| 
Posts and words
tv
Ashes series on free-to-air?
By Will last year, mid-October, 3 Comments »
3 Comments »There is no suggestion that series outside of the Ashes could be promoted back to the A-list of events. Currently, England’s home Tests are on the B-list which means that only highlights must be available on terrestrial TV and are currently shown by Five.
Sky is the limit
By Will last year, mid-July, 2 Comments »
I find this overwhelmingly depressing.
Official television industry viewing figures show that Sunday’s cricket was watched by 358,000 people on average between 10am and 2pm, then after two, until that absorbing close, by an average of 800,000. The peak audience, at 6.30?6.45pm, to watch Panesar and Anderson successfully see England to the draw, was 1.47m.
That is considered a respectable pay-television audience by the England and Wales Cricket Board, Sky and TV insiders. It does not, however, compare with the huge audiences drawn to the Ashes on free-to-air Channel 4 in 2005. Then, the peak periods of the third, fourth and fifth Tests, all similarly thrilling closing moments, were watched by 7.48m, 8.2m and 7.2m people respectively. Cricket garnered huge, growing audiences; the 8.2m fourth Test peak drew a 47% share of people watching television at the time.
Any comparison with this year must allow for the fact that we have had only the first Test but the ECB’s decision to sell the rights exclusively to BSkyB has dramatically cut the television audience for its sport. Despite the oceans of top action BSkyB has bought up exclusively, with not a single Premier League football match having ever been shown live on free-to-air television in 17 years, and despite the universally recognised quality of its coverage, under a quarter, 6m, of British homes subscribe to Sky Sports.
Full piece at The Guardian. The impact of ECB’s massive own goal won’t be felt fully for another decade, but it will eventually.
2 Comments »Where and how to watch the Ashes in New York
By Will last year, at the end of June, 5 Comments »
Sadly, I don’t have the answer. This is a plea that someone might know. New York must have hundreds of cricket fans and Nancy needs your very urgent help:
How about watching the 2009 Ashes series (well, parts of it) live on TV at a bar, or other public place, in NYC? Daily coverage begins at 6 am, our time – know of anyplace that’s making a special effort?
Hurry – she hasn’t much time to plan her days off before the series of all series gets underway…
5 Comments »The umpire review system
By Will last year, at the start of February, 3 Comments »
This is the first series that I’ve covered full-on in which this system has been used, and I’m already unimpressed. It doesn’t work. Poor Tony Hill (who wasn’t even meant to be officiating in this Test; de Silva couldn’t get a visa in time) has been made to look a wally which is, I suppose, par for the course when his every move is under such microscopic scrutiny. It is somehow more galling, though, that the players who are under his officialdom now have the authority to question, well, his authority. It doesn’t fit.
For the record, I’m in favour of technology. It’s there to be used and advances will ensure that it’s omnipresent in all sports forever more. But dipping our toes into it like this – and worse, letting the players be the judges – has a negative impact upon the game. Either we go full throttle and use it to its full impact and potential or not at all.
On 85 Chris Gayle was thought to have flicked a catch behind to Matt Prior. But the TV umpire, when it was referred, can’t use Hawkeye or Hotspot and so he couldn’t make a fully informed decision. Gayle was reprieved.
Later, England wasted another of their referral opportunities when Monty Panesar (bless him) clapped like a hungry seal for an appeal which was, even by his standards, hilariously hopeful. From memory, it hit outside the line. It was a ridculous decision to even refer it.
So, in short, it’s bollocks and I hope they disband it. You can’t trust players with something like this: let the umpires do their job, and give them freedom to refer all decisions upstairs.
3 Comments »Cricket to return to terrestrial?
By Will last year, at the end of January, 11 Comments »
Having been away for a few days, this passed me by. It’s reported in The Grauniad that cricket could make a return to free-to-air TV sooner rather than later, if Andy Burnham (government’s culture secretary) has anything to do with it.
