« ICC World Twenty20 - Hero of the Final: Everyone | Main | Twenty20 World Cup - The Team of the Tournament »
ICC World Twenty20 - Villain of the day: BBC TV
It has been clear almost from its inception that the British public love T20 cricket. Lord's has been sold out for a non-ODI Final domestic match for the first time in living memory, counties were building temporary stands to cope with demand and all the marketing surveys showed that "the product worked".
The ICC Twenty20 World Championship could have gone as badly as Paul Collingwood's evening on the tiles, but once Steve Elworthy announced the ticketing policy (to ensure good to full houses) and the rain stayed off, the only question was the size of the ICC's success.
So with T20 a banker and ITV are locked into the Rugby World Cup, where was BBC TV? No live coverage (understandable with Sky in the mix) but no highlights package either? No doubt there will be suits to argue that budgets were committed etc, but The Trumpet has argued before that BBC TV hates cricket and there can be no firmer evidence of that view than its ignoring this glorious carnival for all but 15 second news clips. Resourceful fans of India and Pakistan will get to see their heroes today somehow, but like me, they'll wonder why they pay the licence fee at all.
[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]
September 24, 2007 in ICC Twenty20 World Championship, Indian cricket, News Pavilion, Pakistan cricket, Twenty20 | Permalink | 
Stumble It!
Comments
No highlights from Channel 5 either. Bit rough to call the Beeb as villains as on radio they've been stalwart for this series and will be with us again in just over a week for Sri Lanka.
It may come as strange to folks who are used to Sky and other packages, but I find no problem with following ball-by-ball on the wireless.
I've seen so much cricket in my life that I can perfectly see in my mind what a commentator (such is the class of R4/5 whoever) describes. Pictures are great, but retrospective highlight packages are not.
That the Beeb and other terrestrials decided cricket wasn't worth it, fuck'em, quite frankly. I'd rather do wireless and internet and somewhere like here where I can get a damn good match report that pay out shed-loads, that I can't afford, to bastard Murdoch.
Posted by: mimi | 24 Sep 2007 20:46:03
Mimi - you're right about the radio and how cricket more than any sport can be enjoyed without seeing it.
But kids and "new audiences" want to see their heroes, they want to see Yuvraj's sixes and they want to see Agrakar's ears. A world tournament like this is BBC territory and they should have delivered.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 24 Sep 2007 21:34:17
But they didn't and won't. So bring new audiences to the new media. Let them read reports such as Nesta's on the Australians and look at the pictures.
Sorry if this is combative, but why should kids only be brought to cricket through the telly? What the eff is wrong with listening and reading? Are young kids now more stupid than in my day when we hardly had telly and everything was down to reports on the wireless? No - of course they're not. In fact, most are far more savvy than I was at that age. Let them use imagination and experience.
Posted by: mimi | 24 Sep 2007 22:08:47
Although I love cricket on the radio, you can't beat seeing it with your own eyes. Especially when a child. That way you aren't fed the game through someone else's eyes but your own. That is experience.
And kids should be brought up with cricket at the park or the backyard. Obviously way younger than Mimi, I would watch Doug Walters on telly and then go out in the street and flay my Dad to all parts.
If I 'd never seen Doug's bravado and exquisite footwork, I would never have developed my deep affection for the game or the love of hooking big hairy fast bowlers to the fine leg fence and dancing down the pitch to the spinners.
We have laws in Australia that state that all Australian matches must be on free-to-air telly. Wise legislation for the good of the nation. No-one can learn to play a cover-drive or how to bag a slips catch from words alone. The kids learn plenty from watching the telly.
And just to make my point I ask, would a blind man refuse sight if it was offered?
Posted by: nesta | 25 Sep 2007 04:25:15
I'm also with Nesta on this one for all those reasons + the march of the visual over the non-visual. Kids (and plenty older than kids) communicate visually and expect pictures with words. I don't think that's necessarily "dumbing down" just another step from the news as brought by those Victorian newspapers full of tight text to the interwebs of today.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 25 Sep 2007 08:05:33
I suspect that the old-world atmosphere deliberately cultivated by some of the TMS radio commentators resulted in BBCTV deciding that cricket was for oldies, and as we know they've been chasing the yoof audience for some time now, so they decided not to bother spending money on cricket.... Twenty20 is making that decision look particularly stupid.
There's a flourishing league based at my local park and most of the young players are of Asian origin, no doubt their families subscribe to sub-continental TV channels and they're able to watch some of the world's best cricketers in action... lads like these will be the future salvation of English cricket, but what a shame those families don't also get to see some English cricket for the price of their licence fee.
Posted by: Zeph | 25 Sep 2007 10:47:00
The comments to this entry are closed.
