Saturday 21 November

BLOGS

blogCategory
Previous
Back to blog
Next

The Ashes should be free to watch

A cricket ball hitting some stumps
  • Posted at 3:05pm
  • 08 July 2009
  • by TomLoxley-RT
  • 15 comments

Having endured ten months of the football season living with two undersized Cristiano Ronaldos (it's not just the tantrums and diving over sofas, it's the pervasive smell of Alberto VO5 firm-hold hair gel) I was praying that with the start of the Ashes, my two young boys would become a pair of mini Freddie Flintoffs, passing me on the stairs in a blur of pads and whirring willow, on their way outside.

Then I remembered my lot won't see the England cricket team live on TV. International cricket has not been on free-to-air television since the last home Ashes series of 2005, when the England and Wales Cricket Board signed away rights to Sky until 2009. Last year they extended the deal to 2013. The nearest most of us will get to live cricket on our TVs this summer is when we go to the BBC's red button and see "Live Cricket" as an option - only to discover we've tuned the set to Radio 5 Live Extra.

Of course, it's my choice not to subscribe to Sky Sports. I used to, but I developed a serious wasting disease watching their phone-in for the lobotomised, You're on Sky Sports! But it's not my sons' choice to turn down the chance of watching England play cricket.

I blame the ECB. Blinded by cash (remember, this is the sorry lot who thought Allen Stanford was a good business partner), these chaps can't see the long-term consequences of selling their sport to a niche broadcaster - Sky Sports has four million subscribers - and bypassing a generation of would-be cricketers who could be watching on free-to-air TV.

Kids need heroes, sports to copy, looks to ape. Once, England were top dogs on the cricket field and the game gripped a nation thanks to hours of wheezy Jim Laker commentary on BBC TV. Now our national summer game is in danger of becoming a second-string sport. A bit like bowls with sledging.

I know free-to-air TV doesn't guarantee success on the field. BBC cameras have covered Wimbledon since 1937 and we've not had a men's singles winner yet. But the day Andy Murray wins a grand slam - as he surely will - my kids won't be the only ones queuing to hit winners over the drooping net at the local tennis courts dressed in Fred Perry's finest. I wish they'd care if Flintoff helps England win the Ashes. But they won't. Much like a tube of Ronaldo's hair gel, it will go straight over their heads.

**

What do you think? Should the Ashes be on terrestrial TV? Post a comment below and let us know.

And whatever your answer, check out our Ashes guide, which helps you get the best out of the TV and radio coverage.

Link to this post
Post a comment | 15 comments

Comments

  • Posted on 05 September 2009
  • at 7:12pm
  • by Richard

I think that all sport involving the national team (football, cricket, rugby) should be available for everybody to watch.

  • Posted on 24 August 2009
  • at 1:34pm
  • by Biff

Maybe the BBC should not have wasted its money on the Grand prix which was already on free to air TV on the ITV channel and put its money towards the cricket instead which was not.

  • Posted on 11 August 2009
  • at 7:24pm
  • by beasty

I so agree, sick of having to pay the licence and then pay for films then pay for sport. If we HAVE to pay extra then why can't the beeb put it on their channels so we only pay once (after the licence that is ).I will not subscibe to all these other companys like sky and setanta for the simple reason I am not a millionaire..I only get 130 quid a week from my govt. pension so T.V. is the only thing I have.Thank goodness for the highlights of the ashes..not quite the same tho' is it ??

  • Posted on 11 August 2009
  • at 3:50pm
  • by Broz

The licence fee is a tax to all intents and purposes and yet those who pay have very little say over content. The corporation has sports presenters, commentators and pundits coming out of its ears but very little or no live content for the national games of cricket and football. Even when the BBC was not even broadcasting a recent Champions League final it sent (as it usually does) a whole army of people to TALK about it at the taxpayers' expense. How come the BBC can allegedly afford to pay certain presenters huge sums of money and yet cannot enter a serious bid to cover the national game in particular the Ashes series. I absolutely refuse to buy Sky but I would have been prepared to pay a pay-per-view fee to the BBC to watch the series if such a thing were technically possible.

  • Posted on 05 August 2009
  • at 3:42pm
  • by Another lady cricket fan

Yes, it is an absolute scandal that the ECB, just like the International Rugby Board, have sold out to the highest bidder. However, I also think the BBC could afford to buy the rights if more of their highly paid entertainers were given a realistic salary.

  • Posted on 26 July 2009
  • at 8:10pm
  • by Brian

I agree with all the comments above. I do wish Radio 5 and channel 5 would black list any commentator or summarisr who has worked for sky sports. At least I only sit and watch for a short time each evening and listen whilst doing other things during the day. The ECB really do not understand.

  • Posted on 24 July 2009
  • at 6:47pm
  • by Andrew

It will be interesting to see what Sky think when England go into their next 90s-style slump. They won't be quite so quick with the readies, methinks. That's when the ECB will realise that they've shot themselves in the foot, with no real prospect o younger players coming through. The horse will have bolted long before then.

  • Posted on 18 July 2009
  • at 11:08pm
  • by Ryan

I a disgusted by SKY obtaining rights to Ashes series. It should be a crown jewel sport. I personally do not subscribe to sky and never will as I boycott Fox products. Can i urge any others who have Sky and dont want to see cricket go the same way as football has, please cancel your SKY as a protest. If you all did then ALL sports may return to free to view. Thank you soap box away now.

  • Posted on 12 July 2009
  • at 7:10pm
  • by Dave

I totally agree. It's very sad and I think those at the ECB responsible should resign in disgrace. They have sold out you, me and your kids. More importantly they have also abandoned a lot of pensioners who have followed cricket all their lives who have now had their only means of access to cricket taken away from them in their dotage. No wonder this country is in such a state. Don't blame immigrants. Blame our own people, that is, ministers, captains of industry and administrators, who look down on and treat their compatriots with such disdain.

Absolutely disgusting!

  • Posted on 11 July 2009
  • at 6:43pm
  • by whocaresaboutenglishcricket

Take my son (10) to play tennis & football. He has no interest in cricket as terrestial coverage a joke.

  • Posted on 11 July 2009
  • at 4:45pm
  • by Gregoire

Totally agree. It's an absolute disgrace. Can't stand what the ECB and Sky have done and hope Murdoch gets taken to the cleaners over the NOTW's antics.

  • Posted on 11 July 2009
  • at 2:42pm
  • by clickem

The fact that only two people have commented on this illustrates what a mistake the ECB have made for the long term future of cricket in Britain.

  • Posted on 11 July 2009
  • at 11:07am
  • by Lady Cricket Lover

Of course cricket should be available on terrestrial television (and rugby for that matter). I do not even have the choice of subscribing to Sky, living as I do in a listed Victorian block of flats, and I am heartily sick of trailing around the pubs trying to find one with a TV that is not showing football instead (ANY football it seems). It is so frustrating and I would much rather be in the comfort of my own home, glass of Pimms in hand. And for those with children it is not necessarily an option. Greed is ruining sport for many in this country - and 'it's just not cricket' as the saying goes. As Tom rightly says - we should be encouraging and promoting all our national sports and their protagonists on national television, making them accessible to all.

  • Posted on 10 July 2009
  • at 12:38pm
  • by clickem

The team should be renamed Sky's England.

  • Posted on 08 July 2009
  • at 4:01pm
  • by John

Of course I agree, interest in cricket will continue to wane if only a minority of people are able to see the test matches on television. I choose not to subscribe to Sky because I have no interest in the rest of their broadcasts. ECB members presumably have ready access to all test matches but it is unbelievably myopic of them not consider the benefits of expanding the audience that have a less than obsessive interest in the game.

Post a comment

Do you have something to say about this post? Share your thoughts…

Post a comment

(first or nickname only)

Please do not include any personal or personally identifiable information about yourself or others (including email addresses). All information you submit about yourself or others can be viewed by others.

Thank you for your comment

Thank you for your comments. All comments will be looked at by a moderator, however, due to the numbers of comments we receive, we can't promise that all will be posted on the site.

Post another comment

More


Advertisement