I think we've had this discussion every year on this thread.

But there is a different angle to it this year, apparently there was a sponsor waiting to sponsor increased coverage, what that coverage looks like we can only speculate.

What is certain is that Sky's coverage of domestic cricket has dwindled over the last couple of years.

In fairness to Darren he is not saying scrap the County Championship, just explaining why it gets minimal television coverage.

And as someone who does was the matches which are shown, I mostly agree with him and know I am in a minority. Regardless of whether the Championship should be streamed online, the issue of the television coverage is based on that.

The best thing they could do to make the Championship more interesting is to grant Yorkshire test status, then there would be a competitive county competition to engross fans.

BIB absolutely true - it's expensive to broadcast and would only probably attract the fans of the two counties involved.
But the first part - if the TV company could scale back on equipment/commentary teams etc it might be more cost-effective (filling in a full day of live sport on what's supposed to be a live sport pay-channel) and the second part; if there's no coverage at all it's out-of-sight and out-of-mind; could TV coverage pull in more spectators to the grounds because they become aware of what's going on? Admittedly, the scope for that is limited as still only a relative minority pay for Sky.
A partial answer as we have been through this time and time again and probabl cheapest option is for counties to be allowed to one-fixed-camera stream their games, with the sponsor's name in-picture.
That way Kent fans can follow Kent with the picture - and BBC commentary as well if they want, the sponsor gets their name on screen, and if "so few" follow county cricket it won't affect Sky's viewing figures for the big games?!
Love to know how many unique visits Notts got for their excellent streams, and how much it cost. All I know is I have a camera pointing at the garden in summer, HD and can be viewed on a streaming site, and costs me nowt (although it's restricted to a max number of views at any one time) - so how much does it cost to stream?
Counties could pull back that cost by charging a sub, and the sponsor could help to over it.
The good news is with wifi everywhere fans can take the game to work, college etc etc!
Not asking anyone who doesn't like it to watch; but for us flask-and-pie brigade shivering at the back of the (late and lamented) Wilson's Stand it would be better than what we currently get - nothing

Cricket Australia have tweeted a link to live streaming.

Do they stream all games? Picture is very good.
cricket.com.au (@CricketAus) tweeted at 7:36 AM on Sun, Feb 14, 2016:
Here's the moment @Gmaxi_32 brought up his fifty! Free live stream: https://t.co/ppqW8upVSf #SheffieldShield #SAvVIC
https://t.co/RAjyROjyak
(https://twitter.com/CricketAus/statu...916346368?s=02)

All Sheffield shield games are streamed live in Australia.
CA get their domestic coverage spot on really.

But the main difference is that CA pay for the production of domestic cricket barring the Big bash which Channel 10 pay for.

I watch plenty of county cricket during the season. And only one game is on tv. As you said yourself, nobody else is interested in picking it up. Why would they be ? ITV 4 will get many more watching repeats of Minder and The Professionals than Day 3 of Sussex v Derbyshire from Hove.

Tv doesn't show just what I want but what the majority wants. Why pay more for something that will get less viewers ?

TBH Sky sports can do more for the county championship but won't if it cost more to provide the extra coverage. they would be happy to show it if the coverage was provided for free.

If ECB want the extra coverage they will have to be the ones paying for it or producing the coverage.

Suspect the extra money Sale mention must not actually be that lucrative.
If it was that lucrative ECB would have accepted it by now considering Johnstone’s Paint are offering more money and wanting more coverage of the county game.
Basically 2 points ECB are trying to improve.

The only reason they won't accept Johnstone’s Paint bid is if the extra money is far less than what it would cost to have extra coverage.
In other words the bid wasn't that lucrative.

Seems like the ECB should be chatting to CA about a few things

well for one in the next contract the clause in which Sky/BT have exclusivity off all cricket needs to go.
Really can't see that being worth much now and I highly doubt BT/SKY will suddenly drop 20-30% of the tv rights value because they don't have exclusive cricket during the summer, especially over domestic cricket streaming.

Currently No web streaming can take place when Sky are showing an England match, T20 blast, County game or 50 over game on tv.

Really ECB should just give the rights for free/include them with the international rights and pay for the production for the 50/County games.
basically provide online coverage and pay for the production cost when Sky or BT want to fill up the summer schedule.

ECB are trying this though but with the current rights they haven't got much options to provide extra coverage, remember getting a questionnaire 3-4 years ago about possible web streaming for county games.

