• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cricket

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,688
Location
Devon
I’ve been listening on the radio since 3pm while working on the car.
Good grief! o_O
Is it always like this? :lol:
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
When you're meant to win, the luck is with you. The richochet off Stokes to the boundary that resulted in 6 off that particular ball (2 ran, 4 overthrows) was indeed the difference. What a match...
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
The richochet off Stokes to the boundary that resulted in 6 off that particular ball (2 ran, 4 overthrows) was indeed the difference.

I do wonder if the rule on that needs looking at. It's one thing when it's the fielding sides fault (i.e. fielder throws it and there's a misfield that sends it for four) but it doesn't quite feel right that you can score four runs for an accidental deflection. Surely should be dead ball at that point?
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
I do wonder if the rule on that needs looking at. It's one thing when it's the fielding sides fault (i.e. fielder throws it and there's a misfield that sends it for four) but it doesn't quite feel right that you can score four runs for an accidental deflection. Surely should be dead ball at that point?

If it wasn't a boundary, etiquette dictates that the batting side doesn't run additional runs, but as the ball reached the boundary it is classed as overthrows
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
If it wasn't a boundary, etiquette dictates that the batting side doesn't run, but as the ball reached the boundary it is classed as overthrows
Yes exactly. Etiquette covers what would normally happen to a deflection like that but I can't help but feel the laws should cover what happens when it reaches the boundary!
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Yes exactly. Etiquette covers what would normally happen to a deflection like that but I can't help but feel the laws should cover what happens when it reaches the boundary!
Don't worry, this sequence of events will never happen again. Oh, wait a minute, didn't someone win the lottery jackpot on two different occasions? :LOL:
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
Yes exactly. Etiquette covers what would normally happen to a deflection like that but I can't help but feel the laws should cover what happens when it reaches the boundary!

I certainly think they will go and look at it after today and I don't mind one bit now we've already won. :lol:
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Worth noting the game was played in the correct spirt. The best examples being boult and guptill indicating 6 when the former stood on the boundary rope attempting a catch and stokes pleading for the runs if

off his dive not to count!

Cant say I would have done that!

I’ve been listening on the radio since 3pm while working on the car.
Good grief! o_O
Is it always like this? :lol:

One of the goals of the ecb for this world cup was to get new people interested in cricket. They might just have managed it!

Really good that game was on council tv. Let so many people see it. Let's hope this ( and the 100) gets people into the game.

Btw how did you find the bonkers world of test match special?
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,688
Location
Devon
Worth noting the game was played in the correct spirt. The best examples being boult and guptill indicating 6 when the former stood on the boundary rope attempting a catch and stokes pleading for the runs if

off his dive not to count!

Cant say I would have done that!



One of the goals of the ecb for this world cup was to get new people interested in cricket. They might just have managed it!

Really good that game was on council tv. Let so many people see it. Let's hope this ( and the 100) gets people into the game.

Btw how did you find the bonkers world of test match special?
Do you know what Rich, I actually would listen to it again.
I have listened to some of the Ashes in the past. But I feel like I got lot of enjoyment out of this tournament.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Do you know what Rich, I actually would listen to it again.
I have listened to some of the Ashes in the past. But I feel like I got lot of enjoyment out of this tournament.

Go for it. The commentary is always superb, the experts actually are experts and can speak and explain situations, you get voices from the visiting nation, the scoring information is superb and it is as if people are having a chat with the distraction of a cricket match in the background. And cake.

My gf simply cant get it. It drives her made that they don't talk about the match all the time!
 
Last edited:

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Let's hope this ( and the 100) gets people into the game.

I hope the 100 dies a quick and painful (to the sponsors) death. It's an unnecessary and unwanted variation of the game. County games, One Day and T20 is all the variety we need. A ludicrous city-based franchise will do little for the clubs and squeeze more into an already busy schedule.

