Test Cricket is Boring

[aeolium]

If the BBC do take the Ashes, they have one hell of a lot of catching up to do to get even close to the Sky cricket coverage - England Captains - Gower, Atherton, Hussain, Botham, top players - Michael Holding, Nick Knight, David Lloyd, Ian Ward, plus overseas experts of pedigree. That is one heck of a cast list. And in the wings - Allott, Willis, Butcher, Cork.

I used to watch cricket on Sky Sports and all of those mentioned with the exception of Michael Holding (and Rameez Raja) were imv fantastically dull and uninformative commentators, and Lloyd was self-consciously infantile. The TMS commentators are not a lot better. The BBC TV combination of Laker and Benaud was very good in the 1970s and 1980s, and Dermot Reeve was always interesting in the C4 days. But those who think Sky Sports are so good for Test cricket might want to explain why over 10 million watched parts of the C4 Ashes terrestrial coverage in 2005, whereas the figures for Sky viewing in the 2009 Ashes series was well below 1 million on average.

[EdgeleyRob]

Certainly watching rain is more exciting than watching Formula One or Golf

Agreed.I would rather watch grass grow .

[Anna]

But those who think Sky Sports are so good for Test cricket might want to explain why over 10 million watched parts of the C4 Ashes terrestrial coverage in 2005, whereas the figures for Sky viewing in the 2009 Ashes series was well below 1 million on average.

I do remember being glued to the 2005 Ashes on C4. I would suggest the low viewing figures for the 2009 Ashes is financial. I've just been on the Sky site, you have to take the basic package then add Sky Sports. That equates to £40 per month. If you have no interest in the programmes in the basic package or any other sport are you going to pay £480 p.a. to watch an occasional cricket match?

[Mr Pee]

It's raining here at the moment, and not having had any for several weeks, it's MUCH more interesting to watch than Cricket. And as for Formula One- even previously unconverted friends of mine have started watching this season. It's been one exciting race after another! Edge of the seat stuff from beginning to end.(And in glorious High definition, thanks to Mr. Murdoch's HD box). Whereas test cricket tends to make me fall off the edge of the seat in a state of dreary unconsciousness.

(And I'm looking forward to seeing the new Ayrton Senna movie when it comes to Chichester later this month. )

Alas, no Grand Prix this weekend, so I shall instead settle down with one of my recorded programmes from Sky Arts- either Tosca or Lohengrin from the Met, or perhaps Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake- or perhaps the interview with Stephen Fry- or Michael Tilson Thomas exploring the Rite of Spring.....choices, choices, choices........

[amateur51]

I do remember being glued to the 2005 Ashes on C4. I would suggest the low viewing figures for the 2009 Ashes is financial. I've just been on the Sky site, you have to take the basic package then add Sky Sports. That equates to £40 per month. If you have no interest in the programmes in the basic package or any other sport are you going to pay £480 p.a. to watch an occasional cricket match?

Mr Pee seems happy to pay that to watch commercially available music DVDs, it seems.

Oh and an interview with Stephen Fry, that's got to be cutting edge broadcasting

Stephen Fry is currently moaning & wailing about being a media tart, always being asked for his opinion, etc. Stephen, love it's all terribly easy - learn to say 'No' - we'll still love you and there's some truth in 'Absence makes the heart grow fonder'

[Mr Pee]

Mr Pee seems happy to pay that to watch commercially available music DVDs, it seems.

Oh and an interview with Stephen Fry, that's got to be cutting edge broadcasting

The "In Confidence" series of interviews, in which Stephen Fry was the latest interviewee- (recent guests have included Tracey Emin, Andre Previn,Damien Hirst, David Starkey, and Richard Dawkins)- has been generally praised as representing the kind of in-depth and serious interview that one never sees on most channels nowadays:-

http://www.theartsdesk.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3822:in-confidence-stephen-fry-sky-arts&Itemid=27

And I don't pay 480 pa, since I don't subscribe to the sports channels.(Come on Amateur, pay attention at the back!)

I pay 31 pounds per month, which includes a 10 pound supplement for Hi-Def. And it's worth every penny, quite apart from the Arts coverage. A quick check on Amazon reveals that the price of a typical Opera DVD- not Blu-Ray, and therefore of lower picture quality than the Hi Def I get from Sky- varies from 15- 35 quid. Now I could buy on DVD all the operas that I'm able to watch via Sky, which I can then keep for as long as I want on my Hard Disk, to watch as many times as I want, or I could spend considerably more than 31 pounds per month to have the discs gathering dust and taking up the diminishing space in my shelves. Also, if they're being broadcast, I'm much more likely to give something a try and watch it, rather than having to spend the money on an unknown quantity.

