When the diehards die off, who's left? In football I read a lot that the "genuine" fan has been priced out - great if you can fill the ground but when times are tough suppose the die-hard's don't return?

You are mostly right, partially wrong. Yes, all the games are covered - every county - via a web commentary and in addition Radio 5 extra (DAB/web) carries commentary form one game (and changing should weather intervene) when there is no test or tennis coverage.
The Yorkshire games are certainly thoroughly covered by the BBC on the web.
Just search for live cricket commentaries when the games are on and you will arrive at a list of the games available. It's not easy, actually - they do make it difficult to navigate their website!
Many FM and AM commentaries are available, depending on where you live - I can only comment on Lancashire where the majority of Lanc's one-day games are covered fully on 855am (Radio Lancs) and partially on Manchester/Lancashire/Merseyside FM.
As for the listening figures, OK, might be one man and the dog, but probably is many, many more - even the commentators are often surprised at "how many are listening" and - indeed, where from; often they get e-mailed from way-off places!
I suggest you listen in to Cally commentating on a Yorkshire game (preferably in the middle of a Roses game so I can hear the reply!!) and text/tweet him your questions - I'm sure he will give you a fulsome reply.
But as alluded too, it's the BBC so they wouldn't be doing it if no-one was listening. As for the cost and viability of on-line streaming the picture, surely it's virtually nothing if I can stream from my garden for free?
Not only that there could be a box in the picture with the sponsor's name/logo.
It's just a case of securing the rights to do so - another matter entirely. It has happened in the UK already, so it's not something new.
Anyhow - those who aren't bothered shouldn't prevent those who are from having access, especially those who might pay a sub to it! Remember, the die-hards are who's left when everyone else has got bored and gone away.
http://s12.postimg.org/4x8vexvf1/P5050117.jpg
If this camera was turned a touch to the right and zoomed in a little bit, you could have the moving action in the middle and the scoreboard as well! That's plenty to keep in touch, especially with the commentary on top!

Can't find the link but BBC have actually said quite bit of fans listen to it and is actually popular and cost effective.
Anyway I suspect the die hards fans of every county/Member etc listen to it especially when they can not go to the matches.
http://radiotoday.co.uk/2014/04/bbc-...icket-service/
got the proof getting 700 000 hits is quite impressive for county cricket.

I've been trying to find those figures but with no luck!
If that's unique hits over one season when it was just into it's second or third season, that's even more than I would have thought. Could well now be over a million with new listeners on top of the current ones.
Thing is, as wifi extends and fans can listen on the train, bus and in their cars, at work, college etc; those figures will increase as the reach increases. 5 years ago I for one wouldn't have been able to listen anywhere except at home...but now with my mobile phone I can keep in touch on a beach, never mind sat in front of a PC!
But if it's a web stream they should know exactly how many unique hits each game gets?

Doesn't actually have to be Cost effective, because generally the cricket board would pay for it and the main point of it is to have some sort of coverage for it which people can watch.

Basically if the TV companies don't want to show it, the next logical step is online coverage.

700,000 hits across the country, across the season ? And that is just hits so that could still be just less than 100,000 people listening. Divide that by 20 games and its about 5,000 per match. So yes it isnt bad, its not great by any means but surely the county would rather those people turn up to watch then they wouldnt have to rely so heavily on Sky. Catch 22. Who needs who most ? I would say the counties need Sky considerably more than vice versa

I think you are missing the point darren.
Counties want better coverage when Sky are not showing the games or want to have some sort of live coverage of county games which they can show on the web.

Basically Counties want a better reach for the domestic games.
Anyway if ECB play the cards right everyone can be a winner in the next contract.
Counties get better reach for the product, ECB get more money which in return should mean counties get more money.

Interesting point is that Counties feel FTA coverage/Better reach will benefit them more than getting more money from Sky/BT which they feel most of the money goes to ECB.

Although I suspect they only making the fuss now because they have the opportunity to get better reach without actually losing any money since I highly doubt Sky/BT would pay less than the current deal because they lost some exclusive rights on the domestic game.

