Ship of Fools: Cricket - Will it ever make a 'comeback'?

Thread: Cricket - Will it ever make a 'comeback'? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029781

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

Sky TV say they have pumped a lot of money into the game, and going to County Cricket matches is remarkably cheap. And yet, and yet ... The loss of the armchair follower is massive. With zero Freeview-TV coverage, do enough people care any more? Used to be that football was the 'national sport' in the UK, with rugby, cricket and tennis bubbling under ... I honestly cannot now remember the last time I overheard two people in the street talking about cricket .. In other words, in terms of its place in our national consciousness, its slipped down to the level occupied by netball, hockey etc ... Any grounds for hope ??

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Any grounds for hope ??

The Ship is doing its best, with its venerable Everlasting Cricket Thread.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Definitely on a sticky wicket.

A lot of the money Sky has put in seems to have gone on the short forms of the game - one day, 20/20. These have more of the "action" of the game, batsmen hitting sixes and wickets falling as people take chances to tot up a big score in a short period. Apparently the people at Sky think that that is what people want to watch.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

Sky have a lot to answer for, imo... it's a double-edged sword, I suppose. Sport is big business now whether any of us like it or not, and in that environment NOT selling the rights for tv coverage makes no sense.

However, I'm not from a sporting household, at all, but became a cricket fan while at university due largely to the fact that test cricket showed on free tv at the time. It was there (for several whole days at a time), so I watched it (that's students for you). Then, thanks to sky, it disappeared behind a paywall along with any other sport you might want to watch as well as all the other ones that boggle the mind.* Now, sky sport is really very expensive to subscribe to, and I never have. Most of my built-up knowledge about various players and their strengths, etc., became irrelevant as they retired one by one. Then, a few years ago, I discovered cricinfo, and that test cricket's relaxed pace is really quite well suited to a commentary that someone has to type out! A few months ago I went to my first international match, and I have to say it was such a good experience actually being there, that I would much rather spend my money doing that occasionally, than subscribing to sky so I can slouch on the couch watching as many as I want at home. But I do wonder how you can get new fans for a sport when there is no possibility for accidental exposure, and no options for any sort of 'casual' interest.

*eg; darts.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

In Australia we still talk about cricket and we have free to air coverage of tests, ODIs, 20/20. [Big Grin]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
In Australia we still talk about cricket and we have free to air coverage of tests, ODIs, 20/20.

And the interest of the nation, and the esteem in which cricket is held, is reflected in the quality of the cricket the Australian team plays (I say this in all sincerity). The Aussie cricketers are not eternally doomed to be the poor cousins of the Wallabies, so far as I can see, and their morale reflects this. (and yes, I am still being serious).

As a matter of interest, how do you think the funding equation works with Australian sport, if the majority of it is available free-to-air? Is it being govt-subsidised? Seems unlikely in Murdoch-land. Any ideas?

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

The Game of the Gods is very much still Numero Uno over here with other games far behind although soccer is growing a bit these days. It's the same across the whole sub-continent as well, apart from Nepal. We even have several TV channels [not just the Murdoch ones] that are dedicated solely to cricket. As the law stands at the moment whenever the national team is involved in a match it must also be broadcast on a free to air channel - that applies to the men's team, not sure about the women's team.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There is a similar list of "crown jewel" sporting events that must be broadcast live on free-to-air channels in the UK. This used to include all home test matches (though not the overseas tours). The move to category B where live coverage can be exclusively on pay-to-view channels (but highlights must be broadcast on free-to-air) was negotiated by England and Wales Cricket Board - giving them loads of dosh but stopping lots of fans from watching the matches. Bunch of tossers.

At least there's still Test Match Special.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Mmm. I don't really blame Sky - they're just doing what they do - but I do blame the ECB. I think selling out to Sky was incredibly short-sighted and really damaged the grass-roots.

Ironically now that there are stacks of digital channels it would be easy enough to televise full Test matches without blocking out huge acreages of time on BBC1/2, which I could see might annoy people.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I happened to discover Cricket by accident on holiday eleven years ago while very bored. It was the 2005 Ashes and the last series that was broadcast free to air.

I must have spent several thousand dollars/pounds over the years since then watching matches live or via Sky/streaming. I'd never in my life have gone to a game or got interested without that accidental exposure.

They're killing the game with it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

There is just a tiny little problem with cricket.

I don't understand a thing about it.

(But I hope it gets all the audience support it needs.)

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

It's really quite simple.

But unless you're English, you're actually genetically programmed not to understand it. [Big Grin]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I don't know about that last point. Australians, South Africans, West Indians, Indians and others seem to understand the game very well - certainly well enough to thrash England on a regular basis.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
It's really quite simple.

But unless you're English, you're actually genetically programmed not to understand it.

It's not as though you need to understand every single rule in order to follow and enjoy the game, though.

As an example, here is an excerpt of a conversation I had with my four-year-old a couple of weeks ago, prompted by his Nan complaining that cricket was impossible to understand.

Me: Who's the man with the ball?
Little'un: The bowler.
Me: What's he trying to do with the ball?
Little'un: Hit the thumpthths (lisp)
Me: What is the man with the bat trying to do?
Little'un: Thtop him from hitting the thumpthths.

And that's from having watched odd snatches of cricket here and there in the local pub while drinking lemonade, over the Christmas break (because, as previously mentioned, you can't watch it for free in NZ - grr).

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't know about that last point. Australians, South Africans, West Indians, Indians and others seem to understand the game very well - certainly well enough to thrash England on a regular basis.

