Wisden cricketers of the year

[brandon]

Yep, that’s genetics. That doesn’t mean it can’t be entertaining for people however

I agree fully, but I'd argue the attendances and viewing figures for women's football and cricket prove what me and MrJardine have been saying regarding its entertainment value.

I’d even say athletics and tennis get by based on the fact they run simultaneously with the men’s game as well. Djokovic is apparently a bit disgruntled with the prize money on offer and there’s been rumours of the top male players breaking away. The women will sharp see the interest and money in their game decrease if that happens. Let’s be honest I’d say most blokes interest in women’s tennis is based more on how tidy they look rather than the game itself which is pretty ordinary in comparison to the male game.

I hope they do break away therefore. The pay should be based on the amount of work they do and the amount of revenue they create.

Personally if the women have any real issue, they should just make it mixed. Even playing field then.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

I agree fully, but I'd argue the attendances and viewing figures for women's football and cricket prove what me and MrJardine have been saying regarding its entertainment value.



I hope they do break away therefore. The pay should be based on the amount of work they do and the amount of revenue they create.

Personally if the women have any real issue, they should just make it mixed. Even playing field then.

Most women’s tournaments are separate in tennis. The players do very well

 

[Mrjardine]

Most women’s tournaments are separate in tennis. The players do very well

The big ones aren’t and if they separate you’ll see a big decline on their earnings.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

The big ones aren’t and if they separate you’ll see a big decline on their earnings.

Same with men’s

 

[Mrjardine]

Same with men’s

I wouldn’t think so hence the reason they’re wanting a breakaway.

 

[Twisted]

You've missed my point, I like watching sports played at levels below the top level aswell as elite level - what I'm saying is - if you're going to televise women's cricket however, why not televise second XI cricket first? Then club cricket? NEPL and then DCL? Because all of those levels of cricket are a better standard than England Women.

Football is an even bigger gap.

are you suggesting there would be any appetite for second XI cricket on television? people who are 'fanatical' durham ccc fans barely bother to turn up to second xi cricket. i went to the 2nd XI final when it was at CLS a few years back and even hosted at our place and being a final there was barely anyone there.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I agree fully, but I'd argue the attendances and viewing figures for women's football and cricket prove what me and MrJardine have been saying regarding its entertainment value.



I hope they do break away therefore. The pay should be based on the amount of work they do and the amount of revenue they create.

Personally if the women have any real issue, they should just make it mixed. Even playing field then.

I find it really inrestering how you use viewing figures to suit your argument when it suits and ignore them when it doesn't

It has been put to you many times that T20 cricket is miles more popular than those watching Durham on a Wednesday where hardly any fucker watches.

Yet viewing figures don't matter then because you prefer do called proper cricket.

Entertainment value as you put it, in the IPL for example is miles better than watching Durham in the county championship viewing figures prove it!!!

 

[Keith S30S]

Shrubsole was excellent in the final. I saw the last half an hour or so and overall about half of the England team choked in the final but luckily for them India choked even worse. It's just a PC exercise to have 3 lasses in the 5.

I agree that woman's cricket and football are poor to watch. I have no idea why they commentate on men's cricket or football either. It's like inviting a non league player to pass comment on the England team. It's a totally different standard.

 

[brandon]

are you suggesting there would be any appetite for second XI cricket on television? people who are 'fanatical' durham ccc fans barely bother to turn up to second xi cricket. i went to the 2nd XI final when it was at CLS a few years back and even hosted at our place and being a final there was barely anyone there.

Missed my point again.

What I'm saying is, if it's based on standard of cricket, they'd have to televise about ten other leagues/categories of cricket before women's cricket - such is its standard in the spectrum of cricketing quality.

I find it really inrestering how you use viewing figures to suit your argument when it suits and ignore them when it doesn't

It has been put to you many times that T20 cricket is miles more popular than those watching Durham on a Wednesday where hardly any fucker watches.

Yet viewing figures don't matter then because you prefer do called proper cricket.

Entertainment value as you put it, in the IPL for example is miles better than watching Durham in the county championship viewing figures prove it!!!

I'm using viewing/listening figures as a means of determining interest in a particular sport being covered by television or radio. Basically cost effectiveness.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve regarding the comparison between Championship and IPL. What is it that you want me to concede there?

I don't think it can be argued more people watch IPL than watch County Championship. Can you explain further what you're getting at?

 

[Voice of fair play]

Missed my point again.

What I'm saying is, if it's based on standard of cricket, they'd have to televise about ten other leagues/categories of cricket before women's cricket - such is its standard in the spectrum of cricketing quality.



I'm using viewing/listening figures as a means of determining interest in a particular sport being covered by television or radio. Basically cost effectiveness.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve regarding the comparison between Championship and IPL. What is it that you want me to concede there?

I don't think it can be argued more people watch IPL than watch County Championship. Can you explain further what you're getting at?

Do you want to concede that T20 cricket has more entertainment value than county cricket?

