• 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.

Natwest Challenge

nokia_guy

Cricket Spectator
I'm in the USA and I need some info on this series. I haven't seen an India v England matchup since worldcup. Anyone have any knowledge as to how I may go about watching this series.
I have Dish Network (dish500 system). I can't seem to figure out who is showing this in the US. Is it one of the Indian Channels (Zee or Sony) or is it a PPV (pay-per-view) event?

Can someone let me know please.

regards,
nokia_guy
 

Swervy

International Captain
Hit4Six said:
do they have sky sports in the states?
they have everything in the states....freedom of speech,orange juice piped directly to your home,britney spears,George W Bush...they must surely have Sky Sports :D
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Hit4Six said:
gd point lol, i dont think they do, MIGHT be wrong but sky sports is a Uk owned thing isnt it?
I believe it's one of the tools of Rupert Murdoch's evil empire, and hence owned by the land of the koalas.
 

Hit4Six

U19 Debutant
Neil Pickup said:
I believe it's one of the tools of Rupert Murdoch's evil empire, and hence owned by the land of the koalas.
SKY SPORTS ISNT OWNED BY US??? IS NOTHING SACRED???
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
I believe it's one of the tools of Rupert Murdoch's evil empire, and hence owned by the land of the koalas.
As evil as Kerry Packer's empire?
 

NikhilN

International Regular
it most likely wont be on PPV, and if it is on Zee or Sony they will tell you like 10 days before it starts...and no there is no sky sports here
 

Sehwag309

Banned
steds said:
Can you get Sky Sports?
I wish we had that in North America, escpecailly that wide-screen option and all that other stuff

Dishnetwork Satellite or Indian/Pakisati channels are the only one's which shows cricket
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
I would never criticise Packer.

Without him, I fear Cricket may not exist as a sport.
It had existed fine enough for 99 years and 4 months.
Don't see how his temporary theft of the players to play cricket comparable in status to Lashings matches helped anyone and I never will do.
In the end both parties got what they wanted but it could just as easily have destroyed the whole game IMO.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Richard said:
It had existed fine enough for 99 years and 4 months.
Don't see how his temporary theft of the players to play cricket comparable in status to Lashings matches helped anyone and I never will do.
In the end both parties got what they wanted but it could just as easily have destroyed the whole game IMO.
Why?

If players didn't want to play it then nobody was forcing them to sign up. It offered them much better money then what they were on then and gave them finincial sercurity. People like Dennis Lillee couldn't sign up quick enough.

And besides he has most definatly changed one-dayers too, brought in day-night cricket, the white ball, the coloured clothing (which makes sense when a fast bowler is bowling with a white ball it can be hard to pick up), fielding restrications were brought in, and improved cricket coverage for the fans.

I ask you one thing, if it wasn't for WSC would Dennis Lillee have taken over 350 Test wickets? Chances are he would have probably have been long gone before then.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Neil Pickup said:
I believe it's one of the tools of Rupert Murdoch's evil empire, and hence owned by the land of the koalas.
Tell me is there anything about America that isn't evil and how is it evil? Or is it because he has made so much money that none of us on here would even see in 39 lifetimes?
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
It had existed fine enough for 99 years and 4 months.
Don't see how his temporary theft of the players to play cricket comparable in status to Lashings matches helped anyone and I never will do.
In the end both parties got what they wanted but it could just as easily have destroyed the whole game IMO.
the game was dying ....crowds were down and players werent being treated right.

It made the mainstream cricketing authorities take notice, ie gave them a kick up the ****.

It wouldnt have destroyed the game, the game is much bigger than that.

And the standard of play was much higher than the lashings thing,,,,,by a long long way
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Craig said:
Why?

If players didn't want to play it then nobody was forcing them to sign up. It offered them much better money then what they were on then and gave them finincial sercurity. People like Dennis Lillee couldn't sign up quick enough.

And besides he has most definatly changed one-dayers too, brought in day-night cricket, the white ball, the coloured clothing (which makes sense when a fast bowler is bowling with a white ball it can be hard to pick up), fielding restrications were brought in, and improved cricket coverage for the fans.

I ask you one thing, if it wasn't for WSC would Dennis Lillee have taken over 350 Test wickets? Chances are he would have probably have been long gone before then.
You can't blame the players like Underwood, Knott etc., those coming to the ends of their careers and being offered financial security.
The one thing Packer got right is when he said "no-one had bothered to give the players what they were worth".
IMO white-balls and everything that goes with them would have happened anyway. Someone else would have had some sense.
Not actually sure it was him who came-up with the idea, either.
As to WSC's influence on Lillee's career, I have no idea.
 

Top