Current model of broadcasting just doesn't work for t20 cricket. Gayle scored shedloads and only a few thousand people in the ground saw it .How is that going to win new fans?

I'm not for franchise but am for a block of 3 and a half weeks of daily t20 cricket. Every match shown live. Preferably on ITV/itv4/bbc 2 etc First year should be given free to the broadcaster to show them what a success it could be. The t20 final got 2 million + on sky so on a major free to air broadcaster the potential is huge!!

TBH ipl and big bash are both the same length both last around 6-7 weeks.
only difference being IPL as far more games.

if anything Big blast is quite long and it is quite annoying when less than 20% of the games are shown on tv.
what ever system ECB do they need to show all the games that will be the only way it gets increased domestic and global interest.

I could go for that. Cricket Australia took a gamble and sold or cheaper to network TV and look at the success it is.
Maybe 3 weeks from the day after Wimbledon finishes, football is still on holiday then.

I don't see why every game has to be on TV. T20 has many, many average games. It becomes boring

Based on what Surrey do, whom I support and go to the Friday T20/s loads of young office workers who want a piss up on a Friday night after work. So as I said in my original post the PDC darts pissheads. Not a group I would want but them seem to have loads of cash and want this type of thing.

A group of us go after work and last season we persuaded a Swedish girl from work to come who had never really heard or watched cricket to come. She loved it and is now a regular with us for the drinking and atmosphere.

makes it easier to follow for fans and gives it more of a presence on tv and for new fans.

Blast group stage doesn't really work, the only time Blast starts getting good is during the quarter finals when every game is shown live.

Somerset had Gayle making mayhem last year and none of gayle short stint games were on TV.

ECB doesn't have to show all the games live on TV but it needs to improve the format and structure of it.
think 2 division would work, one with 8 teams the other with 10, top 4 qualify for final day bottom 2 relegated all top division games shown live, with the 2nd division having some games live as well.

Cricket Australia didn't take a price cut to put the Big Bash on TV, they made a healthy increase in rights value


Two division T20 league would be pointless, you'd just get a load of wasted Second Division games played in front of few fans, would in no way improve the overall product of the competition. It would just make it a bigger divide between the have and have nots

Fox offered more money.

What bemuses me about the English 20/20 is we have a very long bank holiday week coming up, where loads of schoolkids are off from Saturday for a full week, so there's the possibility of playing 9 days of 20/20. Three or four of the week are used, but not all nine; a great chance to get public interest and the Blast off to a flyer.

Any link to anything that says that

no they didn't.
9 and 10 were having a bidding war for the rights.
the rights only went to 9 after they used the clause that allows them to match 10 bid on the international rights.
but since the clause didn't apply to domestic cricket, CA gave those rights to 10.
https://mumbrella.com.au/cricket-rig...decided-159169

Why put it up against a Test Match ? Especially the first of the summer. I know which I would rather watch.

Sad to read Cricket Writers is only on for 30 minutes even though it's live, if Ian Ward does host it, you have to feel sorry for Paul Allot, as he carried on presenting it, while he had a dodgy knee if I remember.

I prefer it up to Sunday Supp, never mind

TBH shouldn't clash with the Test since the game should start around 7pm.
they do that in Australia for the big bash.
anyway would be stupid since none of the big internationals will be playing since most will be in india.

I'd totally forgotten him getting a wack in the bad knee and amazingly not swearing live on air until now!

The issue with a block of t20 will always be the weather in this country. If its a bad month it wipes out the whole T20 season and with it the counties main source of revenue. It was the issue a few times before they moved to the current structure and will be again once they go back.

Everyone seems to forget about that when they talk about the Friday night T20s as we have it at the moment. Whilst most counties do a better trade on Friday nights that wasn't the sole reason for the move.


It's a format solely for the TV Dollar, especially the IPL, that's the whole point of its existence.

