Sky coverage

[Valentines Park]

Well that's to ignore the 10 titles Essex have won since 1990.

Mostly one day rubbish though.

PS

Although I do have a soft spot for Grant Flower sticking it to Kent I admit.

[neil]

Well that's to ignore the 10 titles Essex have won since 1990.

Mostly one day rubbish though.

PS

Although I do have a soft spot for Grant Flower sticking it to Kent I admit.

Not sure I'd call 60% mostly. But I know it will be "only CC2" next.....

We had an exceptional team in the late 70s/80s.  I think we are gradually getting things together now  and it would be good to look forward rather than backwards

Now if you can just ditch the Afghan VP you can leave the past behind.

[Valentines Park]

I think we are gradually getting things together now  and it would be good to look forward rather than backwards

I'm happier than I've been for years as far as Essex are concerned.

That numpty Grayson has finally gone & the club even look to be prioritising their so-called priority.

Wonders never cease.
 

[neil]

That numpty Grayson has finally gone

Sigh! Not moving on.

[jimmy]

Did we win the floodlit cup ?

[Valentines Park]

Did we win the floodlit cup ?

You mean the one where Essex emulated the Harlem Globetrotters by beating hapless opponents?

Until it was discontinued as Essex became too hapless themselves.   

[alji]

Valentines Park being as relevant to county cricket in the second decade of the 21st century as Valentines Park. Some things never change 😃.

[Valentines Park]

Valentines Park being as relevant to county cricket in the second decade of the 21st century as Valentines Park. Some things never change 😃.

Yeah, because the loss of outgrounds is a good thing isn't it.

Hope you live in Colchester. 

[alji]

Don't live in Colchester and actually Valentines Park was always my favourite outground. The cricket, "proper" and LO, was usually good and unlike other places the local club was happy to sell you  pint in their pavilion. I still preferred 3 day to 4 day cricket (with lower over rates and less playing time each day you don't get as much extra cricket in 4 days as you should), liked LO cricket on a Sunday afternoon and the occasional KO LO match on a wednesday, compared to the mess of a schedule we have now. Having said that, all we can do is make the most of what we have now. The way the ECB are going, we might not have it for ever.

[Postman]

I have to admit that Sky's coverage is very thorough and you don't miss anything (unlike the time when the BBC moved across to racing just before Gooch reached 300 at  Lord's), despite their sometimes irritating commentators. But the real long term effect of their monopoly of home live cricket since 2005 is the withdrawal of the game further and further from people's consciousness. I was watching "Pointless" on TV the other day (it's the kind of thing you do in the winter at my advanced age) when the winning contestants had to name players who'd appeared in the 2015 Ashes for either side. Almost all the Aussies were pointless-including Clarke-as were several England players. Maybe the sample of 100 people who establish the score was unrepresentative but I suspect not. Driven off terrestrial TV by the ECB's megadeal, the game is drifting away from more and more people, especially youngsters. Another reason, incidentally, why the ECB's argument for the City-based T20-ie that it will attract new followers to the game-is so bogus when it will only be shown behind a paywall.

[neil]

My other half's grandkids know the names of the wrestlers and fighters from WWE, UFC all of which is exclusively on Sky and BT. I know people aren't really saying this but it isn't as simple as put it on terrestrial and they will come - although, obviously, there is a bigger audience (only if they watch it, though).

I'd agree that the damage is done but, these days, in general, kids want things that are more instant. That's why I can see the idea of the city based 20/20. Quick sport and teams which youngsters can identify with. I am inclined to the view that if you get the marketing right the terrestrial thing is a it of a red herring

[nat]

My other half's grandkids know the names of the wrestlers and fighters from WWE, UFC all of which is exclusively on Sky and BT. I know people aren't really saying this but it isn't as simple as put it on terrestrial and they will come - although, obviously, there is a bigger audience (only if they watch it, though).

I'd agree that the damage is done but, these days, in general, kids want things that are more instant. That's why I can see the idea of the city based 20/20. Quick sport and teams which youngsters can identify with. I am inclined to the view that if you get the marketing right the terrestrial thing is a it of a red herring

By all means have a city-based tournament. Just don't call it cricket ... instead call it what it is ...
...
baseball.

[neil]

My other half's grandkids know the names of the wrestlers and fighters from WWE, UFC all of which is exclusively on Sky and BT. I know people aren't really saying this but it isn't as simple as put it on terrestrial and they will come - although, obviously, there is a bigger audience (only if they watch it, though).

I'd agree that the damage is done but, these days, in general, kids want things that are more instant. That's why I can see the idea of the city based 20/20. Quick sport and teams which youngsters can identify with. I am inclined to the view that if you get the marketing right the terrestrial thing is a it of a red herring

By all means have a city-based tournament. Just don't call it cricket ... instead call it what it is ...
...
baseball.

Umm. No it's not........

And even if it was if it gets people in to watch then I think that's positive

Speaking as an old fart I know this is an old fart's message board but it is getting sad on here.

[pablo]

In my last informal conversation with Nigel Hilliard he said that was what he wanted cricket to become - I kid you not - whole new young impressionable audience and all that...

[Andy]

Fact is, when cricket was on the BBC everyone knew the players. Now they don't despite the major successes in The Ashes and generally being far more competitive than back in the 1980s/1990s when I was growing up.  The WWE, as admirable as its marketing (and little Asuka) is, doesn't provide a good comparison. It is, after all, a highly individualised 'sport' that relies heavily upon a very limited number of over-the-top characters. They might sell out the MEN Arena once a year, but that's not the same as supporting even 8 professional teams. In addition, the WWE was not behind a paywall back in the day - only the major 'events'. Baseball and NFL have a cult following over here - unfortunately that's we're going to get if Hilliard gets his way.