Mark Nicholas

[superkingdave]

When was this comment atributed to him? the time when i believe he said "he's gone from a wheelie bin to headley verity" was either on Friday night as i was driving to oxford or on sunday evening as i was driving home from oxford.

 

[marc71178]

No, because I've pointed-out why these "shortcomings" are hardly devaluative and you have consistently failed to reply convincingly.

Well for one the definition of a chance.

Look at that Flintoff knock yesterday - a poster said he couldn't remember a chance being given, yet I remember one very clear one and one half-one.

If a chance cannot be universally agreed, how can a first chance average be meaningful?

 

[Richard]

Because too many people are too loose with the term "chance" - and there's no such thing as a "half-chance".
Something is a chance only if it could have been held. Most people don't value chances highly enough, so they aren't too concerned about what is and isn't one.
If people understood why chances were so important, there would be a lot less misguided comments.

 

[Tom Halsey]

When was this comment atributed to him? the time when i believe he said "he's gone from a wheelie bin to headley verity" was either on Friday night as i was driving to oxford or on sunday evening as i was driving home from oxford.

Friday evening, about a quarter past 5 at a guess, as I was on my way to a cricket match.

 

[Tom Halsey]

"He may not quite have made the leap ... to Hedley Verity status but he has certainly left wheelie-binnery far behind."

Small question.

Have you noticed that we're talking about Henry Blofeld calling him Hedley Verity and not a wheelie bin, not CricInfo yet?

You know, a little known thing called Radio.

 

[marc71178]

Because too many people are too loose with the term "chance"

Which underlines my point re: a chance not being universal, therefore there's an immediate inconsistency that kind of renders the whole concept inconsistent.

 

[Richard]

Yes, because as I've said most people don't actually realise the importance of a chance, and classify just about anything which touches the fingertips of a fielder a "chance" or "half-chance".
If people were to think about the reality of catching, the fact that you cannot catch a ball with your fingertips nor if you have 1\100th of a second to react to it, then we'd have very little disagreement over what should and should not be caught.
There will be the very odd grey ball everywhere - even I have one every year or so that I think "was that a let-off or not?" but you know the old saying BOTD to the batsman. It applies here, too.

 

[a massive zebra]

Glad to see the fat, big headed dodo off our screnes finally. The guy is just so up himself that its unbelievable. His commentary leaves a lot to be desired and quite how an average county player player can be considered an acceptable C4 frontman is beyond me. He needs to stop trying to be poetic all the time and keep it simple like Boycott or Benaud who imo are the best on C4.

 

[luckyeddie]

Spot on, AMZ.

Almost makes me look forward to winter.

 

[superkingdave]

IIRC theyre contract runs out next year and the ECB are making noises about going all satellite, so Mark might be restricted to the odd C & G match now

What noises they're making i dont know but i would guess they would be of the grunting vareity

 

[gio]

Well i for one really enjoy Mark Nicholas' commentary. None of them, not even Benaud, compare to Foxy though

 

[gio]

IIRC theyre contract runs out next year and the ECB are making noises about going all satellite, so Mark might be restricted to the odd C & G match now

What noises they're making i dont know but i would guess they would be of the grunting vareity

Are the summer test matches not protected by the Government so that they have to be on terrestrial? I heard the BBC were going to fight hard for the rights.

 

[marc71178]

I read that a new broadcaster was interested in it.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Are the summer test matches not protected by the Government so that they have to be on terrestrial? I heard the BBC were going to fight hard for the rights.

They use to be but not any more.
But even tho sky can offer infinitely more money than bbc / ch4 id be surprised if the ECB would risk losing the audience that a terrestrial channel would gurarentee them.

 

[Swervy]

it would be a disaster for English cricket if one of the terrestrial stations didnt have the tests.

 

[PY]

Well it would certainly kill any cricket that I'd be able to watch as I don't have access to Sky at home or uni.

Though I have to admit, I wouldn't mind BBC regaining control because they would have a solid team plus they probably wouldn't be so bothered about keeping crappy Hollioakes (sp?) on air. Though some people might get annoyed at missing out on a holiday program at 6 on BBC2.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Well it would certainly kill any cricket that I'd be able to watch as I don't have access to Sky at home or uni.

Though I have to admit, I wouldn't mind BBC regaining control because they would have a solid team plus they probably wouldn't be so bothered about keeping crappy Hollioakes (sp?) on air. Though some people might get annoyed at missing out on a holiday program at 6 on BBC2.

Yeah bbc would be perfect...no ads....no crappy having to change channels 4-5 times every sat for the racing either.
But to be fair to ch4 they revolutionised coverage on terrestrial tv...bbc was plain boring.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I couldn't care less so long as it's terrestrial.

 

[superkingdave]

Yeah bbc would be perfect...no ads....no crappy having to change channels 4-5 times every sat for the racing either.
But to be fair to ch4 they revolutionised coverage on terrestrial tv...bbc was plain boring.

Oh the misty eyes that long for BBC, "twas better in the old days they say"

Woah there hang on a minute, whats that, the BBC still have racing you say? Don't you remember having to watch teletext for 20 minutes whilst the horse people did their stuff, and woe betide the news either. Who cares about the adverts? It gives you time to go to the loo without missing any important analysis. I'm pretty sure that BBC used to leave early if it dragged on as well!

I won't be too displeased if Channel 4 Keep it or if Sky have it (prefer channel 4) but i dont want the BBC getting their hands back on it, chances are if they do any future tests they deem 'not exciting' might end up on BBC3.

 

[superkingdave]

Well it would certainly kill any cricket that I'd be able to watch as I don't have access to Sky at home or uni.

Though I have to admit, I wouldn't mind BBC regaining control because they would have a solid team plus they probably wouldn't be so bothered about keeping crappy Hollioakes (sp?) on air. Though some people might get annoyed at missing out on a holiday program at 6 on BBC2.

As above, i think you'll find you'd miss a lot more cricket with BBC than with Channel 4