Your reaction to receiving the information that your country will be hosting the Cricket World Cup should be complete and utter joy, right?
It should mean countless hours of cricket, news of it all over the country, back-page articles almost everyday, replay upon replay available on television, matches from all over the land bellowing on the radio, and the host side playing meaningful matches regularly.
In short, World Cup fever taking over the land and all before it.
Right?
Wrong.
My opinion of this World Cup is the lowest I have had of the tournament since I began to follow cricket as as a child. Not only are the scheduling and format a monumental debacle, the coverage to we free-to-air fans is so poor, it’s borderline non-existent.
So far, I’ve seen a grand total of zero overs in my lounge room at home, and heard just two matches on the radio.
I work nine-to-five and play for my club on Saturday. Oh yes, Saturday, the day the ICC (and I can only assume Cricket Australia) deemed the most appropriate for the hosts’ first three matches. Excuse me, but what on Earth were they thinking? Do they not understand the great Australian pastime of playing your own match on the Saturday? Do they understand this not only effects crowds and ratings, but is a giant ‘up yours’ to the punters?
Unless you can afford Foxtel or going to the local pub everyday, you’ve been completely shut out from a tournament being run in our own country! How on earth does the ICC expect a host nation to get World Cup fever, or attract new fans when they care more for selling broadcast rights to on overseas company than promoting the game?
And don’t get me started on the radio. Granted, you can listen to every game live, but only if you have the ABC Grandstand app. If that’s not available to you, tough, as the ABC is only broadcasting the ‘big’ matches nationwide (read: India, Australia, England).
As a cricket fan – nay – lover, I find this utterly unacceptable. But what can you do? It’s the business now.
The 1999 and 2003 World Cups were broadcast on free-to-air and were a brilliant promotion for cricket. This dropped off in 2007, but I accepted it as it was in another country, and thought 2015 would be different. This was going to be our tournament. Unfortunately, I was so very wrong.
Bob
Guest
The fact that a few are watching is not the point. Events need universality of attention to succeed on a large scale which will never happen with limited exposure. The reason why the AFL is such a juggernaut is the shared experience of the population since everybody has easy access on TV and radio. Once a critical mass is reached, it becomes impossible to fail.
Ralphy
Guest
$50 DS. Minimum spend to see ICC world cup via foxtel is $750. That don't do less then 12 month subscription.
armchair expert
Guest
It may be blocked in Australia or maybe an issue with lack of unlimited internet and/or a decent speed but I have seen virtually every 2015 world cup game live and free online overseas on star sports and sky sports with a $45 android box connected to my tv via unlimited wifi.
TriangleFlatDog
Guest
I agree entirely with you. Wouldn't be without my Foxtel for Live sport. Besides, Foxtel have had their $50/month sport package available for some time now so there is really no excuse to whinge about not seeing the CWC on tv. Afterall, $50 in today's world of electronic gadgets etc is nothing really! Geez, we pay around $5 for a coffee most days which would add up over the month to quite a bit compared to the now affordable Foxtel at around $1.60 per day!!!!
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
Why wasn't the tournament played straight after the Sydney Test? This could have solved many of the issues related to FTA as it would not be in the ratings period since we all prefer to watch The Block or The Bachelor Wants a Miilionaire Wife. I can't help thinking the tournament is just a big curtain-raiser for the IPL which starts in April - or am I just being cynical Good opinion piece Josh
Jack
Guest
In England and New Zealand the cricket is also on pay tv and not a lot of the public get to see it. That's the price of making money off the rights and not going on free to air, it means less exposure. It's more in-depth coverage but a lot of people miss out on watching it and that has a long term net negative effect as the sport becomes less relevant. Overall the tournament has been pretty poor. The first half has been marked by a lot of negative commentary over the reduction of teams, and complaints about the times between each match. The ICC are pretty incompetent because this tournament should have been a big success, it's their show piece event, but they continue to make the same mistake of dragging it out too long. The media can't really cover it when nothing is happening. Think of what they can cram into the Olympics in 2 1/2 weeks. I suspect one of the reasons is that by going longer it means pay tv subscribers have to fork out for more. It's a shame that they so often seem to put money ahead of the fans.