That's what I am getting at and asking?

 

[Twisted]

Missed my point again.

What I'm saying is, if it's based on standard of cricket, they'd have to televise about ten other leagues/categories of cricket before women's cricket - such is its standard in the spectrum of cricketing quality.

i've not missed your point, i just dont agree with it. as i said from teh beginning it isn't just about the standard of the sport on offer is it? otherwise we'd all follow man city and brazil instead. interest and significance come into it don't they? look at how many people suddenly watch minority sports they'd have no interest in outside of the olympics and that sort of crap

 

[brandon]

Do you want to concede that T20 cricket has more entertainment value than county cricket?

That's what I am getting at and asking?

It depends who you're talking to doesn't it. It's based purely on personal opinion - in my opinion, no it does not.

What has that got to do with the argument regarding the media coverage of women's cricket though?

i've not missed your point, i just dont agree with it. as i said from teh beginning it isn't just about the standard of the sport on offer is it? otherwise we'd all follow man city and brazil instead. interest and significance come into it don't they? look at how many people suddenly watch minority sports they'd have no interest in outside of the olympics and that sort of crap

Aye, but for me that backs my point up. Nobody watches women's cricket (or women's football for that matter), one of the main reasons for that, but not the only reason is that it is a massively substandard product to the men's version.

Whether we like it or not, sport nowadays is a product, a business. There is absolutely no money to be made from women's cricket or football in comparison to the men's game. It is therefore massively over hyped when it comes to coverage and it is wrong - I'd stick my mortgage on the Evo Stik North getting far more interest by way of attendances, gate receipts, sponsorship and overall revenue than the top division of women's football. Yet women's football gets more exposure in the media - now why do you think that is?

Because the same people who are making the decisions are the same people who think women footballers and cricketers should get the same pay as their male counterparts and the same people who think the winner of Wimbledon should be paid the same whether it be the women's or the men's tournament. Basically, f***ing parrotheads, who when it came to it, probably wouldn't f***ing bother spending money to see the sport in the flesh.

 

[Voice of fair play]

It depends who you're talking to doesn't it. It's based purely on personal opinion - in my opinion, no it does not.

What has that got to do with the argument regarding the media coverage of women's cricket though?



Aye, but for me that backs my point up. Nobody watches women's cricket (or women's football for that matter), one of the main reasons for that, but not the only reason is that it is a massively substandard product to the men's version.

Whether we like it or not, sport nowadays is a product, a business. There is absolutely no money to be made from women's cricket or football in comparison to the men's game. It is therefore massively over hyped when it comes to coverage and it is wrong - I'd stick my mortgage on the Evo Stik North getting far more interest by way of attendances, gate receipts, sponsorship and overall revenue than the top division of women's football. Yet women's football gets more exposure in the media - now why do you think that is?

Because the same people who are making the decisions are the same people who think women footballers and cricketers should get the same pay as their male counterparts and the same people who think the winner of Wimbledon should be paid the same whether it be the women's or the men's tournament. Basically, f***ing parrotheads, who when it came to it, probably wouldn't f***ing bother spending money to see the sport in the flesh.

You were saying because men's cricket has more entertainment value than women's cricket it should be shown more which is fair enough.

As T20 has (viewing figures confirm) more entertainment value than 4 day cricket it should be shown more on exactly the same principle?

If it should be based purely on personal opinion, then they will be some people who prefer women's cricket to men's cricket, do you not agree?

Not sure what you saying now, are you saying whichever has more entertainment value should be shown more or should it be down to personal opinion.

For example imo, and I am been serious I would much prefer watching a close one day women's cricket game than watching Hameed bat all day and people talking about how well he leaves the ball outside off stump!

 

[The Rat]

Not really. It’s about performances in an English summer season

Porter for his wickets in first class cricket
Shai Hope for test performances

Who else should have got it? Remember you can only get it once in your career

I know what you mean, but 3.

I mean the standards just not as good, not as many people play, and its not as hard to reach the top

How are there no Pakistan players?

I am not putting down on purpose, I think its good thats its getting bigger and I know a lot of young lasses watched it and got into cricket

But you cant judge it on the same level as the mens

I can't watch due to a test I watched about 2 years ago, an Ashes one, it was honestly so so bad. Even on Cricket Writers on TV they were very critical saying the standard was getting worse

maybe 20/20 has helped

 

[Twisted]

I'd stick my mortgage on the Evo Stik North getting far more interest by way of attendances, gate receipts, sponsorship and overall revenue than the top division of women's football.

non league football gets higher attendances than county cricket generally anarl so lets just dump everything that doesn't get the crowds in eh?

 

[The Rat]

non league football gets higher attendances than county cricket generally anarl so lets just dump everything that doesn't get the crowds in eh?

attendances not important for me, but they would struggle against a lot of local sides, that doesn't sit well with me when lauding them

 

[brandon]

You were saying because men's cricket has more entertainment value than women's cricket it should be shown more which is fair enough.