Apologies for being the voice of doom and gloom on such a gripping day for Cricket.
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,421
Great comments to read through...I still can't think straight,it totally drained me. I am more of a traditionalist, preferring Test Cricket, but I think this World cup has been superb. The pitches have given the bowlers a chance and only the best batsmen have thrived. Loads of comments elsewhere on the perceived unfairness of the manner of the victory but they were the rules and all the players knew that.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Worth noting the game was played in the correct spirt. The best examples being boult and guptill indicating 6 when the former stood on the boundary rope attempting a catch and stokes pleading for the runs if

off his dive not to count!

Cant say I would have done that!



One of the goals of the ecb for this world cup was to get new people interested in cricket. They might just have managed it!

Really good that game was on council tv. Let so many people see it. Let's hope this ( and the 100) gets people into the game.

Btw how did you find the bonkers world of test match special?

Hopefully!
It's a shame, it's a game that's really underappreciated in the wider community, it's a shame because I find it's a lot more interesting than football, plus it's a sport that England is actually good at.
We had a World Cup in our own country, and no-one cared!
My friends were like, why the hell do you care about cricket, it's really boring :rolleyes:

Hope this and the Hundred attracts more people to the game.

Have to say though, that Sky's coverage has been superb, I doubt the BBC's would have been as good.
Ideally I'd like both broadcasters to show the sport.
 

Pakenhamtrain

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2014
Messages
1,016
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Well that's certainly one of the best 50 over games played.

Although for a game to be decided by a count back of boundaries is just daft. For such a high quality game of cricket it deserved better. Just bowl another super over.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...s/news-story/df8fb4f013f4f6fa4ae04cff9b7cb105
It does appear England has got away with one with an extra run being awarded when it shouldn't have. Courtesy of some obscure rule.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Definitely think that the rules need adjusting. There's no way it's fair on a fielding side to end up conceding four runs (+whatever is run) in the circumstances that occurred yesterday.
Just imagine if it had happened to India!

Rule change - if any - will be if the ball hit's the batsman mid-run then he must finish his run and the fielders can still run him out...but once the run's finished they can't run any more regardless of where the ball ends up. Also think the same should apply if a ball hits the stumps and runs away....why punish great accuracy?

I've always wondered what would happen if it was the last ball, one to win; bowler bowls, hits the pads and runs away, bowler appeals and ump gives them out; the batsman refer immediately and the video shows the ball going down the leg and not out.....so the batsmen have been deprived of the winning run by an incorrect decision and no further chance to replay the delivery.

The batsmen could set out to run BUT as soon as the umpire gives "out" the ball's dead so the run wouldn't count. Even if it went for four leg byes.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
I hope the 100 dies a quick and painful (to the sponsors) death. It's an unnecessary and unwanted variation of the game. County games, One Day and T20 is all the variety we need. A ludicrous city-based franchise will do little for the clubs and squeeze more into an already busy schedule.

Apologies for being the voice of doom and gloom on such a gripping day for Cricket.

The problem is Cricket in this country IS dying. There has been a cliff edge drop off in participation and involvement since the end of the last free to air TV deal in 2005. That ashes feel good factor was wasted. People simply are not interested in cricket because they don't see it. Kids are not playing it, clubs are fol,ding at an alarming rate. We need new people interested in the game and we need them NOW. We need hte fact the game yesterday was seen by the masses as a catalyst for change and in developing interest. That is what the 100 is about.

The county game is moribund. It is dull and watched by 7 old blokes. One day is also getting squeezed out by 20/20 and still, as we saw yesterday, takes all day. People aren't going to watch the games. People wont give their time to that sort of event these days. That game has been a success but isnt getting families involved. It has turned into a post work booze up. Cricket is going to die as a sport if we carry on like that.

For me the key aspect of this new tournament is the fact it is to be shown on the BBC. The Sky deal has brought lots of money into the game but at the expense of access, publicity, public perception and participation The other point to note is that the 100 isnt aimed at the duffers who know every bowling average for Yorkshire part time seamers since 1922. It is aimed at getting new people into the game of cricket by giving them an exciting taster, it is aimed at using that taster to get kids down to their local club and playing the game. We need exposure and participation as a game or we will die.