I’ve banged on about this for years. On the one hand, the ECB seek and need vast sums of money, which BSkyB can happily provide them. They pledge a percentage of that to grassroots cricket, development and other charitable activities. But in selling the rights to a pay-per-view broadcaster they cut the prospective number of viewers by a significant margin. Yes, they are piling money into things like Chance to Shine – and other initiatives which promote cricket in deprived socioeconomic areas of the country – but it could also be argued that Sky subscribers themselves are an elite. They are still a minority, after all (Sky subscriber stats anyone?). If they sold it to the BBC, a free-to-air broadcaster, suddenly English cricket is given essentially free advertising and the seeds of cricket’s interest are planted among millions of children, lazily flicking from CBeebies to Newsround on their summer holidays when they catch sight of Flintoff smacking Ponting in the face. What’s that? Some bloke’s been hit on the head by a red ball. Brilliant! I could do that. I will do that! Not that I’m advocating violence, but let’s face it: we all love to see a batsman sconned, especially when we’re 10.
That’s an idealistic and slightly naive point of view. I know that. I know the ECB needs money if they’re to compete with other national boards, but imagine if the 2005 Ashes hadn’t been on Sky. Would the country have whipped itself up into such an orgy? Yes, it probably would have, but not to the same frenzied extent. This year’s Ashes is the first in Britain not to be televised for free, and for all Sky’s excellence – their highlights package is usually 2 or 3 hours’ worth each day, for example, and the coverage is mostly quality – they can’t penetrate the country’s subconscious like Channel 4 or the BBC did. £300 million is £300 million, but how many millions of schoolchildren will be not bovvered because the Ashes is on Sky?
So. Returning in a roundabout way to the Guardian piece, it seems the various different formats of the game could be sold off independently from one another.
It is believed that placing international Twenty20 cricket on the list would be welcomed by free-to-air broadcasters such as the BBC, which would find it easier to schedule than Test cricket, and appeal to potential new, and younger, audiences.
As broadcasters and governing bodies begin jockeying for position ahead of the first review of the list for 10 years, the BBC is also expected to argue that the Ryder Cup and British and Irish Lions rugby union tours should be added to the list of protected events such as the FA Cup final, the Derby and the football World Cup that have “special national resonance” and “serve to unite the nation”.
Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen, are welcomed in the comments.
(Also see TV won England the Ashes from three years ago)
(Also, I appreciate there’s a lot of Sky banners at the moment. I’m a sell-out. Bite me)
11 Comments »Poor technology hampers cricket
By Will 2 years ago, mid-July, 9 Comments »
Michael Vaughan dives to catch Hashim Amla. Or did he? (© Getty Images)
I really want technology to work in cricket, for it to help umpires, and avoid those unnecessary delays. But today highlighted just why no current technology can really be trusted to confirm or correct an umpire’s decision.
There were two incidents, one from each team. Andrew Strauss edged to AB de Villiers at third slip, who dived across and claimed a catch low to his right. Very low. One glance at the slow-mo replay – that is all it took – confirmed the ball had bounced well before de Villiers, and even when the ball made it into his hands, he was not in control of it. It was simply not out, despite his and all the other South Africans’ insistence. Strauss stood his ground and the replay clearly confirmed he was right to do so. I’ve no problem with de Villiers claiming the catch. It’s his duty, and if he felt he caught it, fine.
The second incident is trickier. Hashim Amla fended off a brute of a bouncer from Andrew Flintoff, the ball ballooning tantalisingly in front of Michael Vaughan. Amazingly, for someone with only half a knee, he made a terrific effort to reach the ball, diving in front of him and apparently scooping it up with his fingertips before it hit the ground. He immediately celebrated, whooping with delight, and it looked a clear winner.
Amla headed off, but his coach and captain gesticulated for him to stay, prompting the use of a replay which couldn’t confirm whether Vaughan’s catch was clean or not. From one angle, it looked like he had got his fingers underneath it and it never touched the grass. From another, you couldn’t see the ends of his fingers, so the ball appeared to be grounded. In short, it was inconclusive and Amla was allowed to stay. It could be a decision that defines the series should Amla go on to score a hundred.
