DS Forums

 
 

Sky Sports Cricket Coverage 2016


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26-03-2016, 22:41
chrisr21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 707
Personally, I quite enjoy Michael Slater. It's nice listening to him without the rest of the Channel 9 lot as well.

he not working for sky.
Sangakkara and Jayawardene is the comms or working for sky.
One of them is doing verdict the other doing comms.

For Pakistan series it is Rameez Raja and Wasim Akram.
Given that Sangakkara will be playing for Surrey, I find that highly unlikely. Would be very surprised if Arnold is not on Sky for this summers series.
chrisr21 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-03-2016, 10:17
Bhaveshgor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,776
Personally, I quite enjoy Michael Slater. It's nice listening to him without the rest of the Channel 9 lot as well.



Given that Sangakkara will be playing for Surrey, I find that highly unlikely. Would be very surprised if Arnold is not on Sky for this summers series.
Ian ward also said Sanga working again for sky.
Depends on whether Sangakkara got a clause that allows him to miss games for media commitments.
Sangakkara missing most of june for the Caribbean premier league.

If Russell Arnold working for Sky he would have been mentioned on that Sky sports feature.
They mentioned Sangakkara and Jayawardene for a reason.
Bhaveshgor is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2016, 10:31
Neil_Harris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Walsall
Posts: 1,716
Personally, I quite enjoy Michael Slater. It's nice listening to him without the rest of the Channel 9 lot as well.
Me too, always enjoyed Slater on channel 4. He gets dragged down on 9 but is one of the better ones at this world cup.
Neil_Harris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2016, 11:46
Darren Lethem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,236
This just goes to show what a subjective matter commentary is. I don't actually mind Russell Arnold. That said, top 5 for me at this T20 World Cup

Ian Bishop
Nasser
Shaun Pollock
Bumble
Rameez Raja
Darren Lethem is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2016, 13:04
Neil_Harris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Walsall
Posts: 1,716
This just goes to show what a subjective matter commentary is. I don't actually mind Russell Arnold. That said, top 5 for me at this T20 World Cup

Ian Bishop
Nasser
Shaun Pollock
Bumble
Rameez Raja
All to do with style I suppose. I think Ramiz Raja is woeful, Jibbers on and on and comes across (to me) as very arrogant.
Pollock and Bumble are excellent.
I don't like the direction Nasser is going down, used to be brilliant but he's getting shouty, using soundbytes and hyping everything up.
Bishop's knowledge is huge but he bores me.
Neil_Harris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2016, 13:25
Amajeed2k5
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 60
My top 5:
Nasser Hussain
David Lloyd
Brendan Julian
Sanjay Manjrekar
Ian Bishop
Amajeed2k5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 13:30
Neil_Harris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Walsall
Posts: 1,716
Some early viewing figures for the WT20

Ireland V Oman - 161k
Scotland V Afghanistan - 182k
New Zealand v India - 191k
Sri Lanka V West Indies 236k
Pakistan V India - 279k
England V West Indies - 414k
England V South Africa - 476k
Neil_Harris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 13:32
Leewich
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 917
Some early viewing figures for the WT20

Ireland V Oman - 161k
Scotland V Afghanistan - 182k
New Zealand v India - 191k
Sri Lanka V West Indies 236k
Pakistan V India - 279k
England V West Indies - 414k
England V South Africa - 476k
Interesting. I think England v Sri Lanka might have crossed the 500k mark. It was on a Saturday afternoon when it was chucking it down with rain for most people and not in competition with football.
Leewich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 13:42
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
Some early viewing figures for the WT20

Ireland V Oman - 161k
Scotland V Afghanistan - 182k
New Zealand v India - 191k
Sri Lanka V West Indies 236k
Pakistan V India - 279k
England V West Indies - 414k
England V South Africa - 476k
Thanks for that
Are those figures considered good, bad or indifferent, and as a technicality do they include (a) pub watchers - there would be plenty for the Sat PM game, right? and (b) Now subscribers?

If the final involves England and it reaches 1m viewers live by any method, (pub/TV) would that be considered acceptable?
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 13:56
The Wanderer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 5,221
Viewing figures won't include those watching online. To me they seem OK considering most matches are in traditional working hours or have been up against football or the final weekend of the Six Nations
The Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 14:02
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
Viewing figures won't include those watching online.
Online one could assume they know exactly how many are watching, but that's not the case as one set (one hit) using NOW TV could be watched by 4 or more in the same room.
How do they count on-line viewers?
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 18:34
mlt11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,163
More viewing figures:

England v Sri Lanka (Sat) - 917,000
India v Australia (Sun) - 586,000

Pretty good for Eng/SL - helped by Sat afternoon, no competition and the fact it was a deciding game for making the semis.