We have to be honest about the state of cricket as a game in this country. We cant carry on like we always have. Things have to change.


Hopefully!
It's a shame, it's a game that's really underappreciated in the wider community, it's a shame because I find it's a lot more interesting than football, plus it's a sport that England is actually good at.
We had a World Cup in our own country, and no-one cared!
My friends were like, why the hell do you care about cricket, it's really boring :rolleyes:

Hope this and the Hundred attracts more people to the game.

Have to say though, that Sky's coverage has been superb, I doubt the BBC's would have been as good.
Ideally I'd like both broadcasters to show the sport.

No one but Sky has shown cricket since 2005. That said TMS is always top class and the BBC always cover sport properly.

See above on my views on the need for the 100

I think the choice of Kane Williamson of New Zealand as the "Man of the series" award was one that was well deserved, considering his performances overall and his captaincy.

Agreed. NZ were superb and it is worth noting we didn't actually score more runs them in either the final or the extra final! Worth noting the ECB and Eoin Morgan based their plans on the work in NZ by Brendon McCullum

Courtesy of some obscure rule.



Agreed - it is no way to win a world cup, but I will take it! Mind you thinking about Australia and rule bending I give you the underarm bowling incident of 1981! ( I sneakingly really like this sort of despicable behavior! )

For those that don't know: In the final of a one day series between Australia and New Zealand and with one ball of the final over remaining, New Zealand required a six to tie the match. To ensure that New Zealand did not get the runs they needed, the Australian captain, Greg Chappell, instructed his bowler (and younger brother), Trevor Chappell, to deliver the last ball to Brian McKechnie underarm, along the ground. This action was legal at the time, but nevertheless seen as being against the spirit of cricketing fair play.

I did wonder if someone might try something like that in the super over until I remembered it had been banned!

Just imagine if it had happened to India!

Rule change - if any - will be if the ball hit's the batsman mid-run then he must finish his run and the fielders can still run him out...but once the run's finished they can't run any more regardless of where the ball ends up. Also think the same should apply if a ball hits the stumps and runs away....why punish great accuracy?

I've always wondered what would happen if it was the last ball, one to win; bowler bowls, hits the pads and runs away, bowler appeals and ump gives them out; the batsman refer immediately and the video shows the ball going down the leg and not out.....so the batsmen have been deprived of the winning run by an incorrect decision and no further chance to replay the delivery.

The batsmen could set out to run BUT as soon as the umpire gives "out" the ball's dead so the run wouldn't count. Even if it went for four leg byes.

The simple thing is to say the ball is dead if it strikes the batsman or part of his equipment in this situation.

As for your final situation you run no matter what, try to complete the run while the fielding team appeal THEN you refer. You do not stand still. You run on the last ball even if it is in the keepers hands
 

Pakenhamtrain

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2014
Messages
1,016
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Just imagine if it had happened to India!

Rule change - if any - will be if the ball hit's the batsman mid-run then he must finish his run and the fielders can still run him out...but once the run's finished they can't run any more regardless of where the ball ends up. Also think the same should apply if a ball hits the stumps and runs away....why punish great accuracy?
There is a sort of gentleman's agreement that one doesn't run after it unintentionally hits the bat.

Definitely think that the rules need adjusting. There's no way it's fair on a fielding side to end up conceding four runs (+whatever is run) in the circumstances that occurred yesterday.
I don't think it's the first time it's happened but it is a first late in a game like that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do tinker with the rules in time for the next world cup.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
There is a sort of gentleman's agreement that one doesn't run after it unintentionally hits the bat.


I don't think it's the first time it's happened but it is a first late in a game like that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do tinker with the rules in time for the next world cup.

