and now it's my turn.

I resent being made to feel like a criminal because I want to see some live cricket on free-to-air television.

The 'Dot TV' phenomenon means that some sport is now on the web. Live. But legally, I don't know where such viewers might stand.

Millions of pounds, dollars and rupees are being poured into the game. Not one penny (or cent or one hundredth of a rupee) seems to be earmarked for the terrestrial or non Pay-TV viewer in the United Kingdom.

On the forums and boards, those who take a position that some live cricket should be made available to the majority on free-to-air TV, are often made to feel like cheapskates, or worse.

Why? I don't resent people having subscription TV. But if all I want to watch on pay-TV is cricket, then why should I have to shell out £50 /month just to see my favourite sport - as well as other channels that I don't want?

If - as is argued - cricket was under-funded back in 1998, why were terrestrial TV viewers blamed for that? Why should terrestrial TV viewers be made to feel that they are holding back investment in cricket because they want to see live cricket on a non-Pay TV channel? When did new investment in the game and the desire of TV viewers to see cricket on the TV become mutually exclusive? I honestly don't know the answer to that question.

But I can hazard a guess. Something to do with money. There was no money to be made from catering to the cricket-watching masses. The Ashes 2005 was supposed to herald a 'new dawn' in English cricket. Well ...?

When 'new' Labour came to power in 1997, they had lots of things that they wanted to do. One of the most important mantras for them at that time; they must NEVER get on the wrong side of big business, and over and above all NEVER be ungrateful to the members of the 'fourth estate' that they believed helped them back into power. If a member of that 'fourth estate' has a stranglehold on the nation's summer sport, then all that can be said is that the rights were dealt with in 1998 when the governing body made an impassioned request to the Government for the game of cricket to be taken off the sporting 'A' list, as its protected status meant that investment could not occur at anything like the pace required to bring cricket in line with football (soccer), and perhaps, tennis.

The Government acceded to the governing body's request in 1998. Ten years ago. The root of the present nasty attitude to cricket lovers who don't, can't or won't have subscription-based TV started at this point, I think. The Government can't or won't intervene because access is now a private matter between the governing body, the subscription-based TV broadcaster and their advertisers. Exclusive TV rights then become a issue between the entities concerned, NOT the Government. They do not wish to interfere in what is a private business matter - even if privately some of them know that a deal was struck which took live TV coverage of cricket away from millions of people who genuinely enjoy the pursuit.

It should also be noted that the present governing body of the game of cricket receive public monies for the sport. Not much - but they do get some public funds. Yet the majority of the general public cannot see the game live at all. This is the 'national summer sport'; we are told this often enough. The goals of deep investment in cricket and live access through terrestrial TV, DTT (digital terrestrial television), Freeview or via the Web should never have been made mutually exclusive.

Cricket lovers who are not pay-TV subscribers are not the 'baddies' here. They never sold the game out - cricket was taken from them when the EXCLUSIVE LIVE TV RIGHTS deal was signed. Access was not denied by these people. Yes, TMS is great. But most of us listening to England vs South Africa want to SEE the game - LIVE.

The covert 'dog whistle' campaign run against those who won't subscribe for cricket's sake has succeeded. The millions of people who watched England score a series win against Australia in 2005 on Channel 4 may well be the last terrestrial TV viewers of the 'metaphysical game'. For if access is to be found for the majority, it must now come through digital channels or digital bandwith online, as analogue TV is clearly on the way out in the UK.

But in the meantime, if you are willing to hit the forums and shout 'cricket should be live on free-to-air TV!', you may well be made to feel like an enemy of cricket's future development. You'll need the courage of James Anderson to face up to that kind of 'bouncer'.

Quote from 606 re.: ECB and fan representation...

My good 'friend' posted this about her pet hate, lack of cricket on terrestrial TV.

Here 'she' goes again on the 606 board, July 25/08:

@englads2fan: I'm fine with competent business people running cricket. I would also welcome any of the ex-players you mentioned working for the ECB.

However, cricket fans also need representing. The infamous TV deal of 2004 would NEVER have been allowed to happen if fans' representatives and those who actually play the game (e.g. club cricket) had been consulted first. Monies would have been found for development AND space would have been made for live coverage on terrestrial TV. Who decided on the mutual exclusivity of these interests?