Technology ought to be helping cricket, but at the moment we’re stuck in this awful halfway house. The players aren’t sure. The umpires are frightened that their errors will be exposed, and understandably refer it to the television official. But when that last line of defence is so utterly indecisive, the biggest losers are the players and the public for having to wait several minutes for a non-decision. It’s utterly crap.
I have no solution to this. We will have to wait another decade or more for technology to improve, but I’m sure it will. Eventually, I can see the day where all players are wired up, their fingers acting as remote sensors for a television official. When players’ hands touch the ball, it’ll send a signal; perhaps the ball’s own shape could be monitored, signalling to the umpire when it’s touched the ground. Maybe it’ll turn automatically turn green if it’s not-out, or explode for a player who continually abuses the referral system.
Who bloody knows. Maybe we’re asking too much of technology. It works almost flawlessly in tennis, but cricket is far more complex. Many more players on a much larger outfield (of varying sizes and shapes) makes it so hard for science and technology to monitor things…tennis is reliant on the lines on the court and sensors on the nets, and hawkeye has made that process brilliantly slick.
There’s no chance we’ll ever revert to players walking, accepting fielders’ puppy-eyed nodding that they took the catch. So what exactly is the solution until technology catches up?
9 Comments »Cricket’s wealth in Australia
By Will 2 years ago, mid-February, 3 Comments »
We talk and moan about India’s vast financial grip over the game, but however much it narks us, it is of little surprise: with a growing economy and a colossal population, the majority of whom love the game, India have the two crucial ingredients to making a lot of money out of an entertainment sport. The same goes for football in the UK: it’s watched and loved by millions, and advertisers know they’ll get decent exposure and are willing to pay for it.
The same can’t be said for cricket in the UK. After the Ashes, in particular the following summer, advertisers were swarming like bees over all things cricket. Even this humble blog was targeted. But the interest, like England’s Test form, has slipped away with depressing haste and we’re back to where we were pre the 2005 Ashes.
The same can’t be said for cricket in Australia either, and they come up with some brilliant advertising campaigns. I’m not a sales man and nor will I ever be, but I do find it fascinating how each country uses advertising to exploit the interest of a game to attract new visitors. Inevitably Australia do it with humour, and do it pretty well. Thanks to Duncans.tv here is Mike Hussey in an advert for the CB Series:
…continued…
…and…
3 Comments »Pietersen c Sangakkara b Vaas 1
By Will 3 years ago, mid-December, 6 Comments »
Oh how simple it sounds.
Pietersen c Sangakkara b Vaas 1
Alas, it is anything but – and the media (yes, I know I’m part of it, but I can still comment) might be making a meal of it in the coming 24 hours. For those of you who didn’t see it, this is what happened:
| 60.3 | Vaas to Pietersen, OUT, and the plan has worked, it’s a brilliant piece of work at slip, but wait, there’s controversy. Pietersen went for a drive at a wide ball, nicked to the third slip, Silva, who dived to his left and grabbed the catch low to the turf, it bobbles up and Sangakkara comes from first slip to take the rebound. Pietersen waits as the umpires consult, Harper raises his finger, but TV replays show the ball appears to have brushed the ground before the initial take by Silva. Pietersen waits inside the boundary, as he did at Lord’s earlier this year against India, but there’s no overturning this decision and he’s off |
Clarification from Andrew Miller:
The difference between the two incidents is that at Lord’s there wasn’t an original agreement between the umpires on Dhoni’s catch, it was given immediately by Simon Taufel. However, in Colombo the umpires conferred before deciding Pietersen was out and the laws state that the third official can only be used if the view of the on-field umpires is obstructed.
This is clearly bullshit and the law needs amending immediately. Like many, I still hanker after the good old days when video replays were rare and pretty inconclusive, but cricket must move with the times and we can’t have this middle-ground where technology is used sparingly. It’s making the sport look pretty damn stupid.
