Aussie ashes coverage

[Questions]

The Ashes need protecting ? From what or who. Sky have taken most sports coverage to a new level so the only problem I see with them having exclusive rights is the fact that you have to pay for the privilege. To get a package that includes the sports deal is how much ? £ 35.00.
I cannot believe that there are that many tight arses out there who begrudge paying that. If you are working then you can afford it.

Private medical insurance for your kids or Sky....................

Hardly is it ?

 

[itszamora]

The Ashes need protecting ? From what or who. Sky have taken most sports coverage to a new level so the only problem I see with them having exclusive rights is the fact that you have to pay for the privilege. To get a package that includes the sports deal is how much ? £ 35.00.
I cannot believe that there are that many tight arses out there who begrudge paying that. If you are working then you can afford it.

Private medical insurance for your kids or Sky....................

Hardly is it ?

The viewing figures prove that nowhere near as many are watching this Ashes compared to 2005. And the more people watching, the more kids are going to be inspired to take up the game and maybe become the next great player.

 

[Questions]

The viewing figures prove that nowhere near as many are watching this Ashes compared to 2005. And the more people watching, the more kids are going to be inspired to take up the game and maybe become the next great player.

I take on board what you are saying about viewing figures itsza, but I think kids who are interested in the sport are already out there playing, be it for a cricket club or in a local park (what ever happened to all that wasteground)
Would the same arguement apply to football. Meaning no football on the TV will result in poor national sides and players.
I wonder what Greavsie and old Bobby Charlton would say on that score.

A more important point would be the lack of attention and coaching of cricket in our schools.
I have been working on the outside of a secondary school in Worthing over the last month and I can see the playing fields and trust me that there has been not so much as a glimpse of cricket ball or bat. That our national summer sport gets overlooked like that is in my opinion is wrong.

 

[Wozza]

I just did a poll of the work place containing 27 people.

3 watched the cricket.

2 others are following it.

The rest have little or no interest.

I think you're getting confused.

The vast majority of people in England don't care about cricket either!

(A poll in my office would have produced similar results during the last Ashes).

What we DO love is beating the Aussies at sport - any sport - because we know how much it means to your nation. Because, let's face it, culturally, on a world stage, it's about all you've got.

You can keep coming back and saying you don't care, but we all saw the (fair but HEADLINE) coverage in the Aussie media yesterday.

See you for more chat about the third Test. Or not. Because you're not interested, remember?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

A more important point would be the lack of attention and coaching of cricket in our schools.
I have been working on the outside of a secondary school in Worthing over the last month and I can see the playing fields and trust me that there has been not so much as a glimpse of cricket ball or bat. That our national summer sport gets overlooked like that is in my opinion is wrong.

I guess there are many reasons for that - it must be a lot more expensive to commit to, with a high potential for injury. But also - if kids are not seeing it on the telly why would they be even interested in it. Of course as adults we all make our own minds up whether to subscribe to Sky - but what happens to a future Freddie Flintoff whose parents don't subscribe.

Of course it is not the only factor - but I would think it is a significant one.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

To be fair to the boy Biggums, he is proud of the fact that Australia have been world champions at his favourite men in tight shorts sport for the last 80 years or so, which is impressive.

Well, not really. They sometimes play Ireland at a mixed version of Gaelic football and Aussie Rules, call International Rules.

I believe the Irish won the last encounter in Australia..

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/international-rules-australia-v-ireland-result-and-scorers-1508639.html

 

[burrish-gull]

A real mans sport.

No rolling around on the ground feigning injuries there.

No just a load of blokes in tight shorts and 1980's mullets, I'm sure Australia will catch up one day

 

[keaton]

If sky didn't have the Ashes then they certainly wouldn't give the ECB the sort of money they do know and would show much less of the rest of the cricket. Sky's money probably pays for County Cricket to exist at the moment. And as Brovion says compared to many other expenditure's Sky Sports is cheap and very good value for money. Even if you only liked cricket in a year you'd get at least 14 England Tests and about 20-30 ODIs and 20/20s, plus stuff like India-Australia and Australia-S Africa test series which were brilliant and loads of other international matches. Then for about 4 months in summer you get an Pro40, 20/20 or FPT match pretty much everyday. That's before you even think about the Rugby and Football

 

[Brovion]

The viewing figures prove that nowhere near as many are watching this Ashes compared to 2005. And the more people watching, the more kids are going to be inspired to take up the game and maybe become the next great player.

I guess there are many reasons for that - it must be a lot more expensive to commit to, with a high potential for injury. But also - if kids are not seeing it on the telly why would they be even interested in it. Of course as adults we all make our own minds up whether to subscribe to Sky - but what happens to a future Freddie Flintoff whose parents don't subscribe.

Of course it is not the only factor - but I would think it is a significant one.