Cricket's profile has withered since live free-to-air TV coverage was lost in late 2005, IMHO. The game's delicate balancing act has been blown out of the water. Currently, all kinds of self-serving nonsense - avarice, "bottom-covering" behaviour and duplicity are allowed to go on unchecked. At home and away.

A WATCHDOG that represents the interests of fans that go to the grounds, support club cricket and /or watch or listen to the game (with satellite or without) and brings cricket's servants and administrators TO ACCOUNT is now absolutely essential.

There - I said it. Rant over... sorry

Glad 'she' got that off her chest. She and I are are as one on this particular subject.

You go, 'girl'(!)

Crusaders off to Antigua!!! Spitfires shot down at the death!!!

Good for Middlesex (Crusaders) - very bad for Kent (Spitfires), they also deserved to win.

But there can only be one set of winners (on the flight to Antigua)...

I have behaved badly today.

That Irish guy begging me for money - then WorldVision guy Gabriel @Shepherd's Bush shopping centre opposite BoooksEtc (now no more) - then me pretending to support ltvn through his bad link to the final, then me hopping off to chavstar at the drop of a hat (I'm a cricket channel slag - no loyalty at all). Sins...

• indifference to the poor (Irish guy in Harlesden)
• indifference to the poverty stricken (World Vision)
• hypocrisy - pretending to care then jumping into someone else's ship when I didn't get what I wanted (ltvn tried, wasn't happening. Pretended to be nice, but I left him alone for a better stream of T20 on another channel...)

Now I feel ashamed because I have no shame. If I'm like this for a game of cricket streamed across the web, what would I be like for something of real importance???

I'm now going to feel very bad about myself. I hate me today. I'm a middle-aged no-hoper. What's up with me?

Will cricket ever be shown (or made available) on terrestrial or Freeview TV ever again? Will anyone give a monkey's t*ss if it isn't?

Yet more cricket lost to clear blue Skiee...

Stanford's T20 'bonanza' now draws county champs into its convoluted web.

What a drag.

Exclusive TV rights are of course garnered by 'you-know-who'...
...even this form of the game has been lost to the terrestrial viewer.

It looks as if the game I love is being pulled away from me, no mater where I turn.

All we're left with is the radio. But will it continue to be TMS?

A dilemma...

(to the tune of “Stealing Love On The Side”)

I'm watching cricket off of skiee...
I'm watching cricket! off of skiee...
You didn't care ’bout me -
and I didn't purchase you!

Still, we're together...

all dough eye hayte Skiee spawt stoo
that's enough for me.

Durham win by 44 runs! hardly saw their all-stars...

I'm ashamed to say this but...

...watching the ‘highlights on five’ makes me feel bad (as in not good). As country cousins, they can't begin to compare with Skiee...

...and even though I can do without the highlights, TMS is a much more difficult thing to let go. Glad I don't have to.

Stealing (News International) on the side...

...watching Flintoff ask DeVilliers serious questions in the hour up to lunch makes me realise how much I need to see the game. I took advantage of a (link) placed in the public domain, not by myself, I might add. Watching the third day's play.

I wouldn't buy satellite TV. The coverage of the game is great, but at the end of the day I am unemployed for part of the time. A cricket-only package would be great for me. I'd pay for that, (Skiee) or not.

The ‘cricket on terrestrial TV’ campaign has had its day. The (way in which I’m seeing this) has over 180,000 views. And it’s the future. The E(W)CB site allows people to view cricket, but only if they don’t live in the UK. Ridiculous.

South Africa now at England. 50 for 1, Michael Vaughan not happy at all, but at least they've not lost any more wickets.

Apparently it's very cold at Headingley. Ain't too hot here in the Big Smoke, either.

(spoke too soon - Vaughan just caught according to CMJ (on TMS - yes, I know...) but confirmed on the stream - for only 21 by Ntini... not good for his place in the team...)

Shooting down your own in ‘friendly fire’...

Who'd be Darren Pattinson, eh?

Not an ounce of support, he's being shot down by hostile commentators even before he’s had the chance to ‘strut his funky stuff’. The decent thing to do is to give the guy a chance to prove himself.

Then kick him to the curb if he’s crap.

But not before.

Thanks and 'BigUpp’ to DumpysRustyNuts

Would you Adam and Eve it???

A most benevolent 606er has provided me with a link to cricket (on SKiee) live and direct. The sound isn't so hot, but who cares?

