Madplayer
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Runs
- 28,686
- Post of the Week
- 1
James do you think England winning the world cup was better for the game as compared to if NZ had won it?
-
Contact the PP Team
Reflections on returning to England for the 2019 World Cup - This World Cup was “Made for Indian TV”
- Thread starter Junaids
- Start date
James do you think England winning the world cup was better for the game as compared to if NZ had won it?
Yes Indian TV Audience saw this World Cup Finals more than all the people of the globe (including English & NZ Fans) put together (including Non-Resident Indians also!) This is not just about the population, it is also the sheer interest for the game!
The Indian people did not forget the world cup after India exited from it! They continued to watch the finals with similar interest (maybe some hard-core Indian non-cricket fans might have skipped it) People who accuse that BCCI has hold in ICC, control every board, make sure their own team wins, etc, should at least have some respect for the genuine Indian fans who watch & appreciate the game of cricket (They have moved ahead of showing anger whenever their team lost as in 90s! That's gone now!)
The kind of reception for the last T20 finals (international T20 world cup - not IPL) was another example of their interest for the game (besides supporting foreign IPL stars!) YES, ICC has to keep "Indian TV" in mind while organizing their events, that's where the money comes, nothing wrong with that! The time zone in India is favorable to matches played in any part of world (While I am not sure how many NZ fans woke up the whole night to watch the finals! Did they have the same kind of interest? I think most of them followed the game after reading/seeing the News in the morning!)
The kind of reception for the last T20 finals (international T20 world cup - not IPL) was another example of their interest for the game (besides supporting foreign IPL stars!) YES, ICC has to keep "Indian TV" in mind while organizing their events, that's where the money comes, nothing wrong with that! The time zone in India is favorable to matches played in any part of world (While I am not sure how many NZ fans woke up the whole night to watch the finals! Did they have the same kind of interest? I think most of them followed the game after reading/seeing the News in the morning!)
Yes. Definitely. But very few people will admit these positives that BCCI/Indian cricket.
They only want to talk about the negatives. And love to paint the BCCI as some sort of "greed" machine.
As if every non-Indian is so pious that they all turn away money even if they've earned it fairly and through their own hard work.
James
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Runs
- 50,859
- Post of the Week
- 2
No not necessarily.
The main thing for the good of cricket was for England to reach the Final in order to force the match onto free-to-air TV. This was achieved.
Actually winning the World Cup of course helps even more.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
I gave up Sky Sports a couple of years back so didn’t watch any matches, except the second half of the final because it was on C4.
I listened to the BBC web coverage and watched some Channel 5 highlights.
I listened to the BBC web coverage and watched some Channel 5 highlights.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,032
Interesting observation from Junaids - worth another read.
Nikhil_cric
T20I Star
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Runs
- 31,492
Disagree with the notion that ODI cricket has been declining in popularity in England . It was never popular and the few occasions we had big crowds was when one of australia, India, Pakistan were playing bilateral/triseries in England. Didn't the ECB come up with the whole idea of T20's because of lack of interest in ODI's as far back as 2002? Even if you look at the 1999 World Cup, attendances were the best for India/pakistan matches. ODI attendances were consistently solid in the SC and Australia only.
Cricket in general is a declining sport in England with many local clubs struggling for players to make up teams etc. That was true until the WC win if the WC win will have a positive affect or not is yet to be seen.
What you say seems to be the general consensus. But then I look at the TV rights deal that the ECB made for $1.6 Billion, it gives me an entirely different picture.
Looks like the ECB and more importantly Sky believe that there are going to plenty of fans with enough disposable income for the advertisers to flock to cricket.
England is a rich country and the deal is reflective of few people who would like to watch and how much they are willing to pay for subscription. I know I pay a big price monthly to watch cricket.
I have no idea what it costs for Sky subscriptions. But they have to sell a whole lot of it to make the $1.6 billion.
We are/have moved away from such TV services. Popularly known as cord cutters here. Our professional sports will at some point have to switch as well to broadcast in other mediums. That is the present and the future. Cable and Dish services are on the wane. Perhaps the UK will follow.
It costs as a minimum £35 but most people would be paying upwards of £50 for sports package.
Similar threads
