John Boy
Paul McShane
In a few years time everyone is going to have at least freeview, so the cricket can be broadcast on a channel like e4, ITV3 or BBC3 etc
In a few years time everyone is going to have at least freeview, so the cricket can be broadcast on a channel like e4, ITV3 or BBC3 etc
In a few years time everyone is going to have at least freeview, so the cricket can be broadcast on a channel like e4, ITV3 or BBC3 etc
Yeah, I had cable at that time and I didn't have that channel!Channel 4 used to show the cricket on interrupted on Film4 when the nags were on.
I know the Sky coverage is first class, BUT it is excluding potential cricketers and fans up and down the country. I can't see why the big terrestrial carriers shouldn't be able to bid on a package that allows them to screen up to an hour per session live, and a one hour daily highlights package.Indeed. Channel 4's coverage was complete shit; and the BBC's was little better when they lost it - if you can't commit to carrying complete ball-by-ball coverage then don't bid for the rights to show it. Ideally it should be on 'free to air' TV, but it's MUCH better to have decent coverage on Sky than put up with Channel 4's cavalier approach. (That alone would have convinced Mr Biggums that we don't give a shit about cricket, at least not when there's horse racing on. It was SO frustrating.)
Being a Sky subscriber I'm obviously biased but their coverage of cricket is FANTASTIC. So until it is 'free to air' again go and get a Sky package, compared to other family expenditures it's excellent value for money - for example for the price of taking my family to ONE Albion home game I can get the Sky Sports and Movies package (with multi-room) for TWO MONTHS!
I know the Sky coverage is first class, BUT it is excluding potential cricketers and fans up and down the country. I can't see why the big terrestrial carriers shouldn't be able to bid on a package that allows them to screen up to an hour per session live, and a one hour daily highlights package.
Yeah, I had cable at that time and I didn't have that channel!
I think there's one myth about cricket on sky that can now be put to bed - the people of England haven't 'forgotten' that the Ashes are taking place. This was one of the fears that if people couldn't see it on terrrestial TV they wouldn't bother with it. I think the attendance figures for these Tests have nailed that one.
Yes I know. So the ashes needs to be protected, like Wimbledon, the FAC Final, some 6 nations matches etc.Cos when Sky say "exclusive" they F@@@@g well mean "EXCLUSIVE"
I think there's one myth about cricket on sky that can now be put to bed - the people of England haven't 'forgotten' that the Ashes are taking place. This was one of the fears that if people couldn't see it on terrrestial TV they wouldn't bother with it. I think the attendance figures for these Tests have nailed that one.
I know the Sky coverage is first class, BUT it is excluding potential cricketers and fans up and down the country.
Of course, Bangladesh are on a par with a Second XI county team (at best), so where is the attraction in seeing England knock them over?Ashes tests will always sell. Now try selling next years match v bangladesh................
Perfectly correct.And there is the rub. Money today at what price tomorrow. If I was running a minority sport in this country I would make sure the show-piece events are on terrestial tv. You are a custodian of the sport.
Only a few care.
Because it's football season they have something actually exciting to watch instead of the borefest that is test cricket.
I went to see an Aussies rules match in Perth once, it ended in a mass brawl of knuckleheads beating the living crap out each other and NO ONE got sent off. Typical Aussie male sport...
Thought I should throw my Enlgand hat into the ring. Have had great great fun at school today - all other teachers are talking about the cricket, including my principal and shes from NZ!!
Oh and to comment on the footy season thing, the music teacher here- who is a big Collingwood fan - said to a colleague when they started talking about footy:
"Don't give a monkeys about that now, footy takes a back seat while the Ashes are on"
They're not really excluded, there's always the option of actually going along to watch a game of cricket live, like people did in the days before TV. Indeed for the sake of argument I'll say that NOT having games on terrestrial TV has actually been beneficial for cricket attendances - T20 has done alright for a sport that is apparently 'out of sight and out of mind'. So I really don't see any evidence that showing matches on Sky is 'killing cricket'. As you pointed out above, no one would give a shit about Bangladesh if the matches were live on BBC or not.I know the Sky coverage is first class, BUT it is excluding potential cricketers and fans up and down the country. ...
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.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......................
Sorry but thats complete and utter shit, how you can compare 'Aussies Rules' to the greatest game in the world 'cricket' I just don't. I know alot of people just don't get cricket but its simply the most technical and beautiful game on the planet.
I went to see an Aussies rules match in Perth once, it ended in a mass brawl of knuckleheads beating the living crap out each other and NO ONE got sent off. Typical Aussie male sport...
Yes I know. So the ashes needs to be protected, like Wimbledon, the FAC Final, some 6 nations matches etc.