Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Cricket and the Media - your help, please

  1. #1
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752

    Cricket and the Media - your help, please

    I came upon the following on the Notts Leagues website yesterday and have tried to help.

    Unfortunately, it appears as though no-one else is willing to help (no other replies on the Notts site). Just post your replies in this thread, then I will send them to her. Come on - we've ALL got an opinion on this, so fire away. Let's have 30 responses to this.



    Her message.....

    Author: Laura Tucker
    Date: 22-06-03 00:24

    I was wondering if anybody could help me, please…

    I’ve just embarked on my A level media course which requires research into a topic of your choice, and sticking to what I know, I’ve taken on ‘Sport And The Media’. Still staying with what I know, I’m focusing on cricket (possibly with an emphasis on Twenty20 and technology in cricket).

    I was wondering what the fans thought about the relationships between cricket and the media, whether these opinions differed depending on what county you supported and whether the fans thought media was helping or hindering the game.

    · What do you think about the coverage that the media (television, radio, internet, press, etc) gives to cricket? Is there too much or too little? Is it of a decent standard or does it differ depending on your sources?
    · Is the media’s involvement in the game good or bad for cricket? Is media going to be the medium through which a new generation of fans become hooked on the game, or is the media taking the tradition out of the sport?
    · What are your feelings on the use of technology (new media) in the game? Should cricket remain traditional or is there a need for things such as ‘Hawkeye’, the stump cam/mic and the 3rd umpire and their replays etc? Have these inventions enhanced your enjoyment of the game? What about non-essential items such as Sky’s ‘Man With A Mic’?
    · Is Twenty20 really a way to increase the profile of the game amongst younger people or is it a way of making more money from increased media coverage?
    · What about the commentary that radio/television has? Are there any particular favourites/people to avoid? Do you like players taking part in coverage of matches either as guests or presenting as Ian Ward does?


    These aren’t my personal opinions but things that I’ve thought of which could be starting points for your ideas but I’d love to hear some of your general feelings on the topic too.


    Thanks for any help that you could give.

    Laura
    Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

  2. #2
    International Debutant Kimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    london
    Posts
    2,835
    Well I know that I certainly wouldn't have become interested in cricket if I hadn't seen it one TV, my parents weren't into cricket, and my big sister certainly wasn't, my schoolgirl friends weren't either. I think it's really important for growth in the sport, and it's all good so long as it is all about the cricket. Cricket hasn't been over commercialised by the media either.

    Twenty20 is also a good way to get young kids interested, I guess. I was hooked on test cricket as a 9 year old girl so I wouldn't really know much about the kids that need a lot of action to be occupied. (I always secretly enjoyed maths too :O). I don't think Twenty20 is all about the money, but it's certainly a positive spin off for the counties. I think it's good to have Twenty20 on in the evening, great to keep occupied at the gym...).

    As far as hawkeye etc goes I think they're fine, they're interesting as a spectator, and I don't think they undermine the umpires too much. The 'man with a mic' is very amusing, I like it in Twenty20, but I don't think it should be part of the more serious games.

    I don't know what I would do if I couldn't use the media to watch cricket or find out the scores, I'm sure you will get the same response from all here. It's an essential for cricket enthusiasts... As far as coverage goes, if you love the game you can't get enough.

    Everyone has favourite commentators, and ones you perhaps dont like as much but its not going to ruin a good game.
    Does anyone else think that David Lloyd looks like a real life caricature? Brilliant!
    life's a gift thats why they call it the present

