Sky coverage

[neil]

It's a perfectly fair comparison. These days a lot of people spend their time online and get their heroes from there and on TV. The fact that WWE, UFC, baseball, US Football don't have many events over here goes some way to proving that. Kids want to be McGregor, The Rock whoever - not Jimmy Anderson or Stuart Broad

In the halcyon days when cricket was on "proper telly" there wasn't anywhere as much competition for attention from other sports (particularly American ones). I wonder  how many kids would know more names of the players from the Patriots, Dodgers, Bulls etc than from Essex, Hampshire etc. They'll probably know the names of the stars too - Tom Brady etc -when they wouldn't know Cooky.

Cricket isn't fast enough or interesting enough for many youngsters these days and is losing ground. Somehow you've got to try to get them back. If that means a city based tournament with all the bells and whistles that will come with it then sobeit. Maybe, just maybe, if they get hooked on Ben Stokes, Moeen Ali, whoever in the 20/20 format they'll be interested in watching their heroes in the longer forms of the game

That might all be cobblers but cricket sure as hell isn't getting it right now

There is, of course, an additional discussion about selling off school playing fields/cutting down on team sports at school to be had

[Andy]

Neil, how will a city based t20 tournament be any more whizz bang than a county based one? If you want to have city based rivalries then Liverpool and Manchester will need teams, as will Leeds, Sheffield, Norwich, Ipswich etc. That's why there's 92 league clubs. The rugby experience demonstrates concocted teams don't work in the U.K. Plenty of South Asian diaspora play cricket in leagues unrelated to the county set up. That's where the ecb have got it wrong for years, not tapping into the actual support but preferring to rely upon public school kids.

[neil]

Neil, how will a city based t20 tournament be any more whizz bang than a county based one? If you want to have city based rivalries then Liverpool and Manchester will need teams, as will Leeds, Sheffield, Norwich, Ipswich etc. That's why there's 92 league clubs. The rugby experience demonstrates concocted teams don't work in the U.K. Plenty of South Asian diaspora play cricket in leagues unrelated to the county set up. That's where the ecb have got it wrong for years, not tapping into the actual support but preferring to rely upon public school kids.

Well.

I think there may be more identification with city teams for those who aren't, currently, that interested in cricket. Transport may well be better -  people will come from all different parts. Look at London - as opposed to Chelmsford.

There are plenty more things going on before and after the games for the younger element. They can stay out longer and get home easier. London has night tubes now, for example. Cities, often, have large working populations. If you time your games right then you can aim at folks who are leaving work. 7pm start on a Friday night - a few beers before the game with your work mates and time for hitting the bars when it's over

You have to start anew - not look at football which had had clubs going for ages. And not a big number of cities - you need to have real star studded teams - not watered down by too many sides etc etc

I've never said I support it btw but I can see the arguments. And we do have to find something fresh - not based on the past..

I agree completely with your views on concentrating on the public schools btw. But how many of the kids who haven't been targeted live in or around the cities?

[alji]

Understand the theory but there is already a shining example of a big city team failure in the second biggest city in the country. Crowds there have fallen since the name change. Or is it the fault of the opponents, being called counties rather than cities that is keeping the locals away?

[neil]

Understand the theory but there is already a shining example of a big city team failure in the second biggest city in the country. Crowds there have fallen since the name change. Or is it the fault of the opponents, being called counties rather than cities that is keeping the locals away?

Well. It's not the fault of the opponents that's for sure

And, to be fair, Birmingham are the only city team out there. We are talking about a competition with eight city teams with proper marketing with a number of big name players in each side. Personally, Ireckon a London team would do well

Look I haven't really thought about this before. I am stuck indoors with a bad back - to an extent anyway - making it up as I go along. But the more I do ruminate on it the more I can see some of the logic. And, I'm happy to present an alternative view to stimulate some conversation on this board.

Plus - I haven't seen other  suggestions to getting younger supporters going to the games.

ETA. Having had a quick look. Birmingham finished sixth last year and played  14 games. Seemed to start okay and fall away. 14 games is quite a lot if you aren't doing well (I haven't checked how the attendances went to be fair!) . A shorter sharper tournament may retain the interest more - which would give some support to a two league 20/20 as an alternative, I guess

[alji]

The London teams already do very well for attendances, particularly games against each other, us and to some extent Kent, which is why Surrey are not keen on the proposal. As for the northern and midlands cities, they have all failed to connect with their diverse populations, who turn out in large numbers when the international teams that they support are in town. Would re-naming the teams make a difference? We need to attract young people to the game but cricket has a boring image which is going to be hard to break, I don't think the excessive media attention to test matches and the snobbery within the game and county memberships to anything that's not "proper" helps. I think the terrestrial tv argument is a fallacy, would be good for the something for nothing people that watched it before, but as was in the news this week, young people spend more time on line than watching tv. I don't know the answers but suspect the city league would cause more damage than good. A 2 division league would improve competition though as it has in the championship, so I do support that.