I'm not quite sure why my compatriots are (possibly) amongst 'others' when the West Indies are in your list, based on rankings... [Biased]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

In her recent podcast Keep Calman Carry On, Glaswegian Susan Calman busts the myth that you have to understand the rules of the game to enjoy a day at the cricket.

In relation to cricket funding in Australia, it primarily comes from the sale of broadcast rights, sponsorship and gate receipts. I'm not sure how the development of young cricketers is funded, but there is probably government funding in there through the Australian Institute of Sport.

Almost all of our state-level domestic games and international matches played in Australia are televised on free-to-air. I think they are showing womens cricket too, but I may be thinking about the Soccer. Certainly vision from the recent Ashes triumph was all over the sports news. Other than the Ashes from England, I'm pretty sure that you have to have pay TV for games played internationally, or watch it on the web.

The cricket is brilliant, but we want England to be competitive so that when you are crushed without mercy we don't feel like we have just bounced out an 8 year old in backyard cricket.

[ 11. March 2016, 09:03: Message edited by: simontoad ]

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't know about that last point. Australians, South Africans, West Indians, Indians and others seem to understand the game very well - certainly well enough to thrash England on a regular basis.

Fair point. [Smile]

As my Better Half (who is English) points out, whether one understands all the rules or not, you really can't fault a game where they stop for tea.

And CAKE. [Big Grin]

[ 11. March 2016, 14:09: Message edited by: Piglet ]

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

I am not altogether happy with the current team or a couple before this. Not too much team in the team. I can cope with the one day game, but the thrash 'em quick style does not appeal at all. Five day Tests are just that, tests, both physical and psychological.

Over holiday January, I would watch any match on TV. That follows from listening to radio broadcasts. Those follow from frequent visits to a cricket mad grandmother who would sit up at night to listen to shortwave broadcasts and static from England. She even heard the early commentators who would give a ball by ball description of something they could not even see. Bat on ball was cover by tapping pencil end on desk.

No wonder I grew up listening.

[ 13. March 2016, 06:37: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

It's played here in New York City by Carribean immigrants in various parks. I've watched it sometimes. Don't understand much but it's fun.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

One reason that cricket is among the most popular viewing sports in Australia is that we are divided over football codes, and Australian Rules football is not an international sport (there are teams overseas, but they are not strong enough to compete with an Australian team). Cricket is followed nationally and has strong state teams in each state and good local competitions.

Traditionally Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia I think the Northern Territory follow Australian Rules football. New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Queensland follow the Rugby codes, apparently based on class I think. So not everyone is that excited when the Wallabies win.

Soccer is becoming more popular, but they have too many stupid fans who like lighting flares, which puts off non-soccer fans. Two of my nephews play soccer and went to an A-league game recently with their parents and younger siblings and my parents. Apparently fans were setting off detonators stolen from train stations as well as flares, which doesn't make for a family friendly environment or enjoyment of those there to actually watch the game.

Cricket is watched by men, women and children and is a popular sport to play, especially in the backyard or at family picnics in good weather. This is helped by our climate too. Also we have plastic kanga cricket bats and stumps that can be used to play cricket indoors with a tennis ball, so kids can play on a basketball court or gym if it's raining outside during holiday programs etc.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Also we have plastic kanga cricket bats and stumps that can be used to play cricket indoors with a tennis ball, so kids can play on a basketball court or gym if it's raining outside during holiday programs etc.

I have also seen such bats in the UK, so we can also play indoors on the (more frequent) rainy days. Can, of course, doesn't mean will.

The biggest issue for cricket is that it's not played at schools to a great extent. Certainly my school had two sports lessons a week (PE inside and Games outside). During the first two terms (Sept through to Easter break) we played football or cross-country runnin in games, and gymnastics or basketball (indoors) in PE. In later years we had more diversity (hockey outside, even rugby when enough were interested, and badminton inside). Summer saw all our sport move outside and we switched to athletics, tennis, softball and a bit of cricket - but the cricket required the pitch to be dry (hah! fat chance of that on a regular basis). Plus that term was short, a few weeks then a break from almost everything for revision and exams, so the time for cricket was in the early part of the spring when the chances of the pitch being dry were even less. In all my time at school I think we only got out to play cricket maybe half a dozen times - and a lot of that time was spent just throwing and catching the ball.

To really play cricket you need to be in some club that has you out on the pitch for 2-3 afternoons a week during the summer break. Which meant you needed to already be interested in the game, which is difficult to do when not really exposed to it at school.

I picked up my interest in the game from watching it on TV at university. But, apart from some mucking about in the park I never really played. Though, I could put a decent spin on the ball, which on an unprepared rough surface did mean that, on the few occasions I could put the ball in the right place, batsmen had an interesting time!

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
In Australia we still talk about cricket and we have free to air coverage of tests, ODIs, 20/20.
And the interest of the nation, and the esteem in which cricket is held, is reflected in the quality of the cricket the Australian team plays (I say this in all sincerity). The Aussie cricketers are not eternally doomed to be the poor cousins of the Wallabies, so far as I can see, and their morale reflects this. (and yes, I am still being serious).

As a matter of interest, how do you think the funding equation works with Australian sport, if the majority of it is available free-to-air? Is it being govt-subsidised? Seems unlikely in Murdoch-land. Any ideas?

Advertising revenue from the free to air coverage and large scale sponsorship would, I think be the main revenue source. Cricket is supported by big banks, beer companies, car companies and the like. Cricket still manages to rate well in Australia. Funny you mention Murdoch (who by the way is no longer an Aussie [Cool]

) it is media magnate Kerry Packer who saved cricket from being an irrelevancy in Australia (and created a profitable business for his TV channel) with his world series cricket in the 1970s.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0