Cricket and the Media - your help, please

[luckyeddie]

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

 

[Kimbo]

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!

 

[PY]

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

 

[Neil Pickup]

Will respond when it's not ten to midnight and I can write coherently

 

[Andre]

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

 

[chris.hinton]

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

 

[Bazza]

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.

 

[Neil Pickup]

· 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

 

[Craig]

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 "***y 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.

 

[Bazza]

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?

 

[Deja moo]

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) .........

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

( 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.

 

[Rich2001]

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.

 

[Langeveldt]

arrange fewer of those crappy mismatches( eng-zim, aus-ban) .........

And who was it that won at Headingley?

 

[Rich2001]

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

 

[full_length]

Re: cricket media
It's mixed, as is to be expected. However, I have often been irritated at the quality of match reports. Most newspapers/websites I see talk about side issues and personalities more than the cricket on display. These also have a place in "opinion" columns and other cricket related articles. However, a match report is a match report and it should give a good detailed account of what happened on that day of cricket with a degree of fluidity to maintain reader interest. I think this is very rare, although not altogether absent.

Secondly, in my opinion, there is too much parroting, and I appreciate individual views!! But it's probably present in every form of media.

Re: Twenty20
From all accounts it seems to be excellent for the sport. It may generate a lot of useful money and there's nothing wrong with that. If handled properly it may well turn out to be a major attraction worldwide. But it's not there to take the place of test or ODI cricket. Kudos to the ECB for getting it right. The failure of previous similar attempts has been highlighted often enough. Twenty20 seems to be the real deal. Not only will it improve the image of cricket amongst young people, it will also generate new interest in the game among with a cultural background that hasnt in the past given them the opportunity to enjoy the game. It's a game that is a lot easier to understand than test cricket, which is far richer in tactics and technique.

Re: Use of reliable and useful technology is a must. I think considerations of whether an umpire's role will be diluted are quite unnecessary. The umpire in his present position has an unique perspective of what is happening on the pitch. It is a good idea to present him with visual and audio aids (some umpires are in dire need of the same..but I am not talking exclusively about them) and let them make their judgements based on this evidence. I think the audio visual support to the on-field umpires should be improved and the third ump could be done away with. The onfield ump should eventually have a hand held device where pictures and information of onfield events can be transmitted, and he can make his decision more effectively and with confidence that replays will not make him look like a fool!

Re: commentary, some of the commentators are so biased and uninformed that it ruins the viewing experience. But overall, I must say that the commentary is better than given credit for.
Personally, I prefer candid commentators like Boycott and Ian Chappell.
Please do away with Sanjay Manjrekar, Rameez Raja, Ian Botham, David Lloyd (and the rest of the British commentary team while you are at it with the possible exception of Gower) and a-certain-very-irritating-saffie-commentator! Also immediately ban all Indian radio and TV Hindi commentary for being utterly boring and sleepy.

 

[full_length]

While on the topic, I'd like to give you an example of a very very poorly done cricket article by a relatively well known journalist:

