End of an era

[Alex Holowczak]

free-to-air broadcasting will do nothing to solve either of those problems.

Very plainly kids are not seeing cricket on TV these days when in my generation they did, this means they are less likely to play recreationally, and less likely to take an interest in school cricket, the link is very clear indeed.

It really isn't.

A kid will play cricket at school if:
(a) Their school plays cricket (e.g. in PE/Games)
(b) They have a school team that they might be selected for

This is entirely independent from whether or not cricket is on free-to-air television. If someone is at home watching cricket on Sky, then they won't play cricket at school if their school isn't a cricketing school. The same is true of rugby; if you go to a school that does football, you won't play rugby. School sport is nothing to do with television coverage.

Will these people who see cricket join a cricket club instead? Actually the parents are the important people. If the parents don't want to take them/haven't got the time or money, they won't be taking their children to a cricket club.

[JustinHorton]

This is entirely independent from whether or not cricket is on free-to-air television.

No it isn't and to be honest it's absurd to say so.

[Alex Holowczak]

This is entirely independent from whether or not cricket is on free-to-air television.

No it isn't and to be honest it's absurd to say so.

Yes it is, and I'm afraid you don't really have current experience of English schools, or local school/club cricket, to comment otherwise.

One of the ECB's regular statistics is that all sports participation in England is declining except for one sport. Basketball. It's played extensively in schools. When was the last time basketball was on free-to-air TV in the UK?

[JustinHorton]

Yes it is, and I'm afraid you don't really have current experience of English schools,

I'm afraid you really don't have a damned clue what I know, or who I know.

[Brian Towers]

One of the ECB's regular statistics is that all sports participation in England is declining except for one sport. Basketball. It's played extensively in schools. When was the last time basketball was on free-to-air TV in the UK?

Probably the 1980's when the wonderful Sally Jones (former world champion at real tennis, I believe) presented a late-night summary show of NBA basketball from the States. Although, having left the UK in '91 and not bought a TV since coming back I'm probably not much of a witness to the intervening years.

[Alex Holowczak]

Yes it is, and I'm afraid you don't really have current experience of English schools,

I'm afraid you really don't have a damned clue what I know, or who I know.

I seem to have struck a nerve.

One of the ECB's regular statistics is that all sports participation in England is declining except for one sport. Basketball. It's played extensively in schools. When was the last time basketball was on free-to-air TV in the UK?

Probably the 1980's when the wonderful Sally Jones (former world champion at real tennis, I believe) presented a late-night summary show of NBA basketball from the States. Although, having left the UK in '91 and not bought a TV since coming back I'm probably not much of a witness to the intervening years.

I won't open the can of worms that people increasingly watch TV through their phones and computers these days. I was actually thinking the 2016 Olympics might have been the last time.

[Richard Bates]

One of the ECB's regular statistics is that all sports participation in England is declining except for one sport. Basketball. It's played extensively in schools. When was the last time basketball was on free-to-air TV in the UK?

Probably the 1980's when the wonderful Sally Jones (former world champion at real tennis, I believe) presented a late-night summary show of NBA basketball from the States. Although, having left the UK in '91 and not bought a TV since coming back I'm probably not much of a witness to the intervening years.

I won't open the can of worms that people increasingly watch TV through their phones and computers these days. I was actually thinking the 2016 Olympics might have been the last time.

It doesn't matter, it's a complete non-sequitur anyway. Just because one (highly minority) sport has grown without free to air TV exposure it doesn't follow that another wouldn't benefit from it. Or indeed that basketball participation wouldn't have grown faster with it!

Everything is relative (which in fact was the entire purpose of the point i made when i stated "...Realistically at present chess has to rely on more modest ambitions". And obviously increasing passive exposure/accessibility to a game can come from many routes. Articles in the press being just one. But in almost all cases it, all things being equal, is something which should be exploited to the maximum extent if the aim of increasing knowledge and participation is to achieved.

[NickFaulks]

Just because one (highly minority) sport has grown without free to air TV xposure

Are you referring to basketball? If so, surely the point is that basketball, as in playing it, is not a highly minority sport, people just think it is.

[Richard Bates]

Just because one (highly minority) sport has grown without free to air TV xposure

Are you referring to basketball? If so, surely the point is that basketball, as in playing it, is not a highly minority sport, people just think it is.

Ok fair point, I don’t know the figures. How about “non traditional U.K. sport”?

[Alex Holowczak]

It doesn't matter, it's a complete non-sequitur anyway. Just because one (highly minority) sport has grown without free to air TV exposure it doesn't follow that another wouldn't benefit from it. Or indeed that basketball participation wouldn't have grown faster with it!

Everything is relative (which in fact was the entire purpose of the point i made when i stated "...Realistically at present chess has to rely on more modest ambitions". And obviously increasing passive exposure/accessibility to a game can come from many routes. Articles in the press being just one. But in almost all cases it, all things being equal, is something which should be exploited to the maximum extent if the aim of increasing knowledge and participation is to achieved.

