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.

Obts1970 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 30, 2018, 07:10:33 PM »

If you are brought up watching cricket, there are certain things in life only you can relate to

Sam · « **Reply #36 on:** October 30, 2018, 07:16:17 PM »

Quote from: SLA on October 30, 2018, 07:08:15 PM

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.

t2ylo · « **Reply #37 on:** October 30, 2018, 07:25:11 PM »

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.

SLA · « **Reply #38 on:** October 30, 2018, 07:31:40 PM »

Quote from: Sam on October 30, 2018, 07:16:17 PM

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.

cricketbadger · « **Reply #39 on:** October 30, 2018, 09:15:05 PM »

Seen as it's England it would have been nice for some coverage from the warm up games. If even settle for 30mins highlights

Kez · « **Reply #40 on:** October 30, 2018, 10:02:57 PM »

Quote from: SLA on October 30, 2018, 07:08:15 PM

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.

Kez · « **Reply #41 on:** October 30, 2018, 10:12:58 PM »

Quote from: cricketbadger on October 30, 2018, 09:15:05 PM

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.

mohawks94 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 31, 2018, 11:44:11 AM »

Quote from: csnew on October 28, 2018, 05:28:02 PM

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.

Gurujames · « **Reply #43 on:** October 31, 2018, 11:50:22 AM »

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.

LateBloomer · « **Reply #44 on:** October 31, 2018, 12:44:53 PM »

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!

Author Topic: Sky Sports Cricket (Read 12353 times)

SLA

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

SLA

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

cricketbadger

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

Sam

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

SLA

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

Obts1970

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

Sam

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

t2ylo

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

SLA

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

cricketbadger

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

Kez

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

Kez

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

mohawks94

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

Gurujames

Re: Sky Sports Cricket

LateBloomer

Re: Sky Sports Cricket