• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Soper and Clarke nominated

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Couldn't really say too much in that piece without going OTT, quoting Matthew Engel was about the best I do, really. Whoever's next, it's a recipe for disaster. David Morgan was poor compared to Lord MacLaurin, he looks like Bill Gates compared to these two.

Clarke, FFS, negotiated the wretched Sky deal.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I posted twice... once to link the article (and hence initiate discussion of the contents) and once to comment on my truest feelings on the matter.
 

SpaceMonkey

International Debutant
Sky deal was a great bit of business for the ECB. As someone with Sky its also much better than Ch4. Can you imagine Ch4 showing the cricket up till 7.30pm close? i dont think so!
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Can you imagine a World where the not-already-committed might happen upon a game of cricket by chance?

I... seriously... am... struggling... to... comprehend... the... fact... that... someone... is... trying... to... suggest... that... a... Sky... only... package... is... a... good... idea... :wallbash:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Watching cricket uninterrupted is a good idea to me. Something Ch4 stuggled to do.
Yeah, it is, and they did.

But it's pretty short-sighted and, frankly, self-centred too, to think that the Sky-only deal is a good thing. For one, it has potentially catastrophic effects down the line, given that only a tiny minority now have a chance of glimpsing cricket by chance and being captivated; for another, there are people right now who would love to be able to watch home Tests and cannot because they can't afford Sky.

Sure, it's better in the immediate short-term for those who can afford the subscription. But to suggest that is all that matters... well, it beggars belief, frankly.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Small mercies (and it's debatable that that's even that) don't offset large chasmic terribilities.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Can't say I'm impressed by Soper, especially with this daft idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6915218.stm
Good luck Mike - I can really see the rest of the world going for 40 over cricket (it should have never have been revived here anyway). IMO he'll have a lot of trouble getting this idea off the ground...(thank God!!)
Terrible, terrible idea. If he was advocating going back to 60 overs, great... but I have grown to hate 40-over stuff pretty well, too. 50 overs is only just long enough to have a proper game of cricket - 40 certainly isn't.

And 20, obviously, doesn't even come remotely close.
 

chalky

International Debutant
Watching cricket uninterrupted is a good idea to me. Something Ch4 stuggled to do.
Those who had sky could watch cricket uninterrupted as coverage would continue on film 4 when the horse racing & what not was on.

I don't know why teh ECB didn't do what the US Golf PGA do with some of their tournaments let the cable company (sky) have exclusive coverage for thursday & friday but insist that Saurday, Sunday & Monday must be shared with a terrestrial channel. Obviously Golf only have 4 days. Still keep the highlights on a Thursday & Friday on the terrestrial channel so the public can keep up with what is happening.

In terms of coverage I thought the Channel 4's last couple of years were far superior to anything Sky have ever done from the presentation, commentry line up, the analyst and those lunch time masterclasses they would do (the only thing sky have not tried to copy yet).
 

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
Just a thought about TV coverage. If I was running the ECB I'd wait for the country to go al digital (2012 I think) and then offer coverage to the BBC provided they give us ball by ball coverage and it wouldn't have to be on BBC 1 or BBC 2. Remember ATM there is BBC 3 and BBC 4 and none of them broadcast anything until 7pm so they would be perfect (and bear in mind when the country goes all digital everyone will have those channels) or they could use the red button as they do now for TMS.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
That's a small glimmer of hope in my mind, and always was.

There are two concerns, though:
1, the next deal will be struck in 2008, and it's highly unlikely any free-to-air production companies will bid then, so the value of the next deal will be tiny compared to the pot of gold we had on offer in 2004.
2, it's a moot point whether the BBC will even want cricket in 2012 (for effect in 2014), as it will by then have been off mass-audience TV for 7 years. Will they feel the audience has disappeared? And worse still, how little will they be prepared to bid and will Sky simply outbid them again?

I can't help but worry that the damage might have been done already, and that English cricket might be dead in 30 years' time.
 

SpaceMonkey

International Debutant
If the ratings for Sky are good then you wont have a chance of them getting outbid. (well maybe only by the other Sports channel Setanta?).

The payoff for Sky will be the next Ashes series as well as this one with India. Lets be frank about it, CH4 had no interest in extending the cricket until the 2005 Ashes boosted their ratings.

Saying cricket may be dead in 30-years has absolutely no basis whatsoever. :laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It does actually - those who have feet in the camps of both broadcasting analysis and cricket fandom think it's a potential catastrophe and they're the best placed to comment. The optimists aren't, because they have no basis other than "it can't happen like that".

Sky's viewing-figures are invariably far, far lower than any free-to-air channel. One twentieth of the country have Sky Sports. Nonetheless, it's very unlikely the BBC are going to be bidding again, so Sky won't be needing to raise the stakes to outbid anyone.

C4 contributed, hugely, to cricket and its wellbeing. They poured money into several projects outside direct coverage, as well as producing high-calibre coverage despite large losses on their part. No, they had no interest in continuing the deal when bidding was opened in 2004, but that's wholly understandible given the losses they suffered (and those any channel reliant on commercial income would).
 

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
The thing about C4 that puzzled me was their interest went down as the England team's performance improved. TBH, after England's performances in their first year (1999) if I was running C4 I'd have been thinking "what the f*** have we let ourselves in for" but they maintained their interest. S Hughes thinks - and so do I - that C4 diverted their resources into the abomination that is "Big Brother" and that is how they lost interest - and not just in cricket. I've got a friend who was a fan of "Lost and it went to Sky - probably, as in the case of cricket, because C4 was pouring its money down the BB chute.
 

Top