I hear what you're both saying but I do think you're wrong. Firstly the cricket IS shown on terrestrial TV - there's a highlights programme on Channel 5. That'll have all the boring bits taken out and it will be more than enough to get the budding Freddie Flintoffs interested. After all that's exactly the same model that the Premiership uses in football (live games on satellite, highlights on terrestrial) and that's worked extremely well with regard to getting kids interested - too well perhaps. Secondly despite all the doom and gloom as I mentioned earlier I really can't see any evidence that cricket has declined in popularity since it 'disappeared' from TV. It was never as popular as football in the first place and as a participation sport it was in decline long before the first satellite was even launched. (At least no one is being stupid enough to say "well eight million watched it last time and only one million watch it now, so it's only one-eighth as popular as it was in 2005"). Thirdly, how many people are really missing out? If you're interested in sport and thus are more likely to have children interested in sport then the chances are you'll have Sky anyway - as mentioned before it's not expensive. If you haven't got it I bet your kids know someone who has and they can watch the matches round there - like we used to do in the old days when only richer people had TVs.

 

[Huple]

I guess there are many reasons for that - it must be a lot more expensive to commit to, with a high potential for injury. But also - if kids are not seeing it on the telly why would they be even interested in it. Of course as adults we all make our own minds up whether to subscribe to Sky - but what happens to a future Freddie Flintoff whose parents don't subscribe.

Of course it is not the only factor - but I would think it is a significant one.

I do take your point that some cricket stimulates the next generation of players but did all time greats from generations past get their inspiration from watching it on the box. If cricket is to maintain its interest for the youngsters they need some help from a structured set up which MUST include it being played at school. Christ...... where else are you going to get the flaviour of the sport if you are like most kids who have not got a clue how to get involved with a junior cricket set up.

The other arguement is about whether 35 quid is too much to watch the best sport available. I dont really see the problem with that unless you really are a dinosaur. Not you especially DKM

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I hear what you're both saying but I do think you're wrong. Firstly the cricket IS shown on terrestrial TV - there's a highlights programme on Channel 5. ......................................... If you haven't got it I bet your kids know someone who has and they can watch the matches round there - like we used to do in the old days when only richer people had TVs.

I can't see that highlights packages generate the thrill and excitement of watching the action live. It was after the Cup Final and England matches we used to go down the park to play out what we saw, It is a cliche I know - but that is what we did.

And football (or the government) has always made sure its showpiece events are on terrestial. Sky has done a great job on hyping the premiership - but that is not the only football on the box. And I include the World Cup and European Championships.

And I don't know that kids do go round to a mates house to watch a game of cricket. It is an all-day stay - let alone if they are are going to watch a couple of days.

I also don't know about Sky's impact on popularity - you may or may not be right. However I do believe that putting the showpiece events on Sky will reduce the number of lads inspired by what they see to take up and play the game. And who knows how many young Freddies there are in that.

Of course it could all be inconsequential and greater impact is game-stations, sale of playing fields, and teachers not taking sports teams. And it could be argued it has not helped tennis.

But if I were in charge of what is a minority sport I would not be hiding my best events on sky. It seems short-sighted to me. Take the cash - fine, but as I said before - at what price ?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I do take your point that some cricket stimulates the next generation of players but did all time greats from generations past get their inspiration from watching it on the box. If cricket is to maintain its interest for the youngsters they need some help from a structured set up which MUST include it being played at school. Christ...... where else are you going to get the flaviour of the sport if you are like most kids who have not got a clue how to get involved with a junior cricket set up.

The other arguement is about whether 35 quid is too much to watch the best sport available. I dont really see the problem with that unless you really are a dinosaur. Not you especially DKM

That is a good point about previous generations. However - even in advance of teaching cricket at school it seems to me you need something to inspire kids to want to play the game. Freddie charging in smashing Aussie stumps would appear to me to do the job, or Pietersen smashing some boundaries. But the administrators have chosen to restricted this inspiration to a limited number of people (judging by the figures). I just do not understand the thinking behind it. Other than the cash that sky pays.

And I may well be a dinosaur. I would just be a bit more cautious with my sport if I were in charge.

And I do not have a view on the price of Sky.

 

[South Yarra Seagull]

funny thread. I had a great time with my cricket loving colleagues today. even the Kiwis joined in.

The cricket following public KNOW that the great Australia side of the past 10 / 15 years is gone.

There are no legends left; lose Warne, MdGrath, Hayden, Langer and Gilchrist from any side and they will be the poorer for it.

The Ashes are there for the taking, and Australia knows it. What is being mentioned at the water cooler is that they came still made a 4th innings total that would have won an awful lot of test matches.

And that Michael Clarke and Mitchell Johnson's birds are hotties

 

[Brovion]

I...
Of course it could all be inconsequential and greater impact is game-stations, sale of playing fields, and teachers not taking sports teams. And it could be argued it has not helped tennis.

But if I were in charge of what is a minority sport I would not be hiding my best events on sky. It seems short-sighted to me. Take the cash - fine, but as I said before - at what price ?

Sorry to selectively quote you but I do think you've highlighted an important point. Having free-to-air Wimbledon has done nothing to encourage a new, er, a new ,er ... Fred Perry? Would it damage tennis in the UK if in future Wimbledon was only shown on Sky? And yes, I do feel that the if cricket has declined as a participant sport (which it undoubtedly has since the 1950s) it is because of the reasons you've mentioned and not because of Sky. Perhaps IF there is evidence of 'out of sight out of mind' and cricket slumps in popularity (e.g. unable to sell out the Saturday of an Ashes Test at Lords) then they might have to think again. Of course it might be too late by then and they find that everybody's taken up croquet instead, but I really doubt it.

