Yeah, I'm in the pro-Sky camp on this one too. Even leaving aside the money, they've been good for cricket in the UK; no channel showed any interest in showing our away tests live before they came along and we're also treated to tests not featuring England from around the globe live now too. The BBC or ITV couldn't even be arsed to bid for a highlights package of home tests. It's clear which broadcaster has done more for the sport.
f_or_s raises an interesting point about the Premiership too; all its live games are on Sky or ESPN, but association football has never been more popular in the country. Back in the pre-Prem era I would guess the live Div 1 (as was) games that ITV or BBC showed got higher viewing figures, but those alone didn't translate into as much (popular) cultural significance.
There's no doubt that our 2009 win didn't have the impact that 2005 did, but that's not entirely due to the host broadcaster. Our 2005 victory was our first since 86/7 and the series was, objectively, a better contest. I'd disagree with Uppercut that no-one gave a toss about it tho; our win was still reported on the front pages rather than the back and was the lead story on the news programs of the day too, silly season as it may've been.
- As featured in The Independent.
"This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers."
- Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads
Last edited by BoyBrumby; 12-11-2009 at 03:47 PM.