The shield are currently trialling a round of pink ball matches.
Could a pink ball match attract Sky/BT. Some of their early week nightime schedules are very thin in the summer

In a summer like this one it will be hard enough for T20 ratings and crowds with the European Championship football, the County Championship would be cannon fodder up against it.

Of course, you pick your target for the experiment.

There is that; there has to be a larger audience in the evenings for CC cricket - both on TV and at the games simply because during the day a high % of followers will be at work/school. But great for getting the kids in for a session after school!
BUT the quality of the CC mustn't be compromised, it may well work in Australia but in the UK, especially round these parts, warm and perfectly dry summer evenings are a rarity. Does cold and damp - with dew on the outfield, affect the game?
In 20/20 it probably doesn't matter, but at 9.30pm in the CC would a bowler like a 60-overs old damp pink ball caused by dew on the outfield?
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try; so if we did who would be the guinea pigs? The second division??

Yeah, we only have a small window where it may work here. Late May to early August.
However we can be innovative, we don't have to do pink ball, just maybe change the session times.
1-3 3.30-5.30 6-8
Last session may rate OK.
As for Guinea pigs, has to be south of England. Sussex, Hampshire, Kent maybe

Lancashire hosted a game last year that was 12:30-7:30. From memory there wasn't any major difference in crowds although the largest problem with it was it was over by rush hour on Day 3, time will tell if they try and repeat it this year.

Yes, that's right v Leicestershire. Problem is that extra hour doesn't do much; if folk finish at 5.30 they have to be pretty near the ground to get any benefit; and as alluded to the rush hour doesn't help.

Mid-May - end of July the sky is bright enough (that's a bright enough grey round these parts) to see a red ball against it to even 9pm or later; so games could finish at 8.30pm still under natural skylight but with floodlights on to boost ground conditions, so a last session 6.30 - 8.30 is practical, as long as cricketers/umpires stop being precious about bad light and get on with it. If that's the case no need for pink balls or coloured clothing. In fact, if games were 11am - 8.30pm (having three umps in rotation to give them a rest!!) then we could go back to three-day games and still get natural finishes. But the cricketers would probably not want that, even with the bribe of 2 days off afterwards!

I didn't realise Colin Graves was a poster on these forums!

No way you'd get a day's play that long, no-one would want it whether it be players, coaches, umpires, scorers, groundsmen or media

Besides isn't T20 the best game to be showcasing in that evening time slot, far better chance of crowds and financial takings

How has a Charlie Sale one-line report suddenly become a fact?

As to the amount of domestic cricket shown, last year was unusually low with only fifty matches scheduled when usually it is around sixty matches. Part of that would probably be down to them showing the Women's Ashes live which added ten days of cricket over previous summers. But otherwise it has remained roughly similar year-to-year.


Putting aside how much brighter it is on an evening in the UK compared to Australia*, why would a broadcasters want to do that when they could show a T20 match instead?

* In Australia the latest sunset in mid-summer varies from 6:50pm in Brisbane to 8:50pm in Hobart, for the UK it is between 9:20pm in Southampton to 9:50pm in Durham.

It's important to put the day/night games in Australia into context, in essence they are test/trial events for how the pink ball etc would hold up in day/night tests. They're not held with a desire to increase crowds or streaming figures and to my knowledge there hasn't been any major change in crowds for the few years they've had them

web streaming would be useless. I doubt many non current sky sports customers and cricket fans have watched the masters which was streaming live

If you think it's useless, fine, don't watch, but don't deny those of us that would use them the opportunity.

I remember the posts of many who thought the BBC commentating on every county game would be a waste of time/money and would never catch on

They need to help grow the game to outside of diehards not focus on the diehards.

It would be useless streaming it as only diehards would come across it.

I agree but you only have to read one of Howard's posts to know he wants the whole TV world to show just what he wants and sod the rest.

As for the local radio commentary, has that worked ? I would need proof to believe it has. The fact some stations have it online isn't proof it works. Could just be 12 people listening.

They need to do both.

The worst thing any organization can do is ignore its supporters who could drift away or even become alienated by the consequences of focusing solely on attracting new interest. There many other things vying for people's attention and time, you need to keep current fans engaged


Given the one-year deal is now about to go into its fourth, I think that suggests there is sufficient demand for the service.

But what is it on ? I am in Yorkshire and my local BBC station doesn't cover it. Isn't it just online only ? In which case it costs peanuts to send two blokes and an ISDN box. Could still be broadcasting to a dozen people. I am not sure that is still proof it works. What has it achieved ? Kept a few diehards happy but that is all.

I don't think online web streaming would be cost effective unless those watching paid for it