Final - England v New Zealand

[GotSpin]

https://twitter.com/LauraLambert8/status/1150688991261462529

Early breakdown of the numbers viewing wise on channel 4. It was still smashed by Wimbledon but I suppose we should not be shocked as that is such an iconic event which is always on free to air. Cricket numbers pretty good but was expecting better but I suppose when cricket has been hidden away on sky since 2005 then its understandable how it does not resonate with the general public like tennis.

The cricket was on Sky as well no?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The Wimbledon peak at 7.05pm was probably a lot of people who had turned on to watch something else. Very hard to judge the cricket figures when it was being shown on big screens and in pubs. Even my own house varied between 6 people and 12 and none of it was watched on Channel 4.

 

[slippy888]

I don't really think cricket will be that big in England even after this world cup win, England won the 20 20 world cup a few years ago it never really done much to make the sport more appealing here.

 

[Niall]

The cricket was on Sky as well no?

She's updating that twitter thread all the time,,its pretty interesting.

Just looking at Cricket World Cup PEAKS, if you add audience from 7:25-7:30 (C4) and 7:28pm (Sky channels):

C4 = 4,479.5
Sky Sports Cricket = 1,053.2
Sky Sports Main Event = 1,330.1
Sky One = 1,115.2

Looks like 8 MILLION people in UK were watching cricket at same time!

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah just saw this

We’ve been proud host broadcasters of a home cricket World Cup, dedicating a channel and showing every single minute, which has been absorbing from the first ball to the unforgettable final delivery. Sunday saw a peak across Sky and Channel 4 of 8.3 million – a huge audience for a huge moment for British sport. On Sky’s channels our peak was 3.5m alone, a fitting way to cap a terrific tournament.

 

[PikeyB]

To see the real state of English cricket , the lauchpad for the online County commentary had a couple of thousands ...for division 2 it was 863 when I started this sentence . The Youtube stream of the Durham match , has 53 people watching . So we're looking at thousands of Brits making use of the totally free cricket available today rather than millions .

 

[harsh.ag]

Heh, this thread still has fewer pages than the Ind-NZ semi. Partly because we posted a thousand comments on the YouTube comms livechat and partly because about a dozen splinter threads have been formed off this.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Heh, this thread still has fewer pages than the Ind-NZ semi. Partly because we posted a thousand comments on the YouTube comms livechat and partly because about a dozen splinter threads have been formed off this.

CW also went down didn't it

 

[Niall]

Ind v NZ was a two day tbf and also pretty dramatic.

 

[Spintolose]

I can understand people not happy about the way it was won with regards the team that scored the most boundaries, the super over itself not being a satisfactory way of deciding the outcome, the ruling on the overthrows after hitting the bat, etc. But these rules/regulations were all in place well before yesterday and hindsight is now a wonderful thing but there were few calls for these changes beforehand.

There aren't so many people mentioning the Archer non wide (an underserved extra run and ball in the super over could have been crucial).

 

[mr_mister]

The non wide can cancel out the 5 being a 6

But yeah it's the fact we didn't properly break a deadlock that gets me

I'll give it a rest though

 

[Daemon]

There aren't so many people mentioning the Archer non wide (an underserved extra run and ball in the super over could have been crucial).

Didn't he walk slightly across, reach out real far and still have it a couple of inches further away from his bat?

Don't forget the rules say nothing about the tram line, just that it has to be wide enough for the batsman to be unable to play a normal cricket stroke.

edit: oh he left it. still think it's wide tho.

 

[slippy888]

It might have not even gone to a super over if the umpires followed the laws of cricket

 

[slippy888]

New Zealand are still favs if England required 4 runs off 2 balls with Rashid facing bowling

 

[Spikey]

hahahaha does anyone seriously believe it wasn't a wide

 

[OverratedSanity]

The supposed non wide is pure fake news.

 

[Spintolose]

Additionally....if Stokes had needed to hit 3 to win and 2 to tie off the last ball he wouldn't have played it safe knowing bat on ball would almost certainly have got a tie.

The final ball of the 50 was a bung me for six if ever I've seen one. So, England would have won regardless.

 

[Daemon]

Worth remembering that if this was decided on sixes, NZ hit 1 more.

 

[Spintolose]

hahahaha does anyone seriously believe it wasn't a wide

Yes. And I have the highlights on loop. I've seen it over 20 times now.
Each time it gets closer and closer to middle stump.

 

[mr_mister]

Additionally....if Stokes had needed to hit 3 to win and 2 to tie off the last ball he wouldn't have played it safe knowing bat on ball would almost certainly have got a tie.

The final ball of the 50 was a bung me for six if ever I've seen one. So, England would have won regardless.

This is where it gets really stupid