Options
Cricket on 5
mjdj1689
Posts: 3,304 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Does anyone know why channel 5 are not showing the cricket in hd , the symbol is not there , and on sky it says it's not in hd either. ?
0
mjdj1689
Posts: 3,304 mjdj1689
Posts: 3,304
Comments
Meanwhile live coverage on Sky Sports 2 mustered 489k (6.2%).
Proof that the Ashes (at least) need to be free.
You can apply the same argument then to PL football if you look at viewing figures for PL matches and then MoTD, good luck convincing the authorities
Maybe, but i think cricket needs more coverage available than currently.
BBC show some domestic football live, cricket gets none.
Slot averages!!! Sky Sports' broadcast was all day and included an hour and five minutes pre-play, lunch, tea and post-play.
Try and get some reach figures to see how many watched on Sky yesterday. It will be a darn site more than 489k.
Or proof that there are more people at work between 10am and 7pm than there are between 7pm and 7:55pm.
Or proof that more people are able to find 55 minutes to spend watching television than nine hours solid.
Or proof that more people will seek out to watch something spectacular they know had happened than have the ability to read the future to know to tune in beforehand.
Or proof that despite all the valid arguments for free-to-air coverage of cricket that people will still make specious claims about exceptional events.
It's a catch 22 this though. The contract allows the ECB to invest much more into the grassroots and the county game safeguarding the future of the sport. However the lack of free access to the game will result in less kids watching it and taking it up so there's going to be less coming through the grass roots resulting in it being more of a public school sport. It's a hard one. Id probably ideally like a test match from each series on FTA and the remainder of the series staying with sky, or a T20 package being available FTA. Although I wouldn't watch T20 personally as I'm a moaning old traditionalist.
Yeah that was the peak for the climax of the series. The average in 2001 was 1.1m and in 2005 it was 2.5m.
C4 split the day into mini sessions for BARB reporting, so shorter time periods gave higher averages.
One BARB viewer = one person watching the whole transmission, without interruption. No leaving the room, changing channel at lunch or tea etc. Highly unlikely for eight or nine hours!!
A quick look at 2005 ratings show the afternoon sessions making the lower half of C4's top 30.
Sky do theirs for the whole transmission, over eight hours or more, so you need eight viewers watching for one hour to make just one BARB viewer.
Whereas C4 had 2.2m for Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 4.17pm until close at 6pm, so less than two viewers watching for an hour to equate to one BARB viewer.
Also worth remembering that television audiences in general are in decline, so comparing eras is often misleading anyway.
And that 2005 was an exceptional event, not an average Ashes audience level, which people always ignore when spinning the figures.
Then England had not won an Ashes series for eighteen years (or at home in twenty years), having lost eight series straight. There were people watching who were old enough to vote yet not born when England last won.
Since then England won three of the next five series, with Australia not having won in England in fourteen years.
So there was obviously an added level of interest in the 2005 series because of how unique that situation was, and the cricket was close adding making it compelling viewing.
An England victory this year is not unusual to generate extra interest, and so far all the matches have been too one-sided to be must-watch events. Apart from the first test they have all practically been decided by lunch on day one.
The thing is, there are valid arguments why cricket should be free-to-air. There is no doubt the audience would be higher than it is on Sky, even Sky and the ECB would admit that, so no need for anyone to compare different circumstances. The issue is simply whether the game would be better from the added exposure or income that the two alternatives offer.
I know that it's 99% certain that England will win the Trent Bridge test but have Channel 5 gone a bit too early on this one and, anyway, there may be freak weather in the Nottingham area tomorrow thus play abandoned for the day!
Then it was TV, radio and, well, I suppose a few had the internet text updates at work?
Now, the TV angle must be a small % of the overall, many must use mobile services to either watch, have updates, running text comentary, cricinfo's apps etc etc.
But to me, this series hasn't had the quality or the excitement of 2005 and I've been watching it on Now. Sure England look like thumping them, but they are a good to middling England team against a very ordinary (at best) Australian team on England's wickets. Feel a bit let down by how bad the Aussies have been. Hope, in a way, the tail can add 300 and make a game of it......
It hasn't. Still on 171.
On 105 for me.
It should have swapped if you have a Sky HD subscription. Rebooting your box might solve it.