TV Home Forum

Test Cricket on terrestrial TV

(September 2005)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NH
Nick Harvey Founding member
Luke posted:
In my opinion, they did. Their commentary/punditry team beat Sky hands down imo.

I honestly don't see how you can say that of a channel which dumped out to go to yet another repeat of Friends, leaving THEIR OWN presenter, Mike Atherton, to do a presentation ceremony which ended up broadcast only by Test Match Special on BBC radio.

Either you bid and contract to cover five test matches PROPERLY, or you ought not to bother to bid in the first place.

And I'll not dwell too long on all of you who are complaining that cricket ought to stay free-to-air, whilst conveniently forgetting all the huge chunks of Friday and Saturday afternoons when you needed a Sky subscription to watch the cricket on Film Four whilst YET ANOTHER horse race went out on Channel Four.

Rose tinted spectacles, or what?
LU
Luke
Nick Harvey posted:
Luke posted:
In my opinion, they did. Their commentary/punditry team beat Sky hands down imo.

I honestly don't see how you can say that of a channel which dumped out to go to yet another repeat of Friends, leaving THEIR OWN presenter, Mike Atherton, to do a presentation ceremony which ended up broadcast only by Test Match Special on BBC radio.


That's not how i remember it? I could've sworn they continued coverage right up to 7pm and then the Channel 4 News.

Anyway, I was referring to my preference for their commentary team over Sky's rather than the scheduling flaws of the channel itself. Wasn't the need to go the horse racing a contractual thing anyway?
ST
Ste Founding member
Luke posted:
Nick Harvey posted:
Luke posted:
In my opinion, they did. Their commentary/punditry team beat Sky hands down imo.

I honestly don't see how you can say that of a channel which dumped out to go to yet another repeat of Friends, leaving THEIR OWN presenter, Mike Atherton, to do a presentation ceremony which ended up broadcast only by Test Match Special on BBC radio.


That's not how i remember it? I could've sworn they continued coverage right up to 7pm and then the Channel 4 News.

Anyway, I was referring to my preference for their commentary team over Sky's rather than the scheduling flaws of the channel itself. Wasn't the need to go the horse racing a contractual thing anyway?


At the end of the 3rd Test at Old Trafford they did that and could well have done it on other tests as well. For the 5th Test they did stay with the presentation and celebrations until 7PM though.

Does anyone have any information about what the commentators will do now they wont be working for Channel 4? I heard somewhere Atherton might be going to Sky, could Mark Nicholas perhaps go back to Sky as well if he isnt wanted by Nine.

Ste
MU
murf1000
Nick Harvey posted:
TedJrr posted:
Surley its only the prospect of beating Australia that has had everyone manic about cricket. Next time England are losing to Sri Lanka, there won't be so much interest.

I think there are three categories of cricket supporter at the moment.

Those, like me, who have been following cricket since 1953 and have no intention of ever stopping.



Those who got hooked this year for the Ashes, have developed a real interest and will stick with it from now on, through thick and thin; very much as I did after 1953.

Those who got "partially" hooked this year, but will, as you say, drift away again if the winning streak drifts away as well.

It'll be interesting to see how many fall into which of those last two categories.

I suspect it's only those in the last category who will be affected by the loss of cricket on free-to-air television; those in the first two categories will either already have Sky Sports or be ordering it as I speak.


What about those who are interested but cannot understand what the rules are? Confused
ST
Ste Founding member
murf1000 posted:
Nick Harvey posted:
TedJrr posted:
Surley its only the prospect of beating Australia that has had everyone manic about cricket. Next time England are losing to Sri Lanka, there won't be so much interest.

I think there are three categories of cricket supporter at the moment.

Those, like me, who have been following cricket since 1953 and have no intention of ever stopping.



Those who got hooked this year for the Ashes, have developed a real interest and will stick with it from now on, through thick and thin; very much as I did after 1953.

Those who got "partially" hooked this year, but will, as you say, drift away again if the winning streak drifts away as well.

It'll be interesting to see how many fall into which of those last two categories.

I suspect it's only those in the last category who will be affected by the loss of cricket on free-to-air television; those in the first two categories will either already have Sky Sports or be ordering it as I speak.


What about those who are interested but cannot understand what the rules are? Confused


Cricket for Novices?
BR
Brekkie
Nick Harvey posted:
Rose tinted spectacles, or what?


The interuptions on C4 though were minimal compared to what occured before with the BBC, where as well as racing, coverage was often shared with Wimbledon, Golf and events such as the Olympics - and generally with no alternative to watch uninterupted cricket. The BBC also used to cut off early if the Tests overran.

C4 only began cutting off at 6pm a couple of years ago - and only on Thursdays and Fridays. And yes, it was wrong!
DE
derek500
Brekkie Boy posted:
Nick Harvey posted:
Rose tinted spectacles, or what?


The interuptions on C4 though were minimal compared to what occured before with the BBC, where as well as racing, coverage was often shared with Wimbledon, Golf and events such as the Olympics - and generally with no alternative to watch uninterupted cricket. The BBC also used to cut off early if the Tests overran.

C4 only began cutting off at 6pm a couple of years ago - and only on Thursdays and Fridays. And yes, it was wrong!


The BBC also used to break away for hourly news headlines and weather.

I remember a few years ago Jimmy Greaves complaining about the BBC doing this. He said "If i want to know what the weather is, I can look out the bloody window"
HC
Hatton Cross
Nick Harvey posted:

It's possibly because I've been following the game for so long and, therefore, know a fair amount about it already, but I simply can't stand the way Mr Hughes seems to talk down to everyone.

He may well be good for those new to the game and wanting to learn, but he just gets up my nose to the point where I channel hop for a couple of minutes every time he pops up.


I would much rather watch Mr Hughes and his rather huge forehead popping up to show us another Shane Warne special at a selection of speeds and angles than that f*cking dancing Citroen C4 advert every 6 minutes...

..But each to their own I suppose.
LL
Lottie Long-Legs
Ste posted:
Luke posted:
Nick Harvey posted:
Luke posted:
In my opinion, they did. Their commentary/punditry team beat Sky hands down imo.

I honestly don't see how you can say that of a channel which dumped out to go to yet another repeat of Friends, leaving THEIR OWN presenter, Mike Atherton, to do a presentation ceremony which ended up broadcast only by Test Match Special on BBC radio.


That's not how i remember it? I could've sworn they continued coverage right up to 7pm and then the Channel 4 News.

Anyway, I was referring to my preference for their commentary team over Sky's rather than the scheduling flaws of the channel itself. Wasn't the need to go the horse racing a contractual thing anyway?


At the end of the 3rd Test at Old Trafford they did that and could well have done it on other tests as well. For the 5th Test they did stay with the presentation and celebrations until 7PM though.

Does anyone have any information about what the commentators will do now they wont be working for Channel 4? I heard somewhere Atherton might be going to Sky, could Mark Nicholas perhaps go back to Sky as well if he isnt wanted by Nine.

Ste


Any of them is preferable to Charles Colvile.

Newer posts