Your thoughts? Vote on the right-hand-side of the site, too.
Loading ...Video of Shane Warne’s TV adverts
By Will 3 years ago, at the start of December, No Comments; be the first!
Thanks to Allie for writing in with the link. (see photos, too)
No Comments »Shane Warne’s new TV advert
By Will 3 years ago, mid-November, 3 Comments »
He was an expert at bamboozling England’s batsmen, but now Shane Warne is set to leave viewers flummoxed in a new TV advert.
The spin legend spent hours in make-up to appear as a baby and also as his own mum and dad.
Warne said: “It was a hoot. I absolutely loved doing the ads.”
Do leave a comment if you’ve seen it or, better, have a link to it.
3 Comments »BBC: Tudors
By Will 3 years ago, mid-October, No Comments; be the first!
More non-cricket news because it’s far more important than anything else. Couch potatoes – in fact, everyone – should tune in and watch my friend Natalie in The Tudors this evening, and every evening. You should then tell everyone how brilliant you think she is, and spread the word about how startlingly attractive and gifted an actress she will be.
Get to it. She’s going to be absolutely massive.
No Comments »TWC commentator’s poll
By Jonathan Liew 3 years ago, at the end of September, 16 Comments »
The latest issue of the Wisden Cricketer features the now regular poll on readers’ favourite commentators. Geoff Boycott takes top spot, followed by Jonathan Agnew, David Lloyd, Michael Atherton and Michael Holding.
What does everyone think about that?
And why was Mark Nicholas
Sporting success and failure mirroring society?
By Will 3 years ago, mid-June, 2 Comments »
I’m about to sit down and watch Nation in Film, that BBC programme of West Indies’ tour in 1976. And the following teaser was uttered by Darcus Howe, one of the contributors.
I don’t think West Indian cricket ever had such an intense reflection of what was taking place in society
Is the same true of West Indies now? Does the success of a national sporting team reflect the successes or failures, depressions and moods of society? If it did back then (Howe says that Tony Greig’s “grovelling” comment was, in West Indians’ view, distinctly racist: white versus black), the effect is certainly less so nowadays.
I like stuff like this. Thoughts welcome.
2 Comments »West Indies in England, 1976 (TV)
By Will 3 years ago, mid-June, 4 Comments »
This Friday, BBC Two are showing archive footage (and behind the scenes stuff) of West Indies’ tour of England in 1976. This was Tony Greig’s famous “grovelling” comment – read Martin Williamson’s Rewind about it.
The remark was highly inflammatory for a number of reasons, the main one being that Greig’s words, coming from a white South African, were seized on for racist overtones. “The word ‘grovel’ is one guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of any black man,” Lloyd said. “The fact they were used by a white South African made it even worse. We were angry and West Indians everywhere were angry. We resolved to show him and everyone else that the days for grovelling were over.”
More at the Beeb.
4 Comments »Mark Butcher on ‘Just the Two of Us’
By Will 3 years ago, at the start of January, 2 Comments »
First there was Darren Gough. Then Mark Ramprakash. And now, Mark Butcher is the third recent England cricketer to swap his whites for the mic. It’s passed me by until now but, on a drizzly Sunday evening, what else can you do but wade through the TV channels and find some nonsense to watch? The nonsense is called Just the Two of Us and is one of these reality TV things. I hate them with furious passion.
Whereas Gough and Ramprakash had no dancing ability whatsoever, yet still somehow managed to win, Butcher is a guitarist and musician of repute. So he’ll probably win it like his two England colleagues did.
All is not lost, England. Andrew Flintoff is a keen Elvis fan so look out for him on this show next year, with Steve Harmison on maracas and Chris Read and Geraint Jones fighting for the drumsticks.
“It’s not a blood sport; this is music,” Butcher said. “It’s not about hurting people it’s about making you feel good, and hopefully we did that tonight.”
God help us all.
Update Superb work from Will. Moments after posting that, Butcher was cast off into oblivion. Sorry!
