The upshot of 28, August, 2008...

The umbilical cord has been cut.

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.

©PoorCricketFan: 28August2008

R•I•P Terrestrial Coverage of Cricket in the United Kingdom.

Much loved (even when interrupted for the 3:30 at Catterick) and missed

Go on... What do you see?... Be honest now...

Here is a short movie that I took on the 28th of August, 2008. Around five-ish in the afternoon.

Last week of holidays for many of the children. Quite a few mums with their kids. A few adults. And me, taking this panorama.

What don't you see the kids doing? (admittedly it's late August in my not-quite-local park, set in one of the more diverse parts of London Town)

Look at the movie. And try to see into it if you're able.

Can you tell what it is yet?

That's it...

...they're not playing cricket. I walked almost the entire length of the park. Up past the café and past the back of said café where the adults were playing tennis. Up to the top of the park where the woodland copse is. People running. Jogging. Walking their babies in buggies and pushchairs. Walking back down around the outside, seeing a man lying down on the corner. The still small voice says leave well alone. I do so reluctantly. I go back into the park and look around and recognise that we are still in summer, albeit at the tail-end of August.

Loads of kids - mostly boys - playing football, in big and small groups. Some with adults, many more on their own.

A warmish, dull day. Ground firm. Not too dry.

I personally did not see one child (or adult for that matter) playing cricket.

No-one noticed. It hit me hard as I was recodring this snapshot of time. Lots of people in the park today - and not one person had a cricket bat or ball in his or her hand.

Will anyone mourn the loss of the game's profile in four or five years' time when the bidding for 2014-2017 gets underway?

Will anyone out there give a ƒ*¢% ?

Dad hits the nail on the head...

Visited my Dad over the weekend (well, Saturday actually)...

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*¢%€¬$

Drink water from your own well...

I shall spend less time contributing to 606.

I feel like wrinkling my nose up at it now. I shall keep looking at it because it talks about the cricket. But I won't contribute as much to the forums. I shall save that energy for my own blog(s) and build up my own 'ish' (ie drink the water from my own well). I am not white, male or middle class.

Thank the LORD GOD for that.

The BBC are losing the plot...

So - Cricket is no longer a priority for the BBC - if only they would just say so, up front.

Fair enough.

‘Cash in the Coalshed’-type programmes put bums on seats. Shows like ‘On Your Marks, Get Set - COOK!’ can help wean people away from the ubiquitous MSG-riddled cheap takeaways. Now that is a real public service.

But seriously - just grab a look at this week's RadioTimes cover of Sir Terrence Wobegone...

As a former art editor - that has to be one of the WORST cover images that I have ever seen! Who passed this for public consumption? And... I have paid for this, TWICE. First, as a TV Licence payer. Secondly, as a RadioTimes subcriber. FFS...

The BBC have lost the plot: I fear that they are starting to lose touch with the public (never mind me with my super exotic taste level)...

To say that it doesn't do Sir Tel justice is not even the start - at seventy, the gentleman deserves a much more flattering image; it's not as if he's an ugly man after all. I feel that he's been set up and I know that I could do better (not that I'll get the chance to prove otherwise).

Nonetheless, I am only too happy to wish Sir Terrence a very Happy Birthday indeed.

Rant over

I'm trying not to Weasel out of the Reverend's acid comment...

Posed a teaser from the Reverend Weasel of the Siks oh Siks parish...

...

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...

©PoorCricketFan: 11August2008

R•I•P Terrestrial Coverage of Cricket in the United Kingdom.

Much loved (even when interrupted for the 3:30 at Catterick) and missed

Can you feel me???

Krick it love Lee Krick itt

Goin' a huntin' fo' more...

Cricket spredding lyke a virus 'crawss de intahnet!!!

ƒ*¢% Skiiiieeee

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...