Not often any sport other than football rates in the region of 1 million on Sky - it does happen sometimes but only occasionally - needs to be a really significant event and this game was just about in that category. Also helped by being a fairly short event - unlike say Test / ODI cricket or a golf major where the broadcast is a lot longer.

I imagine the semi tomorrow will rate a fair bit lower being a work day. If England make the Final that should be around 1 million (though Super Sunday football will keep it lower than would otherwise be the case).

NB. Above two ratings are overnights - may rise fractionally when get officials (post 382 are officials - which come out a week in arrears).
mlt11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 19:14
Darren Lethem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,236
More viewing figures:

England v Sri Lanka (Sat) - 917,000
India v Australia (Sun) - 586,000

Pretty good for Eng/SL - helped by Sat afternoon, no competition and the fact it was a deciding game for making the semis.

Not often any sport other than football rates in the region of 1 million on Sky - it does happen sometimes but only occasionally - needs to be a really significant event and this game was just about in that category. Also helped by being a fairly short event - unlike say Test / ODI cricket or a golf major where the broadcast is a lot longer.

I imagine the semi tomorrow will rate a fair bit lower being a work day. If England make the Final that should be around 1 million (though Super Sunday football will keep it lower than would otherwise be the case).

NB. Above two ratings are overnights - may rise fractionally when get officials (post 382 are officials - which come out a week in arrears).
Could also drop a bit too, overnights tend to show the peak not the average. I remember during the recent darts on ITV4, they tweeted the next day they'd hit over 1 million for the final night coverage but the BARB figure was nearer 700,000. Still, those figures are excellent, I am very pleased with those.
Darren Lethem is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 19:18
jazzydrury3
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,799
England v Sri Lanka, being held on a Saturday wth no football was genius, even though ugh it wasn't planned the ICC wouldn't have planned it that way. But it had nothing else to take viewers away.
jazzydrury3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 19:19
mlt11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,163
Could also drop a bit too, overnights tend to show the peak not the average. I remember during the recent darts on ITV4, they tweeted the next day they'd hit over 1 million for the final night coverage but the BARB figure was nearer 700,000. Still, those figures are excellent, I am very pleased with those.
The above figures are overnight averages - not peaks.

Some people may tweet peaks (which are obviously much higher) but these are the overnight averages - as reported by ITV Media.

The only movements from the overnight average to the BARB official average are caused by people watching recordings within 7 days, removal of adverts and timechecking (where actual programme duration was not in line with scheduled slot).
mlt11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 19:36
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
England v Sri Lanka, being held on a Saturday wth no football was genius, even though ugh it wasn't planned the ICC wouldn't have planned it that way. But it had nothing else to take viewers away.
Genius indeed...and to add the weather was rubbish sending millions to the pub to watch!

If they can add official viewing figures to the first set of numbers, I hope they don't find a dozen runs to add to Bangladesh's score!

Saying that, on a number of occasions you found the overnight score had increased by one as, after conferring with the umps, the odd wide or bye hadn't been spotted or something at the time but in the days of computers that doesn't seem to happen now. Miss a run in a Test....shrug the shoulders. Miss a run in the 20/20....nightmare!!

But in one game did anyone notice the umpire backing off and it deffo looked like he was giving "no-ball" with his arm up, but there was no addition or extra ball (which would be a free hit)? The commentators explained the ump was getting out of the way but he had his left arm up way before the ball came towards him! Anyone remember and confirm which game it was??
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 19:47
jazzydrury3
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,799
Must admit I have only watched the England games, not a overal fan of all T20 Games, I still get most enjoyment of watching a Test that goes on for 5 days.

Enjoy the Country stuff Sky show, as I know the players, most I have watched for years.

Also I don't get the hype for the IPL, as in my eyes, the players are only doing it for money, no loyalty, as they can go and play for another franchise the next year, so what is in it for them to win, as they get paid anyway.
jazzydrury3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 19:50
Radiomike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,408
But in one game did anyone notice the umpire backing off and it deffo looked like he was giving "no-ball" with his arm up, but there was no addition or extra ball (which would be a free hit)? The commentators explained the ump was getting out of the way but he had his left arm up way before the ball came towards him! Anyone remember and confirm which game it was??
Yes I saw that and thought the same. His left arm went straight out in the no ball fashion. Indeed my recollection was that the ump also began to signal for a free hit but then it all got confused. They never showed a replay to determine if it was a no ball ie side on. I can't remember which game either
Radiomike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 20:41
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
Yes I saw that and thought the same. His left arm went straight out in the no ball fashion. Indeed my recollection was that the ump also began to signal for a free hit but then it all got confused. They never showed a replay to determine if it was a no ball ie side on. I can't remember which game either
BTW in my above post I meant Sri Lanka of course (v England!!)