As T20 has (viewing figures confirm) more entertainment value than 4 day cricket it should be shown more on exactly the same principle?

It generally is isn't it, which stands to reason because people want to see it and will generally watch it.

If it should be based purely on personal opinion, then they will be some people who prefer women's cricket to men's cricket, do you not agree?

It's down to personal opinion what the individual deems more interesting, of course there will be people who prefer women's cricket to men's, but they'll be in the minute minority. Television companies don't base their choice of programme on the preference of an individual though do they? They base it on the opinions of large groups.

Not sure what you saying now, are you saying whichever has more entertainment value should be shown more or should it be down to personal opinion.

I thought that would be obvious, as above, whatever is a greater product should be shown, because that's what will make the media companies the most money in revenue. You're the one confusing things by making the completely unrelated comparison between personal opinion and quality of product. You brought my personal opinion of the longer format into it where it wasn't necessary because to be frank I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

I'm not in charge of any media corporation and therefore won't be deciding what cricket gets televised. But the point I was making and have done all along is that women's cricket gets an enormously over exaggerated and unrealistic amount of coverage it deserves when you consider the main factors at play. They are a) how much actual interest there is in the sport b) the overall quality of the product and c) the profitibility of showing it. How many people get Sky Sports in order to watch Premier League/Championship football compared to how many people get Sky so they can watch England Women play cricket?

For example imo, and I am been serious I would much prefer watching a close one day women's cricket game than watching Hameed bat all day and people talking about how well he leaves the ball outside off stump!

That's up to you, but there is far more skill involved with batting for a whole day against a red ball in first class cricket than there is in a women's one day game. So if it's alright with you, I'll not be watching the women's cricket with you.

Replies in bold.

non league football gets higher attendances than county cricket generally anarl so lets just dump everything that doesn't get the crowds in eh?

You've definitely missed the point there.

Compare football to football and cricket to cricket, because I wasn't making it football versus cricket. What I was saying, was compare all of football and decide what is a greater product, what has a greater pull. My point there was that Evo Stik North, if on Sky Sports or BBC1, would get more viewing figures than the top level of women's club cricket.

Again, to compare cricket, I'd wager that more people would watch or listen to a televised County Championship game than they would a run of the mill Women's international.

But aside from that, yes, if something isn't getting the viewing figures, it should be pulled and will need to be pulled. At present, more people will subscribe to Sky for their county cricket coverage than will ever subscribe to Sky for their women's cricket coverage.

My point there was that Evo Stik North, if on Sky Sports or BBC1, would get more viewing figures than the top level of women's club cricket.

Should read: 'women's club football' not women's club cricket.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Replies in bold.



You've definitely missed the point there.

Compare football to football and cricket to cricket, because I wasn't making it football versus cricket. What I was saying, was compare all of football and decide what is a greater product, what has a greater pull. My point there was that Evo Stik North, if on Sky Sports or BBC1, would get more viewing figures than the top level of women's club cricket.

Again, to compare cricket, I'd wager that more people would watch or listen to a televised County Championship game than they would a run of the mill Women's international.

But aside from that, yes, if something isn't getting the viewing figures, it should be pulled and will need to be pulled. At present, more people will subscribe to Sky for their county cricket coverage than will ever subscribe to Sky for their women's cricket coverage.



Should read: 'women's club football' not women's club cricket.

Could not agree more with you that television bases programmes on lager audiences rather than smaller audiences which is why county cricket is not shown very much and T20 is.

Therefore I agree very few people want to watch women's cricket and county 4 day cricket

And because more people want to watch T20 cricket it should be shown more as it is type of cricket people want to watch as the high majority find it better entertainment value.

 

[Twisted]

attendances not important for me, but they would struggle against a lot of local sides, that doesn't sit well with me when lauding them

i agree entirely attendances are not important to me either, hence why i am not arguing women's cricket is irrelevant because it doesn't get the crowds in.

You've definitely missed the point there.

Compare football to football and cricket to cricket, because I wasn't making it football versus cricket. What I was saying, was compare all of football and decide what is a greater product, what has a greater pull. My point there was that Evo Stik North, if on Sky Sports or BBC1, would get more viewing figures than the top level of women's club cricket.

Again, to compare cricket, I'd wager that more people would watch or listen to a televised County Championship game than they would a run of the mill Women's international..

i did compare cricket to cricket earlier and you ignored this, when i said if we're talking about the top standard why not only show IPL, big bash etc and jack in all coverage of county cricket, by your argument you'd agree with this?

edit: or rather jack in all coverage of domestic t20 competitions

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Why do we like cricket in the UK? Because we grew up with it, we played at school (maybe) and watched the summer tests on terrestrial tv

Why is it not watched in the USA? They don’t have inherently different taste, they just didn’t grow up with it. I find American football dull as shit as I didn’t watch it from the age of 7.

Women’s sport is exactly the same. It’s an exposure thing, both playing and watching.