  3. #3
    PY
    PY is offline
    International Coach PY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Posts
    10,736
    I think that the level of media coverage in England is O.K. especially in the broadsheets but I'm of the opinion that any publicity that cricket can get can only help the game get more fans (except pitch invasions but they are very rare).
    This Twenty20 Cup is a prime example, people may argue about whether it is good for the game but if they are arguing and discussing the virtues of it all in the national newspapers then more people are going to read these articles and maybe wonder what it is about and go to a game. Again more people watching which is always good.
    I have only had the opportunity to watch one game on Channel 4 but when I did I was delighted to hear the 'Man with a Mic' as I didn't know about it before and it was excellent. The game was Gloucestershire vs Worcestershire and Jonty Rhodes (South African international) and Ben Smith (Worcs captain). Jonty Rhodes was bubbling with enthusiasm and you got his personal opinion on how the game was going and what his team needed to do to keep opposition total low. He was laughing and joking with the commentators and was quite interesting. Then came Ben Smith and this was a quality idea as he's the captain and can say what he's intending on doing for next few overs and whether he's going to change bowlers and where his fielders are going to go, insight for budding young captains who are looking to learn what they should do in tight situations.
    On Hawkeye and suchlike, why not? As long as too much power doesn't get shifted to the technology then I can't see a problem. It's interesting to watch and gives you better understanding of decisions. Tennis has just started using Hawkeye as well and it serves the same purpose, just that little extra coverage that TV can offer.
    Hope this is helpful,
    Pete
    A True Champion - Bob. Rest in peace. 15/04/06
    "People today have too big a devil and too small a God"

    - Stephen Currie

    "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27:1

  4. #4
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,839
    Will respond when it's not ten to midnight and I can write coherently
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog


  5. #5
    International Regular Andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,123
    The media is largely responsable for what cricket is today - take a bow Mr Kerry Packer (World Series Cricket). Without the media, it would not have the familiarity with the everyday person as it does today, and as long as the player's lives and personal space are not invaded, the media can only do good things for the game of cricket.

    On the issue of technology, I'm afraid it has the potential to ruin the game altogether. Third umpire for run outs was a great thing, but now the suggestion of TV umpire for LBW's will remove the human element from the game, henc taking out any imperfection that makes cricket the great game it is.

    As for innovations like Hawkeye, this is brilliant for the TV viewer but should not be transefed to match officials.

    Purists will suggest tewnty20 will ruin the longer form of the game. So far it is too early to tell but it has been a hit with the specators. My greatest fear is that players will no longer have the technique with bat or ball to survive at the top level - the crash and bash game is good for money and player's bank balances but whether it is good for their skills is doubtful at best. Only time will tell.

    Well, there is my rant - best of luck

  6. #6
    International Regular chris.hinton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,332
    I think that the media coverage on the game is just right. I think that they can put more Coverage into the Domestic game and Grass roots level.
    I think that the Media has made cricket what it is today with all these New and Fresh Ideas all steming from Kerry Packer in 1977, and i glad it been like this becasue no one would have been interested if it all test cricket.

    The news Gimmicks have made cricket a more appeling game to all newcomers and younger Fans
    There are lots of kids who are interested in how many MPH the bowler bowls? and i think Hawkeye is the best idea yet
    I think that Twenty20 has been a success and that it need to " Update" itself in the next few years as people will get bored of the idea and i think the new fans have enjoyed the idea and concept of the game

    I think players has commentatror is excellent because the Knowledge of the game is second to none

  7. #7
    International 12th Man Bazza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hants, England
    Posts
    1,710
    I think media coverage is essential and the current level in this country is about right, although I thought it was disgraceful there was no coverage of the world cup on terrestrial television.

    Technology I like. Snickometer, Hawkeye is particularly excellent, third umpire ruling on run outs is entirely necessary but shouldn't be used for lbw's in my opinion. Maybe Hawkeye should but as Andre points out this removes the human aspect of officiating.

    Twenty20 is good. It has been very popular and I think encourages young people to take an interest in the sport which is great, but I also feel in two to three years it could become stale so it will either need reinventing or constant evolution, else it will die off.

    The man with a mic I am not a fan off. It's an interesting gimmick for the TV viewer but this will ware off, and I just feel it's unfair on a player who is trying to concentrate on their game to get them to take part in an interview midmatch. A captain or bowler is trying to set the field and instead they are forced to answer questions for TV purposes, and the same when a batsman is trying to have a quick chat to his partner between overs.

