The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[four_or_six]

Have the various boards in England looked at building some grounds with decent capacities? I'm sure they could keep the grounds' heritage characteristicsin place re. the pavilions. It just seems odd you have a country with a large population and the test grounds hold comparatively small crowds.

I'm not sure there's the money available to do the work... you keep hearing about increased capacity but nothing seems to happen.

They'd probably hardly sell it out anyway. Especially now there's no guarantee who's going to get tests. There's no point, say, Old Trafford increasing its capacity by 10000 and then Sofia Gardens getting the big test.

 

[Richard]

It's a shame Lord's doesn't have a capacity of 40 or 50,000 TBH. Then ticket prices could be lowered (once they'd been raised to pay for it...) and more fans could afford to see the team play live. That's one ground you could bet would manage to fill such a capacity (at reasonable price) year on year.

Scyld Berry mentioned precisely this in the last Wisden.

 

[James]

What about shock horror having a drop-in pitch installed at Wembley?

Australian cricket even played domestic cricket at the Sydney Olympic stadium last season. Not sure if that's a sign of what they have planned for the future.

 

[Richard]

Still haven't taken much of a look at the new Wembley TBH, but under normal circumstances playing cricket in football stadiums is asking for bowler-trouble.

 

[four_or_six]

It's a shame Lord's doesn't have a capacity of 40 or 50,000 TBH. Then ticket prices could be lowered (once they'd been raised to pay for it...) and more fans could afford to see the team play live. That's one ground you could bet would manage to fill such a capacity (at reasonable price) year on year.

Scyld Berry mentioned precisely this in the last Wisden.

Do you reckon there'll be big screens this year, because that was great in 2005 and negated somewhat not being able to go to the actual ground and the atmosphere was pretty good at the screen.

Or do Sky not allow that kind of thing?

 

[Uppercut]

Do you reckon there'll be big screens this year, because that was great in 2005 and negated somewhat not being able to go to the actual ground and the atmosphere was pretty good at the screen.

Or do Sky not allow that kind of thing?

They allowed it for the champions league final, except that the Rangers ****s rioted in Manchester a week earlier and they had to cancel it.

 

[Richard]

Do you reckon there'll be big screens this year, because that was great in 2005 and negated somewhat not being able to go to the actual ground and the atmosphere was pretty good at the screen.

Or do Sky not allow that kind of thing?

I can't see them not doing TBH. They don't refuse to allow Sky to be installed in pubs, and while big-screen audiences would be akin to about 30 pubs, it's a percentage difference that barely registers in terms of the population of the country.

Just have to hope someone is up for the big-screen organisation treatment again.

 

[four_or_six]

I can't see them not doing TBH. They don't refuse to allow Sky to be installed in pubs, and while big-screen audiences would be akin to about 30 pubs, it's a percentage difference that barely registers in terms of the population of the country.

Just have to hope someone is up for the big-screen organisation treatment again.

Yeah... but the pubs pay a fair wack for their Sky.

I hope we do get it though, it's a much better atmosphere to watch on a big screen than sat at home with the TV.

 

[Richard]

Yeah... but the pubs pay a fair wack for their Sky.

Do they? Amazed they pay any more than a standard household TBH.

I presume the in-the-parks would pay a decent amount too - and expect a decent return on it.

 

[four_or_six]

Do they? Amazed they pay any more than a standard household TBH.

I presume the in-the-parks would pay a decent amount too - and expect a decent return on it.

Well when we were at Uni the license for our common room for Sky Sports caused long drawn-out debates about whether it should come out of the budget that everyone was contributing to... there were always some really vocal anti-sport people trying to get it cancelled. I recall it seemed to be a reasonable amount of money, but I can't remember the details.

 

[Rickripper]

Do they? Amazed they pay any more than a standard household TBH.

Well yeah, they're displaying it to an audience, it's not private use. It's worth it though, the amount of customers they get in during live football matches easily pays for the subscription. I know people who only go to the pub to watch their team play.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I mean, I did such a thing loads 1994-1999. But I'd never given the slightest consideration to the fact Sky have different types of licences.

 

[GIMH]

Weren't you like 8 in 1994?

 

[Uppercut]

Weren't you like 8 in 1994?

Didn't you go to bars to watch sport when you were 8?

 

[Rickripper]

I did, I remember seeing England get beat by Argentina on penalties in a bar in a sleepy little Greek fishing village, when I was 8.

 

[Uppercut]

What a game that was.

 

[Richard]

Weren't you like 8 in 1994?

Didn't you go to bars to watch sport when you were 8?

I was 8 until September, after which (astonishingly) I was 9 - and think we only started going in about October-November time. Yeah, I could rarely get in pubs, so me and Dad used to go to the driving-range a little way out of town, which was effectively a pub - had a proper bar, and Sky, but no no-under-age policy. Most awesome place - when the football was going badly (did happen very occasionally, even for a Man Utd fan) I could go and hit a few golfballs. Otherwise I could sit eating Mars-bars and drinking J2Os with my Man Utd jumper on over yellow polo-neck amongst 20 Newcastle fans who were almost invariably disappointed when we did well.

 

[Burgey]

It's a shame Lord's doesn't have a capacity of 40 or 50,000 TBH. Then ticket prices could be lowered (once they'd been raised to pay for it...) and more fans could afford to see the team play live. That's one ground you could bet would manage to fill such a capacity (at reasonable price) year on year.

Scyld Berry mentioned precisely this in the last Wisden.

Scyld Berry recently wrote a piece in which he suggested England will win the Ashes because Australia collapsed once against the WI earlier this year. This is apparently a sure sign they're on the wane.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Richard]

Not sure what point you're making. That because Scyld Berry wrote one thing which was nonsense that that makes everything he writes nonsense?

If so I'd disagree completely, FTR.

Or were you just mentioning another Scyld Berry piece that relates to the thread?

 

[Burgey]

I wasn't having a chop at him generally, I just read a piece of his earlier in the week, and it struck me as an odd basis for concluding a team is on the slide

When I read your post it brought what he wrote back to mind.