Wasim Akram and Mark Nicholas

[Beny]

These Two are set to join the channel 9 commentry team of 2004-2005 along with.

Ian Healy, Richie Benaud, Mark Taylor, Ian Chappell, Tony Greig, Bill Lawry and Simon O'Donnell.

22 cammeras, 12 instant reaplay machines, six on-screen graphic generators, stump cams, speed guns, zoomers, run-out rulers and Hawkeye.

Now If they could just get rid of the ads....

[Occasional Fan]

The BBC used to cover test matches with three cameras and a sketch artist. It would never be able to compete with this sort of technological armoury. And still there are people who want cricket back on the Beeb over here. Don't understand it. Pay-per-view from commercial broadcasters - it's the only way to go (giving the opportunity, at least in principle, for the viewer to buy his way out of the ads).

[Rachael]

As one who'd never fork the huge sums that would be necesary to make Pay-Per-View work (not least because every person who does that increases the likelihood of the service being viable and therefore reduces the chance of youngsters, everywhere, having access to cricket) I have pretty strong objections to the PPV idea in principle.... but I also think it will take more than just offering the viewer the option to buy themselves out: the advertising revenue is so massive that the cost per viewer would be obscene.

I'd rather just see legislation forcing the rights to be shared with public broadcasting corporations around the world: cricket would have to manage with a reduced income from TV rights.. but so-be-it: they shouldn't need the revenues they currently bring in ANYWAY.

[Occasional Fan]

I think we're both making assumptions here, Rachael. I've never seen costings put together on PPV - I'd be interested to see them to tell the truth. My gut feeling is that prices should not be outrageous. I have serious questions about the legislation suggestion you make. I'm not a big fan of Lady Thatcher, but one thing she said is, I am sure, quite true: you can't buck the market. Well, not forever anyway. That means to me that, in the long run, people will have to pay for what they want, suppliers (cricketers in this case) will have to live on what they can get from the buyers and, if the price is too high for the buyer or too low for the seller to live on, the market will kill off the product. I don't want to see that happen, but I do think it is quite reasonable that you and I should pay for it if we want it (and that those who don't want it get to spend their cash on something else).

This is, however, all a re-hash of quite a long thread which was on the site earlier in the year. My fault for re-surfacing it. Maybe we'd better re-bury it?

[Beny]

CH 9 is free to air

[Occasional Fan]

And, as you mentioned, bung full of commercials.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

The BBC used to cover test matches with three cameras and a sketch artist. It would never be able to compete with this sort of technological armoury. And still there are people who want cricket back on the Beeb over here. Don't understand it. Pay-per-view from commercial broadcasters - it's the only way to go (giving the opportunity, at least in principle, for the viewer to buy his way out of the ads).

Cricket coverage is light years away from what it used to be. The commentary is far more varied and interesting, Hawkeye, the Snickometer and all the rest of the technological advances have made it a pleasure to watch these days...well the actual cricket has to measure up too of course...but all in all a vast improvement as far as I'm concerned.

[Beny]

I remember when Ch 9 broke coverage to show the news and missed Shane Warne's 1st world record wicket.


Not Happy Jan...

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

(not least because every person who does that increases the likelihood of the service being viable and therefore reduces the chance of youngsters, everywhere, having access to cricket) .

True,

But in days before televison you had to pay to go into the ground - that restricted the access of youngsters to??

The fact is that the reason we can have proffesional standard Cricket is that somebody has to pay. When this was with the BBC in the UK, you had to pay - via a liscence fee. Cricket is a commercial business, whether you like it or not. One of the methods of making money is TV rites. In the UK the BBC was getting Cricket and paying bugger-all for years, as soon as it became available on the open market it moved to 4, who I feel have inproved the quality of coverage immeasurably. They have also kept it available to the general public through Adverts, they are annoying, but they prevent you from having to pay. You pay less for Cricket then you did with the BBC, and get IMHO a much better service, so I think that putting up with the odd ad ever so often is not too bad, and it's only between overs, when you will miss nothing.


If we do not have money going into the sport, then talented youngsters with the choice of highly paid careers in Football and Rugby will opt for those rather than less-well paid sports like Cricket. It is good to see that because of TV coverae the likes of Vaughan and the English Contracted players, are getting a fair wage for a top class sportsman, as they deserve.

[Mike Small]

I too used to think the adds at sky and channel 4 were annoying. But only till I hadn't hadn't heard of Ten Sports. Compared to that channel 4 is blessing from the gardens at heaven, even if Mark Nicholos is a joker of sorts.
In the last three days at times I switched from watching the India test to the Karachi test (simply because at times Aus looked so good it annoyed me).

First you have the commentators: as if their comments in the most bizarest of acents (as long as these guys are alive I wonder if Shakhespear's soul will actually ever rest in peace) weren't enough nuisance to the ears Ramiz Raja wore a hot orange coloured shirt today - Mike Holding on his side looked lost for words and yet there was banner in the crowd that said "Raja : Best dressed commentator" (and beleive it or not it WAS actually a meant to be a compliment). As if that wasn't enough, you have to see Shahid Afridi flerting away with some show pony actress while working up in gym in every (almost every) over break (plus a host of other completely uncomprehendable advertisments) , not to forget you have Ranjit Fernando and Roshan Something from Sri Lanka who can't stop mentioning Murali also to cope with at the same time. Not to forget they presentators remind you on a nearly every half an hour that is "joint production between so and so". Plus there's no Hawk Eye. And no super slow motion replay (200 frames per second). So desperate is the broadcast here that even some one on the lines of Mike Haysman would be a breath of fresh air. If this is what the actual demand of the viewers here is I don't know, but I pitty them nevertheless.

God bless Sky and Channel 4. We're lucky.