    I am more than happy for players to get their foot in the media door however in between playing commitments, just so long as they are more interesting to listen to than Nasser Hussain or more insightful than Phil Tufnell! Ian Ward has done well for himself and fair play to him I say.
    My house is burned down but I can see the sky.

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,839
    · What do you think about the coverage that the media (television, radio, internet, press, etc) gives to cricket? Is there too much or too little? Is it of a decent standard or does it differ depending on your sources?

    BBC Radio 4's Test Match Special coverage has been excellent for all of my (short) lifetime. It's good that they have covered all Twenty20 games through local radio as well, though I haven't listened to any of it.

    Channel 4's TV coverage is innovative but this season has, to be honest, been crap. The treatment of viewers has been only marginally more friendly than Graeme Smith feels towards Lance Klusener, and there were no highlights at all throughout the World Cup, and none tonight either for Zim v SA at Canterbury. And when we do get highlights, it's far too superficial concentrating on everything but (sic) leather on willow. More Twenty20 would have been nice and maybe some domestic coverage?

    CricInfo's ball-by-ball match coverage is excellent, and CricketWeb.net is a fantastic source of fresh, incisive reporting.

    Press coverage varies from paper to paper - the Telegraph is traditionally superb, even if they tend to be too Surrey-centric. What do you expect? And Mark Nicholas is better when you don't have to a) look at or b) hear him.

    · Is the media’s involvement in the game good or bad for cricket? Is media going to be the medium through which a new generation of fans become hooked on the game, or is the media taking the tradition out of the sport?

    Must be good. There's no other way of reaching out as not everyone can afford - or even get to - live top-class cricket. Society is changing and cricket must change too. If it wasn't for Kerry Packer giving the Imperial Cricket Conference (might not have been called that then, but it still thought that way) a large steel toe-capped boot up its ample behind, world cricket would probably have died - or at least, been in Intensive Care on a respirator.

    · What are your feelings on the use of technology (new media) in the game? Should cricket remain traditional or is there a need for things such as ‘Hawkeye’, the stump cam/mic and the 3rd umpire and their replays etc? Have these inventions enhanced your enjoyment of the game? What about non-essential items such as Sky’s ‘Man With A Mic’?

    HawkEye's fantastic. We've covered this, and I'm in line with Bazza and Andre on the rest of this issue. Unpredictability is what sport's about. Look at Formula One when all the gadgets came in (OK, it's not the same issue, but still, predictability and certainty correlate inversely with viewer interest). How many of the great moments of the past have been due to officials being, well, incompetent?

    "Man With A Mic" I haven't seen much of to comment upon - but if the player is willing to do it, then why not?

    · Is Twenty20 really a way to increase the profile of the game amongst younger people or is it a way of making more money from increased media coverage?

    You need to remember that County Cricket's finances are, and have been, in an incredibly parlous state for several years now. The Twenty20 is an excellent way to bring in income BUT it also attracts a new audience to the game. The attendance figures for the group games have been spectacular, and in the long run it will only improve fielding skills, improvisation and run scoring. And as for technique, it's still about scoring runs quickly without throwing away wickets. It won't wreck that if batsmen have the mental ability to select shots properly.

    · What about the commentary that radio/television has? Are there any particular favourites/people to avoid? Do you like players taking part in coverage of matches either as guests or presenting as Ian Ward does?

    Navjot Sidhu is a legend. That's all I'm saying

    Mark Nicholas is too full of himself. Mike Atherton is excellent, and Henry Olonga has impressed me too in the very brief time I've heard him (thank you Channel 4).

    If the ex-player is the best man for the job, then get him in there. Haven't got SKY, haven't seen Ian Ward present apart from on fast-forward during recorded World Cup highlights, so can't comment

    Hope that helps

  9. #9
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    Alright, here is what I have to stay.

    Cricket and the media go hand-in-hand. Kerry Packer did the right thing in my opinion in forming World Series Cricket. With him he brought, day night cricket, 15 over fielding restrictions, the 30 yard circle, colour clothing and white ball. By signing 60 of the games top players and some the all time greats (The Chappells, Greame Pollock, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding etc) which helped sell the game and help make it a success. If you had poor players, then the creditability of it would of been ruined and it would of been a failure.

