how has the media effected cricket in terms of spectators and participation?

[geoff roberts]

its my hypothesis for my media studies exam and i was just wondering what you guy thought

[Perm]

For a start, that is an open question and not a hypothesis. I think the media has encouraged spectators in recent times, especially when they are hyping up games. The Chappell Hadlee series had a number of radio ad gimmicks that included "The Black Caps will win every game on the last ball with a boundary", "Jacob Oram will hit 7 sixes in an over" and "Brendon McCullum will break the record for the fastest fifty, twice". These are obviously attempts to hype up games and in a way they worked, I found my little brothers to be getting very excited about the cricket and quoting these ads quite frequently.

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by Perm

For a start, that is an open question and not a hypothesis. I think the media has encouraged spectators in recent times, especially when they are hyping up games. The Chappell Hadlee series had a number of radio ad gimmicks that included "The Black Caps will win every game on the last ball with a boundary", "Jacob Oram will hit 7 sixes in an over" and "Brendon McCullum will break the record for the fastest fifty, twice". These are obviously attempts to hype up games and in a way they worked, I found my little brothers to be getting very excited about the cricket and quoting these ads quite frequently.

For such ridiculous statements, they weren't that far out!

[steds]

Warrington, hey?

The media, especially the written press, obviously pretty much decides whether a sport is successful or not. With no vehicle for people who like the game to follow it, they'll have little opportunity to show any interest and the sport will die on it's arse. The hype created by the media draws people in. See the 2005 Ashes. During/immediately following Edgbaston, cricket started hitting the frontpages of the national newspapers. Consequently, Channel 4's viewing audience at Old Trafford peaked at 7.7 million, the highest the channel had got for it's coverage of the sport. The next test, it peaked at 8.4 million. That would not have happened had the newspapers given the series rugby league-esque coverage.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by Perm

For a start, that is an open question and not a hypothesis. I think the media has encouraged spectators in recent times, especially when they are hyping up games. The Chappell Hadlee series had a number of radio ad gimmicks that included "The Black Caps will win every game on the last ball with a boundary", "Jacob Oram will hit 7 sixes in an over" and "Brendon McCullum will break the record for the fastest fifty, twice". These are obviously attempts to hype up games and in a way they worked, I found my little brothers to be getting very excited about the cricket and quoting these ads quite frequently.

Weren't those ads only played after the series? And they were clearly extracting the urine, from what I remember.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Voltman

Weren't those ads only played after the series? And they were clearly extracting the urine, from what I remember.

No doubt they were taking the piss, but they weren't too far off in terms of excitement. They did actually play the ads before and during the series IIRC, quite ironic considering Michael Mason hit a 4 off the last ball of the game to beat Sri Lanka earlier.

[Smudge]

As for the main question, the media has affected cricket where I live.

Because I'm now a member of the media, I hardly get a game in these days.