My memory must be clouded on this then. I thought CA took a gamble?
I'm sure you, myself & Tenash have had many long twitter conversations about this

Think covering every T20 Blast is would be too much, as it would end up showing meaningless games, and also you have to think Sky have a relatively small pool of commentators, up to what they use on the IPL, I watch most of the Cricket on Sky, and think about all the miles the likes of Nasser, Athers, Bumble, Ward cover in the year, yes they are probably put up in a hotel, room service etc, but means they aren't with there family.

Don't think I have ever seen a single IPL Game just doesn't do anything for me, It is full of Mavericks, who are doing it just for the money.

Means in my eyes, they probably aren't worried if they finish 8th or 1st, as they still get there money, and as they can change franchises yearly, that means no loyalty

CA didn't take the gamble, Ten did to pay $100 M for Big Bash.

Ten I believe were losing sports rights so took their punt on Cricket.

It is a bit like ITV losing Champions league and sports rights and then getting Horse racing to get some sports back.

The gamble was would Big bash without Aussie Stars do well for Ten especially for that price.

CA didn't really take any risk considering they went with the deal that gave them the most money.

But are you really going to get a UK FTA Broadcaster to match a Sky bid? Especially in the current climate...

No but ECB can give a small percentage of games to FTA broadcaster or to make them widely available in Showcase or the Sky mix channel and the fact BT sports are giving competition to Sky means Sky or BT wouldn't drop or reduce the amount paid to ECB to not have full exclusive rights now.

Can really see ECB making BT/Sky show some games on Showcase/Mix channel or they won't get Exclusive cricket coverage.

Rugby union are thinking of showing a small number of games live on FTA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-uni...strial-televi/

There is a huge difference between an international sporting event and a domestic competition. And that even applies to soccer.

The same as Australia has a very different culture to the UK, where sport on television is far more popular than it is here. It also has one of the lowest penetrations of pay TV of all western economies, and is more deregulated in terms of commercial benefits to broadcasters.

Last year the top five highest rated programmes in Australia were all domestic sports – the NRL and AFL grand finals, and the three-match State of Origin series.

I cannot even guess when the last time a British domestic sporting event came anywhere even close to a top ten. In 2011 no sport made the top 20, despite Manchester United playing in a Champions League final. Chelsea won the Champions League in 2012 yet it did not even make the top ten programmes on ITV the week it was played.

Yet 2012 was a year where TV ratings were dominated by sport, but the London Olympics, Euro 2012, and Murray winning Wimbledon. All international events. The Six Nations delivers big ratings, it has never translated to success for club rugby union when it was free-to-air.

The differences between the UK And Australia mean you cannot make any connexions between the success of the BBL on Ten and what a would an ECB T20 competition could do on a UK free-to-air network.

And the difference between the level of general interest in international sport compared to domestic competitions mean you cannot use the rating of World T20 final as an indicator of potential. All the evidence, of all sports, proves it is not one.

There is no doubt that the number of viewers will be much higher on a free-to-air channel than on a premium subscription one. But given the cost-per-viewer that the latter is willing to pay a switch is almost guaranteed to lose money in comparison. And that includes factoring in higher sponsorship revenue that could come from the greater exposure.

There are valid reasons for the ECB to want to put cricket on free-to-air television, but you are not going to get England-sized ratings for Yorkshire vs Surrey, or see a Nine vs Ten style bidding war.

good post mavreela.

You could easily get 2 million for a t20 domestic game on one of the 'big' fta channels. Not every game but if a international on sky can then a domestic on fta can.

Doubt it unless it is a bank holiday with nothing much on TV.
plus why would anyone watch Northant vs Derbyshire etc.
the only way county cricket is getting 2M+ ratings is if big English players and big international players take part and it would have to be a competition with 8 teams so the talent is not diluted and the quality of the teams is like international cricket.

Did any of five highlight shows even get 2M +.
Wouldn't surprise me if the ratings are similar to what Sky would get.
Remember IPL ratings on ITV4 were similar to what Sky would get as well.
currently most people that would watch cricket have Sky so doubt they would be 1.5 million extra viewers that would watch Domestic cricket on TV.

Tops Domestic cricket will only get 1M ratings with maybe the finals day rating well.
but if that went FTA they would be no finals day they would want a separate final and semi final.