Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player


Slow start to Champions League: The fall-rise-fall cricket graphs continue

Slow start to Champions League: The fall-rise-fall cricket graphs continue

Author | Noor Fathima Warsia | Thursday, Oct 15,2009 8:18 AM

Slow start to Champions League: The fall-rise-fall cricket graphs continue

The latest numbers from TAM Media Research are in. The ratings for the first five matches played in Champions League T20 2009 (CLT20) show an average TVR of 1.16 for all the matches played. Every match that an Indian team has played has scored higher than the other matches. However, despite that, a quick comparison of TAM numbers shows that the ratings of the matches where the Indian teams played in the CLT20 2009 are lower than that seen in the Indian Premier League 2009 for these teams.

As is known, IPL 2009 had delivered lower numbers this year as compared to IPL 2008.

Champions League T20 ratings Vs IPL 2009

As has been the case for some time now, the T20 format matches have managed to deliver better numbers than One-Day Internationals (ODIs) in most cases. Both Champions League and IPL followed the T20 format.

In the Champions League T20, for the mass target of C&S 4+ in the all India market, the match played between Royal Challengers and Cape Cobras rated 2.01. The next Indian team match, Delhi Daredevils versus Victorian Bushrangers, on October 9 threw a rating of 1.43 and the match between Deccan Chargers and Somerset Sabres on October 10 gave a rating of 1.80. In comparison, none of the non-India matches have scored more than 0.5 TVRs.

The cumulative reach for all matches is 37.1 million.

If the matches of the three teams are compared with what they had delivered in the IPL 2009, for Delhi Daredevils, while the all India ratings were 3.94 in IPL 2009, so far it is 1.43 in Champions League T20 2009. Even in the home city, Delhi Daredevils played matches rated 5.22 on an average in IPL 2009, and only 2.01 in Champions League T20. It should be noted that the rating of only one match played by the team is available so far.

For Royal Challengers Bangalore, too, the trend is the same at the all India level, wherein, the average rating for RCB matches was 3.86 in IPL and is 2.01 in match played so far at Champions League T20. However, Royal Challengers Bangalore is the only case where the ratings in home city for Champions League T20 is higher than what the Royal Challengers Bangalore played matches had seen on an average in IPL 2009 – the Royal Challengers Bangalore match in Champions League T20 has rated an average of 6.07, while in IPL the matches played rated an average of 4.42.

Finally, for Deccan Chargers, the average rating was 3.77 at the all India level in IPL 2009, and 1.8 in Champions League T20. The home city trends are not very different either, where in IPL, Deccan Chargers matches rated 6.07 on an average and 4.96 in home city.

T20 trends

ICC Champions League is the fifth key T20 tournament played since the inception of the format in 2007. The ICC T20 World Cup held the nation’s attention even though even though the average rating of the tournament was 2.35 TVR. IPL 2008 had taken the country by storm and the average rating of the tournament was 4.81. In comparison, the ratings for IPL 2009 dipped marginally and the average rating from the tournament was 4.17.

Despite India’s early exit, the ICC T20 World Cup 2009 rated higher than the match in 2007; the average rating of the tournament being at 2.68. So far, the ICC Champions League is the lowest scorer with 1.27 ratings coming across for the five matches played. However, the games have just begun for the tournament, and can move from here in any direction.

The trend of non-India matches rating lower than India matches has continued, and if a comparison had to be done with the ICC T20 World Cup 2009, the average ratings of the non-IPL teams played matches is at 0.49, which is far lower than the non-India played matches at ICC T20 that rated 1.84 on an average.

Tags: e4m

Write A Comment