Cricket on TV in the UK

[Aidan11]

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/in...ort-sky-848462

I'm hoping Sky put in a bigger bid now that they have more money in their cricket budget thank to the ECB giving them the NZ rights for nowt.

[square leg umpire]

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/in...ort-sky-848462

Would a terrestrial channel be able to spare the air time for test cricket?

[Aidan11]

Originally Posted by square leg umpire

Would a terrestrial channel be able to spare the air time for test cricket?

Don't see why not. Most of daytime tv is filler anyway.. I do remember though that when C4 previously had test cricket at home the matches had to begin at 10.30am so that the end of the day's play didn't delay the C4 news programme. Also when they had horse racing transmission switched to Film4. Don't think they show horse racing now though.

[sharky]

Originally Posted by Aidan11

Don't see why not. Most of daytime tv is filler anyway.. I do remember though that when C4 previously had test cricket at home the matches had to begin at 10.30am so that the end of the day's play didn't delay the C4 news programme. Also when they had horse racing transmission switched to Film4. Don't think they show horse racing now though.

Pretty sure it wasn't even the news, it was repeats of Friends they didn't want to mess with. It would be nice if it was on Channel 4, I reckon it would generate a new advert revenue stream for them as the IPL on Sky is chockablock with British Asian commercials.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by sharky

Pretty sure it wasn't even the news, it was repeats of Friends they didn't want to mess with. It would be nice if it was on Channel 4, I reckon it would generate a new advert revenue stream for them as the IPL on Sky is chockablock with British Asian commercials.

To simply not see that rather annoying promo for women’s sport is reason enough not to give it to sky.

To be it’s the advert I dislike and not women’s sport itself.

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by Aidan11

I'm hoping Sky put in a bigger bid now that they have more money in their cricket budget thank to the ECB giving them the NZ rights for nowt.

Hope so too. Fingers crossed.

Somehow I think Channel 4 would only get the highlights if anything.

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by Aidan11

The ECB have given Sky the rights to next summer's series against New Zealand for free ...

If they are happy not to make any money by selling the rights, then why don't they just set up a few cameras and stream these tests online for free?

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

If they are happy not to make any money by selling the rights, then why don't they just set up a few cameras and stream these tests online for free?

Because the coverage would be crap in comparison to Sky and the numbers watching would probably be even less?

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Because the coverage would be crap in comparison to Sky and the numbers watching would probably be even less?

I don't see why. They manage to do slo-mo replays for coverage of county matches, and they could synch it with TMS. At least it would stand a chance of reaching a new watching audience.

Anyway the answer is that the ECB want to curry favour with Sky.

In a way it's the same thing that's going on with academic publishers. The distribution of written materials to users is now easy and free, but somehow things are being arranged so that the gangs that made money out of publishing in the old days still do so.

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

I don't see why. They manage to do slo-mo replays for coverage of county matches, and they could synch it with TMS. At least it would stand a chance of reaching a new watching audience.

Anyway the answer is that the ECB want to curry favour with Sky.

In a way it's the same thing that's going on with academic publishers. The distribution of written materials to users is now easy and free, but somehow things are being arranged so that the gangs that made money out of publishing in the old days still do so.

Why not do it as well as showing it on Sky. If Sky haven't paid anything they wouldn't be bothered about exclusivity.

Not surprising they would curry favour with Sky. They've invested a lot of money into English Cricket and provide an unparalleled service.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

I don't see why. They manage to do slo-mo replays for coverage of county matches, and they could synch it with TMS. At least it would stand a chance of reaching a new watching audience.

Anyway the answer is that the ECB want to curry favour with Sky.

In a way it's the same thing that's going on with academic publishers. The distribution of written materials to users is now easy and free, but somehow things are being arranged so that the gangs that made money out of publishing in the old days still do so.

It's not really the same.

Also while offering it for free might reach a wider audience, I would want those "new" to watching cricket to have the best possible experience so they might want to watch it again. Not sure the limited county cricket approach, which is fine for us nerds, would be that type of experience. Something may not be better than nothing in this case.

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Why not do it as well as showing it on Sky. If Sky haven't paid anything they wouldn't be bothered about exclusivity.

Not surprising they would curry favour with Sky. They've invested a lot of money into English Cricket and provide an unparalleled service.

While not paying for the series may reduce their expenditure they don't want to also risk losing out on their income stream too.

[Rebelstar]

It's on C4, let's hope those wake up for it aren't sent back to sleep!

[Michelle Fivefer]

I watched a fair amount of live-streamed county cricket last year. Camera at each end, no cameras following fielders to the boundary, no close-ups, replays of wickets but no analysis of bowling or batting techniques. Every ball bowled, every wicket taken, every catch taken as long as it was in a camera’s sights. Better than nothing, obviously.

There may have been slo-mo replays as mentioned above.

To be honest, county cricket is covered much better on radio, with the commentators describing the play in detail. TV coverage uses the maxim “let the pictures tell the story” but you need the expert commentators to complement the pictures.

[Aidan11]

Channel 4 won the rights by bidding a paltry £2 million.

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by Aidan11

Channel 4 won the rights by bidding a paltry £2 million.

Blimey, so basically Sky just weren't interested at all in showing it then. Which makes me wonder whether they were happy to let this go to FTA and then hope to pick up a whole new brigade of viewers for when India tour here in the summer. It would make sense to me.

[paulsre]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

I watched a fair amount of live-streamed county cricket last year. Camera at each end, no cameras following fielders to the boundary, no close-ups, replays of wickets but no analysis of bowling or batting techniques. Every ball bowled, every wicket taken, every catch taken as long as it was in a camera’s sights. Better than nothing, obviously.

The Surrey coverage is vastly better than that, the main camera follows the action, zooms in and out and there are other cameras as well. There are many replays (actually an excessive amount in my view), and Mark Church's BBC Radio commentary team, plus an on-screen interviewer/summariser.

To compare, I would say it's just as good as the BBC's TV coverage was back in the day, it just feels like watching a TV programme.

Somerset also do it as a programme with a dedicated TV team.

[offa59]

I think we can assume SKY are feeling the financial strain of the pandemic, when £2 million isn't considered "paltry".
It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't understand the financial reality of whats coming when things return to normal.
This could well be the beginning of the end of subscription TV as we know it.

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by offa59

I think we can assume SKY are feeling the financial strain of the pandemic, when £2 million isn't considered "paltry".
It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't understand the financial reality of whats coming when things return to normal.
This could well be the beginning of the end of subscription TV as we know it.

I don't think £2m is a problem for Sky, they clearly didn't need it.

If they lose subscribers it will be the sports that suffer. They won't bid as much and it will probably hit player's wages the most (footballers).

[sharky]

It's so good to see cricket back on Channel 4. Cook needs to slow down a bit when he talks though, he seems to start the next sentence before he finished the last one. Rishi seems quite knowledgeable.

[Aidan11]

Originally Posted by offa59

I think we can assume SKY are feeling the financial strain of the pandemic, when £2 million isn't considered "paltry".
It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't understand the financial reality of whats coming when things return to normal.
This could well be the beginning of the end of subscription TV as we know it.

Subscription tv seems to be getting wider which may be more of a problem for Sky. BT and Amazon Prime are competing in the sports markets and others could follow. The issue is how many packages can consumers afford? If it gets to the stage where Sky's coverage of cricket is greatly reduced because, BT, Amazon and others are getting a share then it will become a nightmare for Sky..and the consumer. I wonder if Sky are beginning to regret shelling out £36m per season for The Hundred. That would have been better off on Disney.