Add the ability to pause, rewind, or Slo-Mo Live TV, the ability to set the box to record via a mobile phone or computer, and the invaluable series link facility, that will record a whole series at the touch of a button, even if it jumps around the schedules, and overall I think the package represents excellent value for money.

Perhaps if BBC TV hadn't dumbed down to the extent it has- how often does it transmit a whole opera? When was the last time it broadcast a serious, hour-long interview, rather than the Graham Norton/Jonathan Ross drivel? - then I might not pay Mr Murdoch. But in the current climate, if you want varied, in-depth arts and music coverage from your TV, then Sky represents the best - indeed only- option.

[aeolium]

I do remember being glued to the 2005 Ashes on C4. I would suggest the low viewing figures for the 2009 Ashes is financial. I've just been on the Sky site, you have to take the basic package then add Sky Sports. That equates to £40 per month. If you have no interest in the programmes in the basic package or any other sport are you going to pay £480 p.a. to watch an occasional cricket match?

I think the difference in viewing figures is unquestionably due to the high cost of Sky viewing. I think it's more expensive than the £40 per month as you really need to take all the Sports channels (since they move cricket around) so it is closer to £50 per month now. There's no doubt that Sky have put a lot of money the ECB's way but once all the administrators, officials, coaches, counties and players have been paid how much is left for the grass roots - league cricket, village cricket, schools cricket? And Sky cannot hope to create the level of interest in cricket amongst the young that was created when cricket was widely available on terrestrial channels.

[DracoM]

Sorry, but if you buy a Sky sports package you can always get the cricket.

[Dave2002]

Agreed.I would rather watch grass grow .

I used to like tennis, but that now seems to be getting tediously dull. The grass is growing a bit better now following some recent rain

[Anna]

Well, rain stopped play. TMS had to fill in with waffle, which was quite amusing. Geoff Boycott said that cricket is in a parlous state and if it wasn't for the money injected from the television coverage would be in an even worse state. He also went on about the price of tickets to Lords which are evidently £60 to £90 for the not very best seats and it's important to get bums on seats and get children involved. As regards the pricing he said (at least I think I heard him say) "It should be buy two tickets for men and then two children would go free" Tickets for men only??????

[french frank]

He also went on about the price of tickets to Lords which are evidently £60 to £90 for the not very best seats

My nephew tells me that Glamorgan offer free seats to students. It's cheaper for him to take the train to Cardiff (from Bristol) than to get a ticket for Gloucestershire at the County Ground.

[EdgeleyRob]

These 'sports' aren't boring

http://www.eastlancsrailway.org.uk/whats-on/non-elr-events/

[Anna]

My nephew tells me that Glamorgan offer free seats to students. It's cheaper for him to take the train to Cardiff (from Bristol) than to get a ticket for Gloucestershire at the County Ground.

Glamorgan's prices for domestics are reasonable, £10 or £15, I think children go free. To see England v India there in September tickets are £60 or £75. You can spend £25 on an average classical concert, so, maybe it's not bad value?

[aeolium]

My nephew tells me that Glamorgan offer free seats to students. It's cheaper for him to take the train to Cardiff (from Bristol) than to get a ticket for Gloucestershire at the County Ground.

Glamorgan have always been cheaper than the other counties, including the western ones. A decade or so back they had a reciprocal agreement with Somerset, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire whereby a member of any of those counties could see any home match at any of the four counties but the agreement was abandoned when it was found that people in the western English counties were buying Glamorgan memberships as they were the cheapest.

[PatrickOD]

You might not believe this, but one summer I was out strolling in a pleasantly rural part of England. I came to a park, and in the distance I could see a sprinkling of people standing about in a leisurely fashion. As I drew nearer, I could see children darting here and there, trestle tables with refreshments, a few straw hats in evidence, and a vague sense of something being watched. I then noticed that there was a game in progress, and when I saw the whites the players were wearing it dawned on me that I had stumbled upon a cricket match.

A village cricket match! I was instantly transported to a dull and intimidating classroom where we were tormented by an uninspiring teacher and a book called Eight Essayists, the only one of which essays I enjoyed being the one about a village cricket match. It was a humorous piece, and I can only now remember the scene where the bowler thunders up an incline on the pitch to appear suddenly to the terrified batsman like a charging buffalo. Heartened by the memory I stood around for a while to watch.

Sure enough, a bowler made his run, the batsman stiffened at the wicket, and nothing happened. A short conference took place and after a redeployment of fielders, the bowler rather casually threw another ball. Nothing happened. No resounding crack of willow on leather; no frantic racing to retrieve a ball; not even a bellow of 'Howzat!. The spectators seemed quite content with this state of affairs, and I concluded that this was what is called, in a sport where there is never a dull moment, par for the course. I wended my way homeward.

I have not been to another cricket match, nor have I been able to locate the essay that led me astray.