[neil]

The London teams already do very well for attendances, particularly games against each other, us and to some extent Kent, which is why Surrey are not keen on the proposal. As for the northern and midlands cities, they have all failed to connect with their diverse populations, who turn out in large numbers when the international teams that they support are in town. Would re-naming the teams make a difference? We need to attract young people to the game but cricket has a boring image which is going to be hard to break, I don't think the excessive media attention to test matches and the snobbery within the game and county memberships to anything that's not "proper" helps. I think the terrestrial tv argument is a fallacy, would be good for the something for nothing people that watched it before, but as was in the news this week, young people spend more time on line than watching tv. I don't know the answers but suspect the city league would cause more damage than good. A 2 division league would improve competition though as it has in the championship, so I do support that.

Agree very much with a lot of this - in fact almost all of it!

I guess I think the City league may  "break the mould" so from that point of view, on reflection, I might support it.

Definitely a 2 division league, if not

[nat]

I just don't get it ...
...
the current tournament is doing well, year on year increases in attendances, all counties start off with an equal chance of winning the competition. Very few 'dead' matches.

It ain't broke ... despite what the ECB and players might say.

[neil]

A few of the possible reasons

Money. Lots of counties are struggling. The carrot of a big TV deal for a big bash sort of thing would be tempting

Quality. Is our Twenty20 that good?

Crowds. A lot of counties aren't anywhere near selling out the games

Getting youngsters involved/interested in cricket. I have sympathy for this one

I, personally, think 14 games plus is too much.

[smandlej]

Are we all barking up the wrong tree, and it's just that life in general has moved on?

We are classical music lovers and have noticed, over the 40-odd years we've been going to musical events, that less and less younger people attend concerts - even city-based ones.  Sometimes we feel that we're amongst the youngest in the audience (69 and 66).  Classical music has suffered a lack of terrestrial TV coverage in the same way that cricket has, but for a different reason - they just don't bother any more.  There used to be regular classical music series; plenty on at Christmas and New Year; even the commerical channels showed classical music programmes.  But we don't think it's the lack of TV coverage that's caused waning interest, just that life is different now and younger generations are into different things.

Our only consolation is that maybe people come to classical music (and cricket) as they get older and start to appreciate different forms of entertainment.

Lynda and Steve

[Andy]

Linda and Steve have a point, why should we bother so much about the young demographic, but I have a different take.

What we know about youth culture is that it's mostly middle aged who spend much time trying to guess 'what the kids'll like'. We see it in TV and pop music (think 40 year old gay men trying to be 'hip') even in church movements (think 40 year old pastors in ripped jeans) as well as more notorious religious groups (Al-Qaeda, ISIL).  Sometimes it works, unfortunately in some cases when it leads to exploitation of youthful naivety and ignorance, but often it doesn't: just attend one of my lectures.

However, there are two other characteristics of youth culture: it can be emergent, fashions popping up unexpectedly from those not paid to "know what the kids'll like", as well as cyclical. Who would've thought 20 years ago that in the era of the internet that a series of books with long, complex plots about good and evil would be so massive - 500 pages of long words with no pictures whatsoever!

So, perhaps we should be mindful not to thrash around too much with the county system in a frantic attempt to get down with the kids. There's a need to stick with a routine format that is bringing in families, however I still think that whilst the to audiences aren't what they were, terrestrial to coverage is more valuable than we think: millions still watch the drivel on the 4 main channels, not all youngsters are online all the time and anyway it is not a bad idea to reconnect with their parents and grandparents who are the ones who will pay for the tickets...

...also, classical music is unfashionable with the TV companies at the moment, but the likes of Andre Rieu sell out across the globe targeting the older audience who have the money. Who's to say that a Nigel Kennedy-esque star with street cred won't emerge in the future?

[neil]

Not sure where you are coming from now Andy.

In one post you are saying that the ECB has got it wrong in concentrating on the public schools - now you are saying we shouldn't get "down with the kids". Which is not what anyone is saying, anyway. It's about looking at ways to get the younger generation attending, and participating in, cricket.

