• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

The Hundred 2023

GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
"while the women's average viewers per match on Sky Sports has grown 20 per cent to 132,000" - a country of 66 million and this is costing the game an absolute fortune.... 132k average isn't very good is it?
Click to expand...
You shouldn’t lose all sense of objectivity. It’s pretty good by the only real benchmark we can use given that it’s more than the WSL.
 

Fleagle said:
You shouldn’t lose all sense of objectivity. It’s pretty good by the only real benchmark we can use given that it’s more than the WSL.
Click to expand...
The relevant fact is that is growing. Obviously back to back games with the men has to be continued with whatever the short form of the game is going forward
 
You must be logged on to see external links

So it’s over. Good. I’m pretty sure the Hundred has engaged some new fans. And I’m sure, if one squints hard enough, that some positives can be found. But this misses the point. New fans could & should have been engaged in a non-divisive way that builds on what we already had.
 
Struts said:
400,000 average viewership.

That’s less than 3% of paying Sky/NowTV subscribers.
Click to expand...
Again though you have to compare apples with apples in asking the first question you must ask with any stat - how big a number is that? In the context of tv sport it’s still a big number. For multi event seasons (as opposed to one offs) on Sky it’s an average only the Premier League and the F1 beat. It exceeds the domestic viewership average for Championship matches and the “regular season” average for all other sports on Sky.

You’d be better off attacking the tournament for what it’s bad at. There’s enough to choose from. It certainly hasn’t hit its match day revenue targets, and it has utterly failed to attract big names or persuade the England players off the golf course. But its tv viewer numbers are objectively pretty good.
 
Fleagle said:
Again though you have to compare apples with apples in asking the first question you must ask with any stat - how big a number is that? In the context of tv sport it’s still a big number. For multi event seasons (as opposed to one offs) on Sky it’s an average only the Premier League and the F1 beat. It exceeds the domestic viewership average for Championship matches and the “regular season” average for all other sports on Sky.

You’d be better off attacking the tournament for what it’s bad at. There’s enough to choose from. It certainly hasn’t hit its match day revenue targets, and it has utterly failed to attract big names or persuade the England players off the golf course. But its tv viewer numbers are objectively pretty good.
Click to expand...
I think what gets me about this thread more than any other mate is total lack of balance or acceptance that they may just possibly be some good points about the competition.

I am the first to admit some failings of the competition, for example no where near the quality of overseas players as first mooted, should be 20 overs and spread more geographically.

But there is some good points, engaging a younger audience and more family oriented and each game live on the telly and there has been while I have watched some really good games of cricket.

It’s the point blank refusal to even consider any good points of the competition and constant petty remarks and finding every possible angle to criticize that’s get me.

It’s as if anybody making any good comments or even considering any balance to the debate is considered anti cricket which I personally find nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Thought this was a fairly even-handed summary of where the competition currently stands:
You must be logged on to see external links
 
GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
"while the women's average viewers per match on Sky Sports has grown 20 per cent to 132,000" - a country of 66 million and this is costing the game an absolute fortune.... 132k average isn't very good is it?

You'll have to ask those who don't attend, plenty of them on here to ask. I can't speak for them.
Click to expand...
timing of the games for me, gave my membership up as it wasnt cost effective, CC games should be over the weekend and the 50 over ones, cant use all my annual leave up, T20 far easier to attend
Darlo1973 said:
What percentage of Sky/Now subscribers have Sky Sports?
Click to expand...
sky probably dont want to advertise it, but you didnt need sky sports to watch the hundred, just normal sky, every game is on sky sports mix which is free, and a lot are on youbtube not to mention the BBC, was chatting about the hundred to lads at the club and few didnt realise this and only watched the BBC games
You must be logged on to see media items

Sowter 4th overall in wickets, Do we have him again next season for the t20, no idea why middlesex let him go
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

So it’s over. Good. I’m pretty sure the Hundred has engaged some new fans. And I’m sure, if one squints hard enough, that some positives can be found. But this misses the point. New fans could & should have been engaged in a non-divisive way that builds on what we already had.
Click to expand...
Did you think the same when T20 was introduced?

What about when 50 overs came about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top