Cricket has been plugged out of the nation's consciousness, thanks to the greed and disingenuousness of the ECB, the arrogance and laziness of the BBC and the Government who were too quick to take cricket off the sporting 'A' list way back in 1998. Investment and development were clearly necessary for cricket. But if kids in a London park are not playing the game today, why is that so? There were children playing cricket in 2005, I'm sure. For all the money that has been made for cricket - and in cricket's name - the children are not playing. Not any more.
Even if the Government intervenes now, and puts some cricket back on the Sporting 'Crown Jewels', that won't take effect until 2010. If cricket should come back on to free-to-air TV or DTTV (digital terrestrial / Freeview television), that still leaves millions of children who don't know what cricket is.
The saddest day.
R•I•P Terrestrial Coverage of Cricket in the United Kingdom.
Much loved (even when interrupted for the 3:30 at Catterick) and missed
I'm cleaning his flat and we get to talk about the cricket - he hadn't quite realised that there was NO LIVE COVERAGE shown ANYWHERE on UK television.
I told him (briefly) about the deal that secured the satellite broadcaster's exclusive rights for another four years. He realised that the highlights shown on Five are all that you get now. He thought, bless him, that he just wasn't getting the cricket.
No Dad. There is no cricket to get. And you've actually told me why.
My Dad said as I was frying up some chicken wings for him (yes, I know - but I'm not working now...) that because ' “Skiieee” buy up evryt'ing' that there was nothing good to watch on the terrestrial /free-to-air channels.
Even though you kind of know, to have Dad spell it out for me like that - the penny finally dropped.
'Dem wi'mek monni owt av it man,' said my Dad. Think about it. The best of the sport (and all of the cricket) is on where? Even much of the Arts and Humanities programming - is on where? The best dramas from the U.S. and anywhere else... is on where? The latest (not necessarily the best) movies and films are on where? Even their once-loathed News Channel is now 'award-winning' - and on where?
'If dem put Carnivall in a park dem wi'soon start charge farr it'. Too right, Dad. And they would kill what's left of its spirit at the same time.
Just like they're doing with the cricket.
Greedy ƒ*¢%€¬$
...
with all due respect, Reverend - it isn't.
For any number of reasons, but definitely including:
• Lack of disposable income
• Planing permission restrictions regarding satellite dishes / vindictive councils, etc.
• Hard financial responsibilities (kids, old parents, credit card payback)
• Computer Operating systems not supported for live online broadcasts from the sole supplier (especially if you are a Mac user)
you will not really have a choice if any of the above applies.
I stated that cricket had been 'taken away' because for those people who operate under stringent financial constraints (ie lack of cash), with all the will in the world, cricket cannot be accessed in a way that it was previously (before live TV cricket was removed from free-to-air).
Don't know how anyone else feels about this, but if a person becomes so disenchanted with lack of access to cricket that they just 'walk away' from the game - for whatever reason - then for me, that is very very sad.
If for you, cricket is fully accessible to SEE live, then that's great, and I'm happy for you. Clearly this is not the case for D*ca***n. I came on this 606 board in part because of my inability to see cricket live (except if I go to see a match).
D*ca***n does go on a bit (even more than I did) but I do commend him for it. The biggest lie of the past decade in many areas of public discourse is that certain 'wants' and 'needs' are 'available to all'. Cricket sadly now comes under that banner, and people such as myself have been banished to the 'third man' position of the cricket world because of this (wrong) perception.
The satellite broadcaster purchased live TV rights for the game fair and square (no matter what I think of the company). The guardians of the game didn't protect the game, or themselves from this takeover. The public service broadcsater is still too sore at losing TV rights to think clearly about the wonderful opportunity that online access provides. My brother's right on this one: 'The BBC are lazy', he said.
Will stop here - big boss back from break and real world intervenes...
...
I can be articulate if I'm angry and / or motivated enough. I must let cricket go! I don't want to give ONE PENNY to Marvin Dack - or his 'gyal', Gillian Clarke...
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'(!)
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...
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?
...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.
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...)