At the moment it would appear that this demographic have not much interest in the game - whether we like it or not. I don't agree with you about terrestrial TV - there is coverage now on Channel5 so it's not like it's not available at all. And it's packaged highlights at what would seem a reasonable hour. I can't say I have come across many younger folk who watch it. With the ability to watch telly in different rooms,  on tablets etc as well as being online I can't see a sudden influx of families sitting down together to watch cricket if it miraculously appeared on terrestrial TV.

And are we really talking about "thrashing around with the county game" (love your emotive language) - nope - we are looking at taking one competition and changing it to see if it will produce some benefits - while still retaining the major part of cricket as we know it
You talk about J K Rowling and who'd have thought it. Who'd have thought it a number of years back that we would be playing Twenty/20 cricket under lights with rock music blaring out between balls and overs.

[jimmy]

Da playerz needs to like, wear those  baseball caps with the flat peaks and the stickers on them innit.

[pablo]

Half hour packages on Channel 5 which sometimes go out around mid night is not going to entice anybody very much. In 2005 ( not exactly at the other end of time) when the Ashes were shown on Channel 4 the whole nation seemed to be hooked and I remember the scenes in Trafalgar Square etc with the route crowded with thousands of people. It was immediately after that that the ECB took the decision to go with Murdoch's money which many of us at the time said was craven,short term and disastrous in respect of the long term health of the game. And so it has transpired.

Most of those interested in the sport have been enticed by the test matches of recent years and intrigued, for instance by the current state of Australian cricket - the yardstick of whether you can play the game is still whether you can cut it in the longer format and in tests in particular. How many can ever remember the results of most 20:20 matches anywhere, domestic or otherwise.It is the epitome of an instant buzz- unenduring and disposable.

I understand that although the test match gates in Bangladesh and India have been meagre the interest in terms of following the games remotely has been astonishing. In a lesser way in this country thousands follow the county championship through cric info etc than ever attend, because by its very nature many people can't attend it because of work commitments or the insanity of getting rid - wholesale- of festival cricket where numbers attending are usually significantly higher pace Scarborough, Cheltenham , Colwyn Bay etc. ( As an aside a senior member of the Gloucester committee me that the Gloucester CEO and Chairman were summoned to the ECB who demanded to know why they were maintaining the Cheltenham festival for the foreseeable future . Again j'accuse the ECB).

I am not a marketing man but there must be a way to harness more profitably and favourably that remote interest in the longer form of the game which can result in more income and/or more attendance at meaningful cricket matches.

[neil]

Half hour packages on Channel 5 which sometimes go out around mid night is not going to entice anybody very much. In 2005 ( not exactly at the other end of time) when the Ashes were shown on Channel 4 the whole nation seemed to be hooked and I remember the scenes in Trafalgar Square etc with the route crowded with thousands of people. It was immediately after that that the ECB took the decision to go with Murdoch's money which many of us at the time said was craven,short term and disastrous in respect of the long term health of the game. And so it has transpired.

Most of those interested in the sport have been enticed by the test matches of recent years and intrigued, for instance by the current state of Australian cricket - the yardstick of whether you can play the game is still whether you can cut it in the longer format and in tests in particular. How many can ever remember the results of most 20:20 matches anywhere, domestic or otherwise.It is the epitome of an instant buzz- unenduring and disposable.

I understand that although the test match gates in Bangladesh and India have been meagre the interest in terms of following the games remotely has been astonishing. In a lesser way in this country thousands follow the county championship through cric info etc than ever attend, because by its very nature many people can't attend it because of work commitments or the insanity of getting rid - wholesale- of festival cricket where numbers attending are usually significantly higher pace Scarborough, Cheltenham , Colwyn Bay etc. ( As an aside a senior member of the Gloucester committee me that the Gloucester CEO and Chairman were summoned to the ECB who demanded to know why they were maintaining the Cheltenham festival for the foreseeable future . Again j'accuse the ECB).

I am not a marketing man but there must be a way to harness more profitably and favourably that remote interest in the longer form of the game which can result in more income and/or more attendance at meaningful cricket matches.

But, to be fair, it is only really the Ashes series that engender any major "non cricket" interest

Problem is that people following the scores on Crickinfo (or wherever) aren't putting money into the county coffers.  I get what you say - maybe there is scope for some sort of twin attack - one through the longer forms of the game -the other through Twenty20. But we can't do nothing - and getting younger folk engaged is a priority - for me anyway!