Scyld Berry in Elecronic Telegraph

Advertisements featuring Sourav Ganguly dominate Calcutta, along with the Hoogly, traffic pollution and old Raj buildings. In these ads, India's captain stands beneath an aeroplane owned by the Sahara company. Normally when something flies over his head, Ganguly is renowned for ducking and weaving, but these advertisements are paintings in which he simply stands and gazes at you insouciantly.
His face is open, agreeable, but has a boyish look, like Tim Henman's, and it is this boyishness which sets off the irritation which so many feel towards Ganguly. Not only opponents and overseas crowds but Indian supporters too: in the great soap opera that is Indian cricket, 30-year-old Ganguly is the person that everyone loves or loathes.
We want our elite sportsmen to be hardened, tough, macho. We expect their faces to reflect the intensity of their calling and the challenges they endure. When a pipsqueak comes along and keeps up with the best of them, the effect of his boyish face is, well, irritating.
Ganguly's capacity to irritate, however, goes beyond the boyishness. All other Test cricketers seem happy to subscribe to their group characteristics: self-deprecating in public, low profile, speaking in the same shorthand of "yeah, I was pretty happy with my hundred but it was basically for the lads". Ganguly can be modest and charming, or he can be supremely, deliberately, supercilious: 'Lord Snooty', as our sister daily dubbed him.
Two examples of this behaviour occurred in India last winter during England's one-day series. In the first game of the six-match series (which England shared 3-3), in his native city of Calcutta, Ganguly had a towel brought out at a drinks break on a sweaty afternoon. When he had finished with it, Ganguly threw it towards India's 12th man, but the 12th man did not see it and walked off, leaving the towel at straight-ish mid-on. Ganguly was not brought up to think of manual chores as his responsibility. He resumed his innings, and it was not until a couple of overs had elapsed that an umpire ordered the towel's removal.
In the second instance Ganguly was batting with Sachin Tendulkar when water was brought on to the field. Tendulkar, who seems to crave nothing more than to be treated as a normal Test cricketer, removed his gloves and drank from the bottle. Ganguly did not deign to remove his gloves. Like some patrician being tended by his batman, he had the 12th man pour the water down his throat. The spirit of the Maharajah of Kashmir, who had his pads and gloves put on by his valets (according to the admirable new history of Indian cricket, A Corner of a Foreign Field, by Ramachandra Guha) was alive and kicking in 2002.
This demeanour is not surprising given Ganguly's background. He was brought up in one of the rich residential suburbs of Calcutta in a large rambling household that was anything but nuclear. A local journalist counted over 60 family members, with 16 cars between them - and that was before Ganguly won half-a-dozen more as prizes for his cricket. In such Indian households the boys are waited on hand and foot (when grown up they are the ones, in aeroplanes, who take a fistful of sweets when the hostess comes round before landing). Coming from a 16-car family, Ganguly could not be expected to lift a finger when he wanted a drink, or to hang around after being bit by the opening ball in his first net-practice with Lancashire in 2000.
His private life is also the stuff of soap opera. A Bollywood film starlet called Nagma is currently threatening suicide because she says Ganguly has jilted her. Last year the front pages alleged that they went together to a Hindu temple near Madras for some kind of ceremony, before he went back to his wife in Calcutta. The distractions and temptations in front of Indian cricketers, and their captain in particular, should never be underestimated.
It would be unwise though to think of Ganguly as so spoilt that he and his team are pushovers. More than anyone else, Ganguly in both innings held his team together in the second Test at Trent Bridge to force a draw. In Test cricket overall he is rare among Indians in averaging (slightly) more abroad than at home, thanks partly to the two hundreds he made in his first two Tests in England in 1996, when the pace bowlers considerately did not bounce him. In one-day internationals, he has scored more runs than anybody else in three of the last five calendar years; the Cricinfo website goes so far as to call him "probably the greatest Indian left-hander of all time".
As a captain in 25 of his 60 Tests, he is a resourceful Bengali, who recognised that his superciliousness got up the noses of the Australian players and used it to defeat them in their epic Test series in 2001. Even his critics recognise that he has brought two unusual qualities to the job: that he does not have favourites based on regional or linguistic divisions, and that he backs his players and does not allow the selectors to chop and change (this springs from Ganguly's own experience when he played a one-day international in 1992 and was not selected by India again for four years). In other words, this Test series against England is not yet over.
Ganguly, whose Test average is 42, has his weaknesses though, and perhaps the most notable of them - born of superciliousness - is his attitude towards the manual labour of fielding. The former Indian batsman and now TV commentator, Sanjay Manjrekar, said last winter that he had never seen Ganguly do extra fielding practice; and a captain who stands at mid-off demanding the best from his bowlers is not going to get it if he lets off-drives through.
There is also the nature of the beast he is saddled with. India have won only five Test series anywhere abroad, a feeble return for 70 years; and in only five Tests have they bowled England out twice in England. Kapil Dev has been their one strike bowler of the highest class; their spinners have found the ball sitting up in England, not spitting as on the worn pitches of home. Disposing of opposition tail-enders has been India's particular bane, traditionally and this summer. So, too, their own lack of tail-end runs: Harbhajan Singh's merry 50 at Trent Bridge was a rare exception that made all the difference.
But on a cloudy day at Headingley even an ordinary pace attack, backed by moderate catching, can have a field day - like New Zealand when they beat England in 1983, or Yorkshire passim. The face of Ganguly will continue to gaze, and may even haunt, a while longer.

 

[full_length]

The above article is an example of a lot of things, including parroting, lack of cricket content or objectivity.
This was typical of a certain long period of time that strangely enough saw a media witchhunt of one person.

I certainly didnt save any of those articles, but happened to save this one because I came upon it recently and it reminded me of the typical bash-Saurav articles that filled a lot of space in an earlier period. I wish I had saved some of Malcom Conn (sp?)'s more ridiculous articles!

Perhaps inappropriate considering today's Ganguly's b'day!!