Agreed - the fact it hit the bat and went to the boundary was the complicating factor. Stokes, despite his sporting efforts, could not decline the runs as he could have done if the ball remained inside the rope.
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,421
Agreed - the fact it hit the bat and went to the boundary was the complicating factor. Stokes, despite his sporting efforts, could not decline the runs as he could have done if the ball remained inside the rope.
That's exactly right.

There does seem to be a great deal of chat pointing out how these little used and understood rules mean that England's victory occurred in an underhand fashion, but the game can only be played within the rules and playing conditions that exist at the time (on the day). One day cricket demands a winner, and what other method might have been more fair? Bowling at a single wicket has been tried (don't like that), net run rate throughout the competition? Relative position of the two finalists in the group stage? Outcome of the game in the group stage between the two finalists? Number of wickets lost? (if the latter, I can't see how England would have wantonly sacrificed their last two or three wickets....so many what ifs!!
One other little point I noticed in those frantic last few overs....Stokes hit a ball which would have been called a wide for one, thus denying the team an extra ball (and potential extra runs) Perhaps it should have been given a wide and a run....or perhaps the calling of wides in one day cricket needs to be looked at if the delivery can be readily hit.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
The problem is Cricket in this country IS dying. There has been a cliff edge drop off in participation and involvement since the end of the last free to air TV deal in 2005. That ashes feel good factor was wasted. People simply are not interested in cricket because they don't see it. Kids are not playing it, clubs are fol,ding at an alarming rate. We need new people interested in the game and we need them NOW. We need hte fact the game yesterday was seen by the masses as a catalyst for change and in developing interest. That is what the 100 is about.

The county game is moribund. It is dull and watched by 7 old blokes. One day is also getting squeezed out by 20/20 and still, as we saw yesterday, takes all day. People aren't going to watch the games. People wont give their time to that sort of event these days. That game has been a success but isnt getting families involved. It has turned into a post work booze up. Cricket is going to die as a sport if we carry on like that.

For me the key aspect of this new tournament is the fact it is to be shown on the BBC. The Sky deal has brought lots of money into the game but at the expense of access, publicity, public perception and participation The other point to note is that the 100 isnt aimed at the duffers who know every bowling average for Yorkshire part time seamers since 1922. It is aimed at getting new people into the game of cricket by giving them an exciting taster, it is aimed at using that taster to get kids down to their local club and playing the game. We need exposure and participation as a game or we will die.

We have to be honest about the state of cricket as a game in this country. We cant carry on like we always have. Things have to change.




No one but Sky has shown cricket since 2005. That said TMS is always top class and the BBC always cover sport properly.

See above on my views on the need for the 100



Agreed. NZ were superb and it is worth noting we didn't actually score more runs them in either the final or the extra final! Worth noting the ECB and Eoin Morgan based their plans on the work in NZ by Brendon McCullum





Agreed - it is no way to win a world cup, but I will take it! Mind you thinking about Australia and rule bending I give you the underarm bowling incident of 1981! ( I sneakingly really like this sort of despicable behavior! )

For those that don't know: In the final of a one day series between Australia and New Zealand and with one ball of the final over remaining, New Zealand required a six to tie the match. To ensure that New Zealand did not get the runs they needed, the Australian captain, Greg Chappell, instructed his bowler (and younger brother), Trevor Chappell, to deliver the last ball to Brian McKechnie underarm, along the ground. This action was legal at the time, but nevertheless seen as being against the spirit of cricketing fair play.

I did wonder if someone might try something like that in the super over until I remembered it had been banned!



The simple thing is to say the ball is dead if it strikes the batsman or part of his equipment in this situation.

As for your final situation you run no matter what, try to complete the run while the fielding team appeal THEN you refer. You do not stand still. You run on the last ball even if it is in the keepers hands

Looks to me that it's not the competition, it's the lack of Free To Air TV coverage that's at the root of the problem.
 

