But there was zero interest for me in watching one crisp-sponsored team play another, under a name that holds little appeal. Call me parochial, call me old-fashioned, but if a team under the name of Trent Rockets purports to represent the area from which I hail, I want nothing to do with it. Nor can I give any support to a team far away, even if it includes one of the Derbyshire players.
I couldn't get on with the false enthusiasm from the commentary team, trying to make out that what was on display was a top quality product. It patently wasn't and I have to admit I could only handle 20 minutes at a time of the garish graphics, that seemed to be the product of a troubled mind and an obsession with highlighter pen colours..
They may have spent thousands, millions even, on the marketing, but to yours truly it was little more then putting lipstick on a pig.
Conversely, I have found myself watching a few of the Metro Bank One Day Cup games and have thoroughly enjoyed them. Yesterday I enjoyed watching Prithvi Shaw play a beautiful cameo for Northamptonshire, before rather giving it away, then watched Ben Brown bat quite delightfully for Hampshire. Flitting between streams, I watched holders Leicestershire collapse like a pack of cards against Warwickshire (not to be confused with Birmingham or indeed Birmingham Phoenix) before being captivated by one of the better run- chase centuries I have seen of late. Andy Umeed steered Somerset to what looked an unlikely win with a perfectly-paced ton against Kent.
I recall watching Umeed make a big century against Derbyshire at the County Ground a year or two back and he is far too good a player to be a mere bit-part for Somerset. He has had a little more 4-day cricket this year, but is exactly the sort of player I would love to see a Derbyshire side built around.
It has been lovely to watch talented young players getting an early opportunity to shine in high-level cricket and the contrast between matches that have ebbed and flowed beautifully and others that are merely slogfests has been quite clear.
Whatever happens to cricket over the next few years, I will retain my interest in watching Derbyshire, regardless of the level at which they played. It would be a sad day if the game became merely a battle between deep-pocketed franchise sides, but if that was deemed the new top level of the domestic game I would simply ignore it. Just as increasing numbers ignore the Premier League in football in favour of local teams, where you can enjoy a product that means something to you at a price that is affordable.
Speaking of which, I read yesterday that Leicestershire are trialling charging for their stream in the near future. I raised a quizzical eyebrow, somewhat in the manner of Roger Moore.
The streams that I have seen this season have all been appreciated, but the quality has been very mixed. Some have got only a camera at one end, or at both, or have very jerky transitions to wide shots. Some deliveries are filmed from mid-wicket or wide long on, while yesterday one of Leicestershire's players was dismissed to a camera shot somewhere around gully, leaving everyone in the dark as to what had happened.
Warwickshire and Lancashire have brought theirs in house, the camera work is good (if obsessed with crowd shots) but with commentary that doesn't only flirt with bias.
I still maintain that the Derbyshire offer is one of the better ones, but there is still work to do before it is of a quality to charge. There is also an ongoing issue that when the ground is full and the Wi-Fi heavily used, it is to the detriment of the picture quality as the signal is 'squeezed'. That's perfectly acceptable if it is a free stream, but would cease to be so if it wasn't.
I think Leicestershire have scored an own goal here and they have ignored the fact that people who are not at the game are not always able to just sit and watch a full day. I am a huge fan, but I can't guarantee to watch every ball, because I have a life and a family. From the comments I saw on social media, the Foxes don't seem to have considered the bigger picture, nor do they necessarily seem to have engaged with other counties before going down this path.
It would appear that silly season is upon us. On and off the pitch...
Totally echo your stream thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI like the DCCC one, I like how you have the gentle interplay between the commentators from both sides. It brings a real depth to the conversation vs someone flicking through a cricinfo profile and regurgitating a couple of comments on the opposition.
I had to mute the Warwickshire commentary recently, it was just so tiresome. If there's a single stream it needs to be aimed at everyone watching.
Having said that, it would be a difficult sell to get me to pay, and I'd expect something akin to what you see DCFC providing in terms of content.
Leicestershire's stream is generally one of the more decent ones in my opinion and better than ours which is ropey most of the time.
ReplyDeleteThe price they're trialling(!) is nominal and they've made a commitment to reinvest it in the offering. So fair play to them. If us as fans want more professional and better streaming then stands to reason it won't be free when most counties are struggling financially. Clubs need to make money also. We should be grateful for the period we've had these streams for free.
The best stream I've seen is Somerset and I'd absolutely pay for that if I was a Somerset fan. Which raises the point about whether the counties should work together to establish a consistent level of streaming and a single subscription streaming platform where I can watch all of it for one fee. They could still do free weekends and trials etc.
I won't comment much on the Hundred, it's sh*te and not sure what else there is to say but sadly I think the ECB will keep pushing it with a short four day franchise comp to follow and the slow, inevitable killing of county cricket as the top level to follow. In twenty years there will be one top tier of cricket based around the current franchises with maybe an addition in Bristol and one somewhere else. The likes of us will be playing with the minor counties and probably semi pro.
Don't get me wrong, if it was a quality product I would support it, but I haven't seen consistent evidence that we are there yet. It could be a valid income stream for clubs, but like I said, the quality has to be high enough to entice people to pay.
DeleteI agree, the Somerset stream is pretty good and they are one that others could seek to replicate
I completely agree with everything you have said. Like yourself I have watched bits mainly to see how Derbyshire players have got on but without any enthusiasm for it. I get that people at the game will enjoy the experience and hopefully keep coming back to all forms of the game but wonder how many are in because of free tickets.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Hundred was first created we were promised the Worlds best players. On the first draft there was interview with Steve Smith. Most top players including Smith are in the US version rather than over here. A lot of the overseas players you have to google to see who they are.
Games that I have watched seems lower on quality and feel most of the Counties Blast teams seem stronger.
Regarding the streams it is always good to dip into other counties streams especially on last days of matches such as Louis Kimber was hitting them all over the place a few weeks ago.
Talking of the Metro Bank competition, it was interesting to note the scores of former Derbyshire players yesterday - Ben Slater 107 not out, Finn Hudson Prentice 90, and Hamidulla Qadri , batting at number 9, 43.
ReplyDeleteThis is already in place at Kent. They charged £5.99 for non members to watch their home T20 matches on their stream - see their website for details. I expect more counties to introduce this. Natwest81
ReplyDeleteYes, I think Kent have been doing this for a couple of years or so, and I'm surprised it's taken this long before another county has considered following suit. I wonder if Kent have seen any increase in members since introducing this? Is Leicestershire charging for members and non members?
DeleteIf it's a nominal fee, and the quality is good then I wouldn't object, and as stated it could be an additional income stream. If it's still free for members then it's all good by me!