The Bush
Roar Guru
"not during live matches" This is all that matters - everything else I watch I record so I can just fast-forward (i.e. non-live sport). Foxtel's entire selling point, to me, is that all sport is live and ad-free.
E-Meter
Guest
Plenty of ads on Fox. Admittedly not during live matches. Half the reason I got rid of Foxtel was the ridiculous amount of ads that I was paying for.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Eh, firstly, the England game went into the night, I remember it well, so you could have watched unless you play in some epicly cool night league on Saturday. The Bangers game would also have gone late, if it had even been played (most likely). As for the Kiwi game, well that was in NZD, it was always going to start early - though no one thought it'd finish that early. I agree that it's ridiculous that the co-hosts are in the same group though - who thought of that moronic set-up? Next game is today, mid-weed, and the game after that is a Sunday, so a bit of variety for you! As for "free-to-air" coverage, it's hard for me to sympathise. I love my sport and I fork out for Foxtel to make sure I can see it all. It's fantastic, no ads, better commentary, full coverage etc. It's the same with the rugby and the same with the football. I can't and pretty much refuse to, watch sport on free to air. One thing I'll say about the tournament is it's too prolonged. There shouldn't be days when there are no games and there should be more days with two (2) games to speed up the pool stage. If footballers can play world-cup pool games every four days, then cricketers, who usually play a game for up to five straight(!) days, can play more frequently than once a week.
Josh Sim
Roar Rookie
Hi Bobbo7, Last I checked, Daily Telegraph only had one a two page spread, compared to the NRL (who are yet to play an actual game) who had the back 8 pages. Haven't picked up The Australian or SMH in a week or so, but last time I did, I needed to be Sherlock Holmes to find an article on it. I agree there is coverage, just nothing like if we had the FIFA WC, and if we want to grow the game and promote it, we need this vital exposure!
Josh Sim
Roar Rookie
Thanks Vas, Yeah I understand that it's all to do with broadcast rights, I guess I'm just annoyed that free-to-air don't make more of an effort to capture at least the big games. It wouldn't be that hard to sell Advertising within the WC at a premium price one would think, therefore offsetting the cost of getting the rights to the game. I think that like your comment with the games being played on a Saturday, both CA and ICC know that Australia will continue to play grade and club games on a Saturday, World Cup or not, therefore, games being played on a Sunday would also have the advantage of crowds being able to plan a year in advance to make the matches... All in all, thanks for your feedback!
Bobbo7
Guest
I agree re free to iar TV but there is a lot of stuff in the media about the WC
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
Josh, I share your sentiments. However, what we all need to know is that unlike our home summer, whose rights are sold by Cricket Australia, the World Cup is an ICC event, and as such, the ICC sell the rights. What they have done since 2003 is to sell it to one broadcaster, and then other nations will buy the rights from that broadcaster to host certain games. Since 2003, the broadcaster has been Star Sports in India, as they are the most cashed-up broadcaster, and of course, the ICC want to get top TV dollar, or rupee in this case. The fact is that if Channel 9 wants to showcase every major game, they will face a hefty fee to pay Star. Meanwhile, Fox Sports can afford the fee due to their paid subscription model. As far as Australia's games being on a Saturday, that just happens to be the best day for the host nations to play, as it is a day where people can spend the whole day and evening at the game, and not worry about going to work/school the next day. Besides, the schedule for this World Cup has been known for more than a year now, so this would have been apparent to anyone who wanted to attend or watch matches that they may need to alter personal arrangements. One thing I would have done is set up a ICC Cricket Livesite in every major city, where ppl could just sit and watch the games. That would obviously involve state and local governments, but that is far more feasible than getting all the games on free-to-air. TV money now rules cricket unfortunately.
Meng
Guest
Each team needs to play 2-3 games per week, the tournament shouldn't be any longer than four weeks. Thanks minnows, but no thanks. Channel 9 should realise that people like cricket and will watch it even if Australia is not playing. And it should be an achievement to make it out of your pool. If these things are fixed I will take the World Cup seriously in future