EbbwJunction1

Established Member
Joined
25 Mar 2010
Messages
1,565
The main trouble is (and I speak as a Club Secretary) that whilst English cricket is absolutely overflowing with money because of the Sky deals, the public profile of the game is very low because of the Sky deals!

Unfortunately, I don't know what the answer is … and neither do most of the people (most of whom are involved in the club game) that I talk to about it, either.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
The problem is Cricket in this country IS dying. There has been a cliff edge drop off in participation and involvement since the end of the last free to air TV deal in 2005. That ashes feel good factor was wasted. People simply are not interested in cricket because they don't see it. Kids are not playing it, clubs are fol,ding at an alarming rate. We need new people interested in the game and we need them NOW. We need hte fact the game yesterday was seen by the masses as a catalyst for change and in developing interest. That is what the 100 is about.

The county game is moribund. It is dull and watched by 7 old blokes. One day is also getting squeezed out by 20/20 and still, as we saw yesterday, takes all day. People aren't going to watch the games. People wont give their time to that sort of event these days. That game has been a success but isnt getting families involved. It has turned into a post work booze up. Cricket is going to die as a sport if we carry on like that.

For me the key aspect of this new tournament is the fact it is to be shown on the BBC. The Sky deal has brought lots of money into the game but at the expense of access, publicity, public perception and participation The other point to note is that the 100 isnt aimed at the duffers who know every bowling average for Yorkshire part time seamers since 1922. It is aimed at getting new people into the game of cricket by giving them an exciting taster, it is aimed at using that taster to get kids down to their local club and playing the game. We need exposure and participation as a game or we will die.

Yes, cricket needs to attract a bigger and younger audience. But if T20 hasn't done it, why is the Hundred more likely to succeed? BBC coverage, playing in the school holidays and promoting it properly are all good ideas, but didn't need a new format, which as far as I know is not currently planned to be played in any other competition, at any level, anywhere in the world - no kid will find it at their local club. It doesn't make sense for both the Hundred and T20 to survive, in the same way the peculiarly English 40 over game is now dead.

What in particular attracts women and children to a 100-ball game that T20 doesn't have - is shaving another 25 minutes off the match duration going to make a huge difference if cutting the game in half for T20 didn't? 8 teams will presumably be each of a higher standard than 18 counties, but the perennial problem of England contracted players being unavailable for most of the summer will still exist, and fewer people will have the opportunity to watch a match in person. City based T20 competitions are already successful in India, Australia etc. Copious amounts of alcohol will still be consumed in the stands - certain grounds are quite happy to promote this, and obtaining any form of refreshments usually means going to the bar.

Great if it succeeds, but I don't think the 100 ball format will be the reason if it does.

As well as getting children to see the game, we also need to give them the opportunity to play it - our kids school has no shortage of outdoor space, but the boys will play a game resembling cricket perhaps two or three times a year, and the girls never. It is not offered as an extracurricular activity at all.
 
Last edited:

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Looks to me that it's not the competition, it's the lack of Free To Air TV coverage that's at the root of the problem.

Agreed - I think the driving factor is that this new competition was not under a broadcast contract. Also the free to air broadcasters pushed for something new, according to the ECB press wibble.

Yes, cricket needs to attract a bigger and younger audience. But if T20 hasn't done it, why is the Hundred more likely to succeed? BBC coverage, playing in the school holidays and promoting it properly are all good ideas, but didn't need a new format, which as far as I know is not currently planned to be played in any other competition, at any level, anywhere in the world - no kid will find it at their local club. It doesn't make sense for both the Hundred and T20 to survive, in the same way the peculiarly English 40 over game is now dead.

But it DID need a new format as all existing competitions are under a broadcast contract and the ECB wanted, rightly in my view, to have free to air tv coverage. 20/20 has been a success for the teams involved especially filling otherwise empty grounds and shifting loads of beers. However the ECB say that the rowdy and if we are honest often drunk atmosphere is putting off the people they want to attract.

The ECB also feel that our domestic 20/20 game slacks the razzmatazz off the IPL with it's player auctions and celebrity franchise owners. They feel, perhaps rightly, that despite our 20/20 game being pretty good it simply does not generate media coverage beyond Sky and is just a repetition of the tired county structure. This new structure allows the best players to appear from someone other than their contracted county and allows many more of the great world players to appear than the current county rules allow. Hopefully this will create exciting games and a good spectacle with recognisable "names" seen.

The ECB also say that the county identity puts off people. They find it stuffy, boring, old fashioned and not reflective of the modern world. They say people find it hard to develop an affinity with a county name that doesn't really exist in the real world and may not reflect where they live. Look at Durham. For instance, Newcastle or Gateshead or Sunderland aren't part of County Durham. Darlington isnt part of County Durham anymore. Middlesborugh isnt part of Yorkshire OR Durham. However the local team is Durham ( perhaps Yorkshire if you live in Boro). How is that reflective of the real world?


What in particular attracts women and children to a 100-ball game that T20 doesn't have - is shaving another 25 minutes off the match duration going to make a huge difference if cutting the game in half for T20 didn't? 8 teams will presumably be each of a higher standard than 18 counties, but the perennial problem of England contracted players being unavailable for most of the summer will still exist, and fewer people will have the opportunity to watch a match in person. City based T20 competitions are already successful in India, Australia etc. Copious amounts of alcohol will still be consumed in the stands - certain grounds are quite happy to promote this, and obtaining any form of refreshments usually means going to the bar.

it is exactly because city based franchise are so successful that this format has been chosen for this competition! The county structure is outdated and really quite dull. I don't know if this competition will be different atmosphere wise but the ECB SAY they want it to be. They say they want it to be family friendly and accessible. I also suspect the ECB will, miraculously, allow central contract players to take part. You might not get test contact players involved but I bet you get Eion Morgan, Joss Buttler etc involved.

Great if it succeeds, but I don't think the 100 ball format will be the reason if it does.

I agree it wont be the format that leads to success. What will be lead to success is that the games are shown and watched on council TV, that people fill the grounds, that people are interested in the outcome and that people who come to a 100 game come back to watch other cricket and perhaps even give playing it a go. This competition has to be the "gateway drug".

As well as getting children to see the game, we also need to give them the opportunity to play it - our kids school has no shortage of outdoor space, but the boys will play a game resembling cricket perhaps two or three times a year, and the girls never. It is not offered as an extracurricular activity at all.

Why is that? I suspect it is because no one is interested in either the teachers or the student body. That is the whole point of this competition ( and hopefully a result of Sunday) that kids WANT to play cricket, that they want to go out and emulate things they see in these games. I have no idea if it will work. What I do know is that we have to try because what happens no certainly does NOT work.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
The main trouble is (and I speak as a Club Secretary) that whilst English cricket is absolutely overflowing with money because of the Sky deals, the public profile of the game is very low because of the Sky deals!

Unfortunately, I don't know what the answer is … and neither do most of the people (most of whom are involved in the club game) that I talk to about it, either.
The problem with Sky is that the prices are tailored to the Premiership watchers, so cricket fans have to pay a premium for something they aren't gonna watch.
On the plus side for Sky they do have their on-line NowTV service which works very well (mostly!) on your TV, but again the prices - even if you take up the offers - are extremely steep (again, Premier League prices).
County fans can also watch, for free (except Sussex) a web stream + commentary of their own county, and that's nothing to do with Sky.
A suggestion;
Sky and the ECB get together and show all international games on Sky and a dedicated ECB pay-to-view channel/app and the ECB version a lot cheaper, also the ECB are big enough to have their own dedicated freeview/freesat slot where they could show the games in full to everyone, and simply have ads after every over to pull in the income.
On the other hand Channel 4 should have a look and say - look how many watched on Sunday; why not bid again? And if it's smaller than Sky's offer but enough then the ECB should take it.
 

Top