Yes, glad I wasn't dreaming it. Think it was deffo a no-ball signal, but in the chaos afterwards he simply forgot!

Would a batsman - if he'd noticed - be in his rights to enquire just to remind him? The worst that can happen is they have a look at the video.

Also - in this particular competition, if a batsman thinks the bowler has overstepped, and the umpire doesn't signal, and no wicket has fallen, has he the right to ask for a video referral, especially as an extra run and ball which could be worth 6 is at stake? I know over waist high they give square leg a look!
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 21:12
Neil_Harris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Walsall
Posts: 1,716
Also - in this particular competition, if a batsman thinks the bowler has overstepped, and the umpire doesn't signal, and no wicket has fallen, has he the right to ask for a video referral, especially as an extra run and ball which could be worth 6 is at stake? I know over waist high they give square leg a look!
I doubt he has the right but its a very good point. A no ball in T20 with the free hit can be vital.
It can work both ways too. At the weekend a no ball was given and it clearly wasn't. The bowler was visibly angry.
Neil_Harris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 22:19
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
I doubt he has the right but its a very good point. A no ball in T20 with the free hit can be vital.
It can work both ways too. At the weekend a no ball was given and it clearly wasn't. The bowler was visibly angry.
Indeed, good point. The bowler should have a right of a referral as so much can lie on it in the 20/20.
In tennis they have the line camera but that's only used on appeal. In curling the hog line (the line that you have to release the stone before) has a magnetic strip which turns the stone's light red if illegal.
Is it possible such a system (pressure strip rather than magnetic) could be introduced in cricket? Admittedly the difficulty is the bowler can slide as he delivers so a strip probably couldn't work, but hawkeye giving an instant decision?
But easiest way out is to let the batsman and bowler enquire after the delivery BUT if the bowler was given a no-ball and it wasn't; what should happen? Dead ball and replay the ball? Batsman keeps his runs and we carry on?? It's an interesting one!
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2016, 23:37
Bhaveshgor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,776
More viewing figures:

England v Sri Lanka (Sat) - 917,000
India v Australia (Sun) - 586,000

Pretty good for Eng/SL - helped by Sat afternoon, no competition and the fact it was a deciding game for making the semis.

Not often any sport other than football rates in the region of 1 million on Sky - it does happen sometimes but only occasionally - needs to be a really significant event and this game was just about in that category. Also helped by being a fairly short event - unlike say Test / ODI cricket or a golf major where the broadcast is a lot longer.

I imagine the semi tomorrow will rate a fair bit lower being a work day. If England make the Final that should be around 1 million (though Super Sunday football will keep it lower than would otherwise be the case).

NB. Above two ratings are overnights - may rise fractionally when get officials (post 382 are officials - which come out a week in arrears).
Surprised India vs Australia rated higher than the India vs Pakistan game.
but in whole 2 very good ratings for sky during the easter weekend.
Bhaveshgor is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2016, 00:12
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
Surprised India vs Australia rated higher than the India vs Pakistan game.
but in whole 2 very good ratings for sky during the easter weekend.
Could/would a lot of Pakistani and Indians here be watching coverage on their own satellite systems and that wouldn't show up in Sky figures? If so, which satellite would they use, which channel and how would they pay for it (if they do)? In Spain every bar seemed to have Sky Sports, but Sky's footprint covered Spain and cards were bought from a UK address!

Also there's the schadenfreude effect of people wanting either AUS or IND to lose (AUS because they're Aussies or India because the home team is always a threat)
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2016, 08:21
Bhaveshgor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,776
Could/would a lot of Pakistani and Indians here be watching coverage on their own satellite systems and that wouldn't show up in Sky figures? If so, which satellite would they use, which channel and how would they pay for it (if they do)? In Spain every bar seemed to have Sky Sports, but Sky's footprint covered Spain and cards were bought from a UK address!

Also there's the schadenfreude effect of people wanting either AUS or IND to lose (AUS because they're Aussies or India because the home team is always a threat)
Indian and pakistan don't use they own satellite system mostly because Sky carries loads of Asian channels.
Vast majority would use Sky or Virgin media.
they either use the Free Sky that has about 70-80% Asian channels or subscribe to the Asian mela pack in either Virgin or Sky to view the pay Asian channels.
Sky even has one or two exclusive Asian channels.
My granddad still watches the free sky even though he has virgin media.
Bhaveshgor is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2016, 09:52
Cricketblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,218
The India/aus game suggests more interest in a knock out game by the casual. Plus i suspect ind v pak was more of a 'event' watch so some people watched in groups etc
Cricketblade is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:17.