Each county plays 86 days of cricket, more if they make the knock-out stages of a competition, let alone going to Abu Dhabi, for which those 'blokes' like Isabelle Duncan need to be paid and put up in hotels. It is hardly something the BBC or ECB would be spending on if only a few dozen people listened.

Although I am not sure how you go from that being a negligible cost to video being too expensive to offer. All you need is to add a commentary to the basic camera setup that is already present at every match. Something Notts already do whenever they are allowed. And because of the radio deal a commentary already exists too.


Most counties have the nous to know that many people have day jobs they cannot skip to watch cricket every day. And that streaming is a way many of those can follow matches whilst at work.

It is a fine balancing act. Sky cover the international game very well, and some of that money will end up with the counties to keep them going.

Even so, the counties need fans through the gate and via membership; us oldies know all there is to know about the County Championship (it was big news when I was growing up) but younger fans today watching a diet of 20/20 and Tests probably don't even know the CC exists, let alone go and watch it.

So the counties need to get the game out to them as much as they want the Sky money? Not only that, there's no guarantee Sky will continue to pump money into cricket and the value of the rights could/will diminish if they back away. What price the die-hard member then?

Whilst we're arguing over coverage, wonder how much going from three to four days - and the loss of the Sunday league - has affected attendances? Sure it's arguably been beneficial for the players, ad the Test team, but what of the counties?

Thinking the loss of festival weeks (three games @ Cheltenham/Arundel etc in a week (2 CC and one SL) where the grounds would genuinely be packed - we always had a game at Southport every year which was standing-room only if you got in after 10.30. You got more overs in the day and often the chance to watch both sides batting.

Since the move to 4-day and 2-division cricket the Sunday league seemed to lose it's way (often games weren't on a Sunday...) and has now disappeared and we have lost the chance to visit the Maidstone's, Weston's and all the other lovely outgrounds which I'm sure folks went to despite the cricket (ie a darned good pi...day out!)?

Anyhow, those days have gone and maybe we are living with the concequences. Back to possible web streams, how's about the middle ground where fans have to pay a fee to watch to cover expenses and some (so it doesn't come out of the licence or the sky sub), but county members can have the privilege of free coverage as part of their membership?

Could open up a whole can of worms though. How many football teams have their matches streamed live online paid for by Sky ? Don't you have to pay for it ? So surely they should do the same for those watching the cricket too. More money to the county then.

As I've written above...there's an option which doesn't involve the licence fee or the Sky sub; in that fans can either pay a fee to watch the streams or have them for free if they are a county member. (AFAIK all streams from Trent Bridge are FTA)
And, of course it's another way for the sponsors to get their message across.
Those fees should pay for the tech stuff and also be an added incentive for fans to become members - if one is working and can only get to the odd game them membership isn't an option; whereas a web stream can be watched as and when and they feel more connected.
Football tends to be on at weekends and evenings which are outside most fan's working and schooling hours.

See my other post about tweaked session times (1-3 3.30-5.30 6-8)

Some punters might come in for free for the final session, and it may rate higher for sky.

They can't show a T20 match if there is a round of championship games scheduled.

Sunday 26th June there is a championship game Hampshire V Somerset.
In the middle of Wimbledon & the Euro's - ideal for an experiment such as that, what else will sky be showing (Speedway, Horse racing at a guess)

Currently reading this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britains-Los.../dp/178131120X - some wonderful stuff in there

If there was a CC game at Greater Old Trafford where the final session was (say) 6 or 6.30 - 8.30 for a fiver I'd deffo be interested; and would go down more often than not.
HOWEVER to play fair, as I've said before, it's no good doing that if the players and umpires are being precious about bad light.
It's one really irritating thing about cricket...the unwillingness to play and I reckon that's the one thing which is the game's biggest turn-off. No reason with floodlights, helmets sightscreens and so on to expect an injury on top of what could normally happen under normal circumstances, Didn't that aussie die in ideal light conditions?