As a general point (not aimed at you) I do think the 'think of the children' mantra is a bit of a smokescreen. I think the real reason for opposing subscription-based TV is cultural; we British always expect things to be free at the point of delivery (the NHS for example) and to be funded by some sort of general pot, be that taxation, the Licence fee, or higher priced goods (to cover TV advertising costs). Sky is seen as 'unBritish' in that respect and those of us who subscribe to it are deemed to have sold our souls to the Devil, AND paid him to come and take them away.

 

[Uncle Buck]

More importantly to all the ranting on this thread, if Channel 9 has lost the coverage of the Australia tests, where does that leave the 12th Man?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Sorry to selectively quote you but I do think you've highlighted an important point. Having free-to-air Wimbledon has done nothing to encourage a new, er, a new ,er ... Fred Perry? .....................

we British always expect things to be free at the point of delivery (the NHS for example) and to be funded by some sort of general pot, be that taxation, the Licence fee, or higher priced goods (to cover TV advertising costs). Sky is seen as 'unBritish' in that respect and those of us who subscribe to it are deemed to have sold our souls to the Devil, AND paid him to come and take them away.

I don't recognise it as being un-British to pay for stuff. There was of course a strong anti-Murdoch sentiment about sky initially and I suppose there may be some residue. I certainly can't imagine many people feel that subscribing to sky is selling your soul. Are you sure that is not just you feeling that ? You do seem rather defensive about all things sky.

On a personal level - we did used to have a sky package on the estate (or development) where we used to live. When we moved we did not renew as I once found myself watching Aston Villa on Leicester on a Monday night - and realised I had no personal quality control button for football. Something that has served me well following the Albion and England - but not good for time spent in front of the telly. I got some stick from my son - but I did prefer him playing something than watching (and I know they are not mutually exclusive).

We will have to agree to disagree about future participation in these sports. Only time will tell. I fear for cricket that it will just become a public schoolboy sport. Having said that Steyning CC junior section is thriving at the moment - although it is barely played at the school.

 

[Brovion]

I don't recognise it as being un-British to pay for stuff. There was of course a strong anti-Murdoch sentiment about sky initially and I suppose there may be some residue. I certainly can't imagine many people feel that subscribing to sky is selling your soul. Are you sure that is not just you feeling that ? You do seem rather defensive about all things sky.

On a personal level - we did used to have a sky package on the estate (or development) where we used to live. When we moved we did not renew as I once found myself watching Aston Villa on Leicester on a Monday night - and realised I had no personal quality control button for football. Something that has served me well following the Albion and England - but not good for time spent in front of the telly. I got some stick from my son - but I did prefer him playing something than watching (and I know they are not mutually exclusive).

We will have to agree to disagree about future participation in these sports. Only time will tell. I fear for cricket that it will just become a public schoolboy sport. Having said that Steyning CC junior section is thriving at the moment - although it is barely played at the school.

Yes, as is often the case on NSC one side hasn't convinced the other and so it's best to call it quits. As you say time will tell.

One thing though - I'm certainly not defensive about Sky. I think that, overall, they've been a force for the good in British sport; football certainly was dying on its arse before Murdoch came along and rescued it. I would guess from reading other posts over the years that a lot of people don't share that view. Anyway that's another subject!

 

[Questions]

Yes, as is often the case on NSC one side hasn't convinced the other and so it's best to call it quits. As you say time will tell.

One thing though - I'm certainly not defensive about Sky. I think that, overall, they've been a force for the good in British sport; football certainly was dying on its arse before Murdoch came along and rescued it. I would guess from reading other posts over the years that a lot of people don't share that view. Anyway that's another subject!

The saying, ''Its not the principal its the money '' applies to all the anti-Sky meanies on here.
Anyone who does not get Sky because they object to having to pay for it are quite frankly nutty.

So it has to be the meaness then.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Anyway that's another subject!

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Man of Harveys]

For what little it's worth, my opinion on the removal of the national summer sport to where it can be accessed only by those with enough money to spunk up the wall on televised sport is that it was a total f***ing disgrace; a piece of cretinously short-termist money-grabbing by the game's administrators and a move likely only further to push the game into being one enjoyed solely by the affluent. And yes I could afford it and no I don't want to make Rupert Murdoch any richer.

Both test matches this summer alone SHOULD have been great national events. They haven't been. Because of the ECB acting like an idiotic and greedy whore.

And Brovian, I know you're a terrific shit-stirrer (and I kinda like that) but to paint Channel 4's brilliant and pioneering cricket coverage as rubbish compared to Sky's cheesy graphics fest - who exactly ARE those vaguely homoerotic little films of the cricketers strutting forward butchly meant to impress? Toddlers? - is just a nonsense.

Because I'd happily go back to the days of Jim Laker clambering up the scaffolding and being out of breath for the first few overs for the sake of everyone who has a telly being able to watch it.

And breathe...