Here is the link for future reference:

http://www.justin.tv/chavstser

Must join these guys. YHWH bless ‘ DumpysRustyNuts (U4487436) ’

Cheers, Pal (even though I don't know you)

Meanwhile, at Headingley - I can SEE that the Proteas are 300+ for only four wickets.

What say you that England are going to take it up the 'arris this Second Test

I’ve improved my web site today...

...and it wasn't even hard, really. YHWH bless Freeway Actions (and their tutorials)

Goodnight

Are the BBC finally recognising cricket fans?

Earlier (Thursday) I switched on the TV and checked out the cricket. To my surprise, I saw that there was a 'BBC SPORT channel' on Freeview channel 301 (and 302). The match build-up was shown, with England's captain Michael Vaughan and his opposite number, Graeme Smith of the RSA being interviewed. The forced politeness was quite funny, especially from Smith.

Clearly, the first day's play promises much for the series as a whole. The South African team are definitely up for it, but seemed a little rusty on the first day. England played well and clawed back some considerable ground, especially after the mini-collapse in the post-lunch period. This series could be very good indeed.

Here is the link for the archive match (from the BBC!)

At last - the Beeb finally recognise that cricket fans are entitled to some recognition and respect. Any possibility of there being a full-time Sport channel on digital? With perhaps, some more cricket?

One can only ask...

Can you believe it...? Curtly don't love cricket?!@*&?!

Apparently the West Indies fast bowling legend Curtly Ambrose was NOT a lover of the game... he was apparently pressured into playing by his cricket-loving mother!!!

He says more on the matter in this interview with ESPN's Peter Davies for cricinfo.tv ...

(but you might have to search the site to find the particular interview I refer to, as this site changes every day)

Well - that's the shock of the week for me!

SSSSHHHHH!!!!! (Jonathan Agnew has been censored)

For your delectation and delight - here is Jonathan Agnew and what he said (apparently) about the retroactive award of a draw to Pakistan earlier this week (viz-a-viz the controversial Test v England at the Oval in 2006):

BBC cricket correspondent Jonathan Agnew said the move would open up “an absolutely enormous can of worms”.

He told BBC Radio 5 Live: “The Pakistanis were accused of ball tampering and they did not come out to play.

“The umpires went into their room and said ‘You must come out to continue the game’, they did not and, under the laws of any sport, if you refuse to play, you lose the game.”

“Match abandoned, they’re saying, as a draw, - well, abandoned on what grounds? It wasn’t the weather, it wasn’t anything else, it was that Pakistan wouldn’t come out to play for whatever reason.

“That game has now been classified as a draw, so if you’re losing, you sit in the dressing room, don’t come out and you can get away with a draw.”

I'm preserving this - because I heard him say it (3rd July 2008 - PM-ish), but all traces of this part of the interview was removed from the Beeb website - perhaps because it caused offence. Whatever. I'm one of those that believe that the umpire is the final authority - at least at the crease.

There are a few things that I wish I could change retroactively: - a) if I were prettier I would have the ... I can't believe that I've come to terms with not being attractive!!!

The ump's word is law. Full stop. (even if he is sh*te)

Michael Holding resigns from the ICC...

A sad day for the game - but this has made me think about revisionism...

Michael Holding's departure from the ICC is a sign that cricket's 'governing' body is about to go into freefall - if it hasn't already.

Always admired Mr Holding for the utterly professional way in which he tore out Tony Grieg's middle stump whilst his legs seemed to tie themselves in knots trying to work out how the hell did the ball get behind him so fast as he thought that he was about to hit it (like that)!!!

I.E. - Holding was fast. Whispering Death - he wasn't called that for nothing.

The ICC's credibility is now entering the realm of 'zero to ten per cent'. A shame. And why didn't England have anything to say about this? I am not blaming Pakistan for this retroactive decision, although they should have gone out to play and asked questions later, in my humble.

I also believe that Hair was unduly provocative in his manner (but I wasn't there. I just feel that if he had been more respectful to the Pakistani players, it might never have come to this).

( And why is the ICC's site powered by 'yahooo.caam' ? Don't they get enough money from the member nations and federations? )

An unholy fudge that will eat away at what is left of the game's 'spirit'.

I need to redesign my website...

Computer arts magazine has given me an idea as to how to redesign my site.

Will give it a go later.

Until then, here's my current site: