Sky Cricket coverage
Discussion
No, it's not progress, it's what happens when the ECB see pound signs flash before their eyes.
I was so cross when Sky got the coverage. I thought Channel 4 did a superb job, far better than the BBC ever managed. They were so innovative, with hawk eye etc. and 'The Analyst' with Simon Hughes really gave an extra insight into the game.
Having said that, I have got used to Sky quite quickly. They have a good team, Atherton, Bumble and Hussein in particular, and with the 'third man' they are trying to emulate 'the analyst' and not doing too bad a job of it. I even find the ads are not particularly intrusive. All they need to make it great is Richie Benaud!
I was so cross when Sky got the coverage. I thought Channel 4 did a superb job, far better than the BBC ever managed. They were so innovative, with hawk eye etc. and 'The Analyst' with Simon Hughes really gave an extra insight into the game.
Having said that, I have got used to Sky quite quickly. They have a good team, Atherton, Bumble and Hussein in particular, and with the 'third man' they are trying to emulate 'the analyst' and not doing too bad a job of it. I even find the ads are not particularly intrusive. All they need to make it great is Richie Benaud!
FoolOnTheHill said:
Broccers said:
They only advertise between ends. .
That's a bit like saying receiving forced anal sex is ok cos the cock is only in you half the time.There should be NO adverts.
It's not 1975 anymore so get over it.
Bing o said:
FoolOnTheHill said:
Broccers said:
They only advertise between ends. .
That's a bit like saying receiving forced anal sex is ok cos the cock is only in you half the time.There should be NO adverts.
It's not 1975 anymore so get over it.
ks.Why am I a fool because I don't see the need for mindless adverts every five minutes and would prefer to enjoy the atmosphere, to reflect, to have an attention span of longer than 3 seconds, to not have the need to fill my vacuous mind with banality????
Why am I a fool because I don't believe we should have to pay a fortune to see national sporting events?
FoolOnTheHill said:
bks.
Why am I a fool because I don't see the need for mindless adverts every five minutes and would prefer to enjoy the atmosphere, to reflect, to have an attention span of longer than 3 seconds, to not have the need to fill my vacuous mind with banality????
Why am I a fool because I don't believe we should have to pay a fortune to see national sporting events?
I agree that it should be on a FTA channel, after all we're not likely to see the same scenes as we saw in 2005 now it's on Sky. Unfortunately the FTA channels can't afford it and the ECB put short term monetary gains ahead of what may well be the good of the game.ks.Why am I a fool because I don't see the need for mindless adverts every five minutes and would prefer to enjoy the atmosphere, to reflect, to have an attention span of longer than 3 seconds, to not have the need to fill my vacuous mind with banality????
Why am I a fool because I don't believe we should have to pay a fortune to see national sporting events?
Your argument should be with the ECB and the FTA channels, not Sky.
Broccers said:
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Carry on arguing with someone that cares.
You cared enough to post, and to insult me.The irony of why I chose that particular login name would seem to be lost on you.
I guess you were devastated when F1 came back to the BBC and you lost your pit-stop ad breaks too.
Edited by FoolOnTheHill on Thursday 9th July 12:20
It's easy to forget what cricket on TV was like pre-Sky.
With Channel 4 (who had adverts too) they also had breaks in coverage for the news, horse racing, and no doubt other stuff when play overran nomal hours.
Whilst the BBC never had ads, they also often missed passages of play to show other programmes and for many years only had a camera at one end of the ground!
At least with Sky, adverts or not, you never miss a ball unless you want to.
Ads don't ruin the cricket (with its natural breaks) in the same way that they did with F1.
With Channel 4 (who had adverts too) they also had breaks in coverage for the news, horse racing, and no doubt other stuff when play overran nomal hours.
Whilst the BBC never had ads, they also often missed passages of play to show other programmes and for many years only had a camera at one end of the ground!
At least with Sky, adverts or not, you never miss a ball unless you want to.
Ads don't ruin the cricket (with its natural breaks) in the same way that they did with F1.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff