i am currently doing a college project in media looking at the comparision between the coverage cricket recieves in the media compared to that of football. I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on this? Thanks
The broadsheets or pseudo broadsheets tend to cover cricked fairly well compared to most tabloids. Cant really comment much more than that as I hate cricket.
The coverage that the English cricket team receives in the tabloids tends to be in inverse proportion to the team's success. Except for the very rare occurances when the English cricket team are very successful. And then everyone's a cricket fan!
The tabloids are more interested in the personalities within cricket than the sport in general. That's generally true for football, as well, but to a much lesser extent. The broadsheets do tend to report on individual cricket matches far more in a factual way and print stats. The tabloids tend to concentrate on who's had a fight, who's got drunk and how this year's England side is the worst ever, blah blah blah.
I don't think cricket at county level really gets much coverage at all compared to club football. Of course, there just isn't the same interest in the game and the game is harder to report in a newspaper column to hold the reader's interest.
As far as TV goes, Football is far more of a draw but I think there is a huge interest in televised cricket at international level, much less so at county level - although interest may be more regionalised with cricket whereas football is very popular throughout the country. The sports are so different that it's hard to sum up the differences in media coverage without going into great detail about how the two sports played.
Just a suggestion, but it might make for a more interesting project to compare the relative reporting of Rugby v Football, as they are far more similar in format and are in more direct competition to each other.
