Sometimes I get odd looks about my love of cricket and, to some extent, quite rightly. Barely a week goes by where I don’t get asked “How can you like a game that can last for 5 days and it end as a draw?”
My answer is usually “You just don’t understand”.
I worry that this is becoming more frequent: fewer people are able to watch cricket and other “minority” sports (i.e. not football). The ECB signing a new contract with Sky is going to continue this process.
It is undeniable that Sky’s investment in cricket has done some good. They have improved the standard of cricket coverage, notably David Lloyd’s commentary. They have invested in coach education with a total of 45,000 people having benefitted from their scheme. They have also given a lot of money to county cricket for improvements in stadia.
But the ECB now seems to be putting money above the good of the game. It is as if the question surrounding future participation is only an afterthought. Putting the highlights on Channel 5 is a token gesture.
I was brought up on a diet of Channel 4 coverage. I was not inspired by England but more by their opponents. There was little that was inspiring about watching Messrs Hussain and Atherton bat. However I would not have become as obsessed as I am now about both watching and playing cricket if I hadn’t had the ability to watch Test Cricket on terrestrial TV.
I am not the only one influenced by watching cricket on TV: the 2005 Ashes series was a case in point. Because it was on free-to-air TV the number of participants jumped.
The recent cut in funding for the ECB from Sport England was brushed under the carpet and not greatly commented on. The reason for the funding cut was due to the dwindling number of new players.
This should not have been the case: England had an incredible summer, putting both India and Sri Lanka to the sword and in the process becoming the World number one Test side. Last summer should have been the summer where a generation of children were inspired by the likes of Cook, Swann, Anderson and Broad. So many people were inspired to play when England sides were relatively weak; imagine what watching a good England side playing on terrestrial TV could have done.
Giles Clarke, the chairman of the ECB, a week ago said that internet streaming was the “biggest danger” facing the game. He fails to realise that many people cannot afford the minimum £240 it costs to have Sky Sports for a year, making illegal streaming tempting. If streaming is such a concern, why did the ECB allow it to continue until at least 2017? Again, money seems to be more important than what is good for the sport.
There is a valid argument that Sky has been good for county cricket: the money they get from the TV deal keeps some counties afloat. Counties without Test match grounds such as Kent and Worcestershire are able to post a profit.
However, Sky’s deal has its limitations. Sky has the exclusive rights over which games to show – and has chosen to show only two County Championship games throughout the whole summer. That would be like Sky only showing two Premier League fixtures a season. Part of the reason the number of people watching the County Championship is limited is that the general public do not know what they are missing.
I am in no doubt that if Surrey vs Middlesex played at Guildford last year was on Sky let alone terrestrial TV, gates would increase significantly. The match was better than any Test I have watched. Moreover, the standard in Division One is such that any of five teams could win the Championship next year. That’s far more exciting than the Premier League.
Cricket is not alone in this dilemma: boxers are remembered for their interviews not performances. David Haye is known more for some of his repulsive remarks than his stunning performance against Nikolai Valuev because the number of people able to watch or afford Sky pay-per-view was limited.
Rugby and Tennis are spared because of the “National Treasure” list - a list of sporting events that have to be on terrestrial TV, on which Test Cricket should also have remained. This however has had the effect that the England Rugby side are judged by the public on World Cups and Six Nations and Andy Murray is judged mainly on his performances at Wimbledon.
The ECB have sold a generation down the river: England’s best Test side cannot be watched by millions of fans. The ECB have only themselves to blame for the dropping numbers of participants.