It is of course true that with free-to-air TV for basketball, participation in it might have grown faster. I've Googled some data on basketball participation and found the opposite of what the ECB claim - that participation is probably going down slightly since 2013! That seems to only include "formal" play though, rather than informal school stuff. Perhaps that makes up the difference; I assume these sports have at least got their data collection right. That being said, we had a presentation on cricket participation data, where the conclusion that participation was down was based on three year's worth of data, where it went down in one year and up the year after to a point that was slightly down. It didn't seem like much data to me.

I think my original point that kicked off this deviation into the merits of free-to-air TV was that given £x to spend on either a newspaper chess column being added, or some other method to attract people to chess, the newspaper column probably won't give you the most bang for your buck. But I do agree with and accept the point that we'd rather have it than not.

Just because one (highly minority) sport has grown without free to air TV xposure

Are you referring to basketball? If so, surely the point is that basketball, as in playing it, is not a highly minority sport, people just think it is.

Basketball is the one of the highest participation team sports in England, if I remember the statistic correctly.

[Alex Holowczak]

Just because one (highly minority) sport has grown without free to air TV xposure

Are you referring to basketball? If so, surely the point is that basketball, as in playing it, is not a highly minority sport, people just think it is.

Ok fair point, I don’t know the figures. How about “non traditional U.K. sport”?

I don't know what you'd include in that, but my instinct without data is that basketball would be the #1 "non-traditional UK sport" by a mile. It wouldn't surprise me if it was ahead of American Football, Ice Hockey and Baseball put together.

[Alex Holowczak]

Are you referring to basketball? If so, surely the point is that basketball, as in playing it, is not a highly minority sport, people just think it is.

Ok fair point, I don’t know the figures. How about “non traditional U.K. sport”?

I don't know what you'd include in that, but my instinct without data is that basketball would be the #1 "non-traditional UK sport" by a mile. It wouldn't surprise me if it was ahead of American Football, Ice Hockey and Baseball put together.

Some data from a bit of Googling...

Basketball > 300,000 (England), and there are similar figures for Netball
Baseball 9,500 (UK)
American Football 28,600 (2016 data, UK)
Ice Hockey 8,000 (UK)

Some traditional sports for you.
Cricket 291,000 (England, i.e. less than basketball)
Rugby Union 260,000 (England, i.e. less than basketball)
Football 2.1 million

In terms of participation, basketball can reasonably claim to be the #2 team sport in England, and it hasn't been on free-to-air TV for three years.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Golf participation is declining, but is still higher than basketball (unless you are considering team sports only).

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news ... tatistics/

"Considering golf data from Statista, the statistics portal regarding golf participation in England from 2007 to 2016, the conclusion is that, as of September 2016, approximately 1.13 million adults in England play golf on a monthly basis."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/899 ... pation-uk/

"In an annual survey by Sport England, the the sports governing body for England, about the number of people who play tennis, it was found that as of 2018, roughly 840 thousand people play tennis at least twice a month"

You have to pay $365 for this:

https://www.statista.com/study/35694/sp ... a-dossier/

Swimming is also popular, but obviously most people swim as a leisure activity (arguably golf is a leisure activity as well). Ditto tennis. I suspect what people are after here is those taking part in organised competitions with local leagues feeding into a national structure.

[Alex Holowczak]

Golf participation is declining, but is still higher than basketball (unless you are considering team sports only).

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news ... tatistics/

"Considering golf data from Statista, the statistics portal regarding golf participation in England from 2007 to 2016, the conclusion is that, as of September 2016, approximately 1.13 million adults in England play golf on a monthly basis."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/899 ... pation-uk/

"In an annual survey by Sport England, the the sports governing body for England, about the number of people who play tennis, it was found that as of 2018, roughly 840 thousand people play tennis at least twice a month"

You have to pay $365 for this:

https://www.statista.com/study/35694/sp ... a-dossier/

Swimming is also popular, but obviously most people swim as a leisure activity (arguably golf is a leisure activity as well). Ditto tennis. I suspect what people are after here is those taking part in organised competitions with local leagues feeding into a national structure.

Yes, I was clear to say basketball might well be the #2 team sport.

If you're including sport as a leisure activity, I suspect cycling, running and swimming might be high up too, as opposed to organised meets. Charity runs, cycling events and so on seem very popular.

Actually a lot of sports have widened their definition of "participation" to beyond just traditional recreational leagues. For example, many clubs have bustling junior training nights, but they're primary school children and so don't really play proper cricket; they'll play Kwik cricket, or even just spend time throwing and catching a ball, or hitting a ball with a bat for fun. Are they participating in cricket? Then you start to exist in a rather philosophical world, what constitutes "participation", and what doesn't?

Chess has a similar issue to some extent, which of these do we count in participation numbers in England:
- Those playing league chess in an evening for a club
- Those playing in individual tournaments
- Those who are only playing because they've been paid to play
- Those who are only playing graded chess
- Those who are ECF members
- Those who play chess at school but not competitively
- Those who play the school round of the UK Chess Challenge and that's it
- Those who get regular chess tuition, online or at a junior club/school
- Those who play against family members occasionally with a pound-shop chess set that forms part of a suite of board games in their possession
- Those who play chess online (but live in England)

It's not easy to get a constant definition, so the figures we have both found cannot be considered completely definitive because it depends which categories above you count.

[JustinHorton]

What's Ray's Twitter account going to be called from 1 December?