Would a pink ball ensure the game goes on in gloom?

Now you've gone and made me all weepy

Scrap that, there's 2 ODI's (26th & 29th)

How about Sunday 10th July Somerset V Middlesex.

wouldn't actually be paid by sky, Sky would only pay for the games shown on TV.
Basically the exclusive aspect of the deal would go so Counties are free to do what they like outside the games sky show.

Basically if counties want extra coverage they are free to do so.

But it is getting paid by Sky as the counties are getting money from Sky already to help keep them afloat

Don't think the counties actually get much money directly from sky.
Counties get the money from ECB which get their money from Sky/Indian television deals.

Anyway you did bring up an interesting comment about counties getting money from ECB to stay afloat.

the reason Counties are keen to increase reach/Attendances is because ECB won't necessarily bail counties out in the future.

They may even want some counties to get bankrupt so it makes it easier for a franchise based T20 competition and schedule gets easier to manage in the summer.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-c...ry/905971.html


loads of counties are diversifying their grounds so they can make money outside the cricket season or to keep the club alive.

Anyway think we are getting a chicken and egg situation with county cricket since in reality no one really watches or wants County cricket yet they want it to be self sustainable.
The other end of the spectrum is that ECB obviously needs it to be alive since it provides players for the national team and produces the cricketers.

Also think counties have to fulfil certain requirements for them to get money from ECB and a lot of that is dependent on them becoming financially self sustainable in the future.

In my nightmare world we will end up with five or six regional representative teams playing a very limited amount of first-class cricket to keep England in players for their two test series (Aus and SA) and the rest of the game will be franchised cities playing 10/10 cricket

An argument not for the broadcasting thread, but how much life has 20/20 got in it? Will it last forever or will fans get bored of it and move on? If that happens, what next?? And if 20/20 carries on it's relentless march, how many 12-yr-olds will want to become bowlers?

Well at some point some has got the give, cricket can't expect to go forward with all 3 long term. Up until a year ago I'd have said 50 over cricket was starting to look like it was on the way out, but last years World Cup seems to have given it a bit of a reboot.

The death of Test cricket won't be 20/20 per say, it wil be the increasing amount of pointless 2 test series that have absolutely not meaning or relevance and are about as quickly forgotten about as they were played.

Again not really for this thread - but I'd have liked the Test World Championship to have kicked-off (three tests per series) which may have attracted a new kind of fan as they can see exactly how their country is faring; whereas now it's that arbitary table which I'm sure I don't fully understand!

Of course to do that would take 4 years or more to get all he countries playing each other H and A + all the various cups and one-day games, so unless we had either two divisions or two conferences with a top v top final I don't think it would be a practical ides.

Anyhow, I worry for the future of the game and the possible loss of the longer form; it's the same with curling where a game lasted 15 ends or more...now it's only 10 at the majors and 8 at the minors....and now we have our "20/20" version which is mixed doubles. Instant cricket...instant curling....instant everything it seems.

Gillette Cup memories anyone? Queuing to get into a semi-final at 9am and leaving as it's getting dark, and 250 off 60 overs being a decent score?? Happy days

The World test series was always a nonsense idea. Test Cricket is at its very best when the individual test series themselves mean something and are 4 or 5 tests in length - to allow a prolonged battle between bat and ball.

Its about the small battles - when a bowler say has the wood over a batsman and its his job to come over it - that makes test cricket what it is.

That is completely lost when its 2 back to back tests - over in a flash - and then onto the next series.

The last international of Sky's winter tomorrow (outside of WT20 being a central production)

Has the cost cutting affected your enjoyment? Or have they saved a bit of money with no one really suffering ?

According to the listings in the latest issue of The Cricketer there will be frequent 30 mins or hour long evening highlights programmes

Can only speak from a personal point of view, but last night during the NZ Aus lunch break I watched the rerun of the NZ SA WC Semi from last year. Had they have had a Studio with say Colney and Solanki talking over the footage I'd just spent 2 hours watching - I'd have switched over for 40 minutes.