    Hawkeye, has been a great concept. It shows the types of delieveries that got wickets, which were poor, and which were good. It allows the knew to cricket to learn more about each delievery and so on.

    The speed guns are just about the norm for cricket matches. And it gets the crowd excited when seeing Brett Lee and Shoaib Ahktar bowl over 150km an hour.

    The 3rd umpire was initally designed to assist run outs and stumping and that is what it should be used for. Refrels for close catches will prove nothing as you cant tell if it was a catch or not. There was an LBW 3rd umpire experiment during the 2002 ICC Champions Trophey. There is no need for it, if the umpires call correctly.

    Twenty20 by some clubs have marketted it "sexy cricket" by having cheerleaders and posters of half naked players. This will always attract the girls and boys to the game just from that.

    Cricket Max (in New Zealand) and Twenty20 are of the same concept and in New Zealand it helped bring new supporters to the game. Cricket Max was initated by former Kiwi and batting great Martin Cowe.

    Hope this helps.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  10. #10
    International 12th Man Bazza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hants, England
    Posts
    1,710
    But Cricket Max died a fairly quick death. Some people say this is because it was overly complicated. Double runs down the ground for hitting straight is a good concept but wasn't really popular (Crowe was a big fan of playing straight).

    It has been suggested Twenty20 is a better concept because it keeps things simple. There aren't any new rules, it's just condensed one day cricket. It will be interesting to see how long it remains a success for - in my opinion in three or four years we could see it fading in terms of popularity, but who knows?

  11. #11
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Hexxagon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    All these new innovations like the 20crap and maxcricket wont be necessary if the administrators made a changes in test cricket....not radical alterations, just enforcement of quick bowling rates( maybe a minimum of 16 overs per hour)...and doing away with the tea break( are there dainty ladies playing the game?)..keep short drinks intervals instead..use the lights if needed... arrange fewer of those crappy mismatches( eng-zim, aus-ban) .........
    Millhouse: you know when your dog ate my goldfish bart and you told me i never had a goldfish, then why did i have the bowl bart! why did i have the bowl!!!!
    Karthik_moo@hotmail.com
    Member of the MSC and the AAAS
    Wanna Search ?
    Waughney : We are well taken care of here at the Rehab centre.

  12. #12
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Originally posted by orangepitch
    ( maybe a minimum of 16 overs per hour)
    That's almost impossible to achieve for a team such as West Indies or Pakistan.
    arrange fewer of those crappy mismatches( eng-zim, aus-ban)
    That messes up the ICC Test Championship.
    use the lights if needed
    No international ground in the WI has lights (there's a ground in Trinidad with lights - not international status though). I expect that this may change for the WC 2007 with lights installed on major grounds.....unllikely though.
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."


  13. #13
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    Originally posted by orangepitch
    arrange fewer of those crappy mismatches( eng-zim, aus-ban) .........
    Looks like the Australian cricket team have just been granted a few years holiday, while the rest cricket catches up with them.

  14. #14
    Soutie Langeveldt's Avatar
    Pinball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    29,542
    Originally posted by orangepitch
    arrange fewer of those crappy mismatches( eng-zim, aus-ban) .........
    And who was it that won at Headingley?
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Don't like using my iPod dock. Ruins battery life too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Thanks Dick Smith. Will remember to subscribe to your newsletter for more electronic fun facts.

    ****.

  15. #15
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    Granted... England and probley most sides on their day can beat Australia but these are one off games when the pressure is off IMO.

    WI won the last test, but had already lost the series

    England won in Sydney - Still lost the series 4-1


    All iam saying is that series although have their intresting points/days even matches, overall they aren't that competive when Australia are playing, however that gap is closing IMO in recent times teams have been lucky to win a day's play, now they are picking up the odd test

    Sorry just re-read and you weren't even replying to my post :duh: sorry
    Last edited by Rich2001; 07-07-2003 at 10:03 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •