The real issue I have with England ODI and, latterly, T20 selection is the insistence on ‘specialists’ who aren’t really good enough, but are more short-form oriented. The most successful ODI teams have always looked pretty similar to their corresponding Test teams. The reality is that not many batsmen have the ability to dominate the likes of Steyn or Lee or Akmal, for that matter. Atherton was a very good ODI player, but he was nearly always overlooked in favour of Ali Brown, who never scored more than 8.

Quality Test batsmen have the ability to adjust their game to the short form – think of Waugh, Chanderpaul, Kallis, et al, all of whom batted pretty slowly in Tests, all of whom have very impressive ODI records – and then think of the likes of Fleming, Brown, Solanki, and the endless list of third-raters we’ve picked because they were the right sort of player.

cricketloverz
Cicket World

That said, a coverage-sharing deal is exactly what the BBC and Sky have agreed for Formula One from this year onwards – it’ll be interesting to see how it works out and is received by F1 fans. If it does prove acceptable to the majority, maybe it’ll be a model worth following.

I wasn’t trying to sing the praises, or the personal merits, of the people who run pirate sites. But whether they are are a force for good or is irrelevant: these sites are almost certainly here to stay, because people will always want to watch cricket for free. And why should anyone feel guilty about that when the sport is only available on premium channels. 

My essential point is the irony of Giles Clarke complaining about something which was the entirely predictable consequence of his policy – and the fact he cares far more about Sky’s feelings than the public’s.

I didn’t blame Rupert Murdoch. Sky don’t make the regulatory decisions, and as a business they are entitled to do what they wish to make a profit. The ECB are not a business. They are supposed to represent the entire cricket community of England and Wales. Why did they lobby so hard to keep the Ashes a de-listed event? Would one free series every four years really hurt?

My solution would be to share the coverage. For example, Sky could have five tests a year, and all the ODIs, and the BBC two. That would not be too unpalatable for the deal-makers, but still give people at least some access to cricket on TV.

I don’t want to duplicate these comments, so I’ll only further the sentiment that restricting your fan base deliberately by limiting the exposure of the public – particularly the young – to your sport in favour of a smaller, wealthier, and crucially older ‘elite’ audience (who are, almost by definition, already die-hard supporters) is virtually a text book example of sacrificing long-term sustainability for short-term profit, and can only contribute to a (potentially terminal) decline.

What’s more, my life-long love of cricket was heavily influenced by a childhood watching the likes of Gower, Botham, Richards, and Hadlee in full-flow, not by reading a dry report on Cricinfo. The great moments of cricket were made great by being witnessed and shared.

(an interesting post-script on the point of live coverage being on when people are at work or asleep – the live audience figures for the 2005 Ashes series ranged between 2.5 and a little over 8 million people. The viewing figures for cricket on Sky rarely get about 250,000)

As for comparing watching illegal streams with breaking into curries and nicking televisions, I think we may have found the winner of the worst analogy of 2012 – and its only February! I take it you deplore YouTube, and equate watching it with breaking into George Lucas’s house and kidnapping his children.

As for saying ‘well, we are all at work during test matches, so all we need is a few highlights’, what about children during school holidays? They’re the future of the game. And what about weekends? Or people who don’t work? Some cricket should certainly be free to air.

The writer likes a pop at Murdoch, but who doesn’t? Few tycoons and few governments have done anything for cricket, and the role of sky in English sport (broadly speaking) is very contentious. It has done a service to some sports, but others have suffered. Football, for example, has suffered greatly from sky. They’ve created an uncompetitive league that only the very richest can win. They’ve inspired a generation of foreign mercenaries to come to these shores, and they’ve priced footballs traditional fan base out of the market (i.e. the working class).

There was a time when cricket was the national game. Now its position as a minority sport is pretty much entrenched. It really doesn’t help that access to live games is restricted to people who can afford sky. When was crickets greatest moment in recent times? A time when cricket became front page news for the right reasons? It was 2005. When cricket was last free to air. If only more people could’ve watched our subsequent rise to world test No.1? English cricket stars, in the main, are accessible and personable. Maybe cricket could have become a true national sport again?

Clarke and the ECB have decided to take the safe route by taking skys cash. Where’s their sense of romance and adventure? Cricket will remain a financially secure minority sport forever more if the status quo persists. If you’re happy with that, fine. Sky do after all do a good job. But what if …. There’s definitely a debate to be had.

I agree that there has to be some middle ground, and think ensuring highlights of all England’s games (home and away; Tests, ODIs and T20) are on free-to-air TV would be enough to satisfy most people. Who broadcasts ball-by-ball TV coverage isn’t actually that important, as the majority of time it’s on, people are at work or (for many away series) asleep: TMS and the radio or Cricinfo is enough to keep them up to date.