Take Two: John Stern and Stephen Moss Discuss Televised Cricket
English cricket has sold its soul to Sky, says John Stern. That's nonsense, says Stephen Moss, this deal is great for the game.
John Stern is editor of the Wisden Cricketer magazine. Stephen Moss is a Guardian writer and cricket bore.
Dear Stephen,
Wednesday was a sad day for cricket. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) have risked the long-term future of cricket for a short-term financial gain. Channel 4's coverage was exciting and innovative and available to everyone. One highlights package on Five (who watches it anyway?) at a time when most of the country are watching soap operas is scant compensation.
Yours, John
John, hello,
Wednesday was a terrific day for cricket. What a fantastic first day in the Australia v Pakistan Test at Perth. Now, I didn't see a second of that day's play, but I did follow it a bit on Ceefax and could imagine how marvellous it must have been: Sami and Shoaib on that amazingly pacey wicket, with Langer and Gilchrist fighting back.
What does this have to do with the ECB taking Sky's shilling (OK, £200m) you will be asking? Well, cricket (perhaps uniquely) is a game you can enjoy without having seen any of it. I am now fascinated to "see" how this match develops; I can follow it on the internet or Ceefax; I don't need live pictures to be engaged.
The ECB has done a terrific deal: the Sky money secures the future of the game in the UK for the next four years; non-dish owners like me can nip into the pub for those occasional unmissable passages that come around every so often (Headingley 81, Headingley again '91, Old Trafford 98, Lord's 2000); we get guaranteed highlights at 7.15 rather than 1.40am; and we've still got good old Test Match Special on the radio. My dear old thing, cricket is surely a sport best enjoyed sitting in the bath listening to the radio.
Stephen
Stephen,
So now we're encouraging under-age drinking too! Nipping to the pub for those unmissable bits you talk about ought not to be much of an option for those under-18s that the ECB so badly want to attract.
You're right, cricket can be enjoyed without seeing it by those of us with anorak-ish tendencies, but the novelty wears off pretty swiftly for the majority of the population. And if any kids are going to get hooked on it they might at some point like to be able to spot the difference between Fred Flintoff and Fred Flintstone. Listening to Blowers and Aggers on good ol' TMS is not much of a turn-on for the Twenty20 generation.
The ECB haven't secured the future of the game, they've secured a fat wad of cash for the 18 first-class counties which they can spend on the next bunch of South Africans with EU passports who turn up in the Heathrow arrivals hall.
Yours, John
John,
Your argument is based on the bogus premise that youngsters stay in at the height of summer glued to cricket on terrestrial TV. Now, admittedly, I used to do that when I was 12. I would pitch up at 11 in the morning and watch Boycott and Edrich crawl to 44 for no wicket at lunch on the opening morning of a Test. I even enjoyed Jim Laker's interminable silences. I was such an "anorak" that, when it rained, I would sit there watching that little card saying "rain interruption". I got excited by umpires' inspections. I was a sad case.
No self-respecting teenager would do that now. Channel 4's audiences for the Tests were never very high and, privately, they won't be too disappointed to be shot of it. The audience for cricket on TV is overweight middle-aged men happy to sit in front of the TV for eight hours a day. Let them pay the Sky sub. The kids can watch the highlights onFive, go to Twenty20 matches, or better still play some cricket! Rather than fat kids (like me when I was 12) watching, let's get thin kids playing.
Stephen
Stephen,
You talked earlier about those iconic moments (Headingley 81, etc). So kids (and their parents) have got to wait for the highlights, have they? In any households that aren't cricket-daft already they'll all be watching Corrie or EastEnders.
It's not right to say that C4's ratings were never that high. As England's fortunes improved so did the ratings. And they surged during those pivotal moments like Lord's 2000 against the Windies and at various stages last summer when the Tests were at their most exciting. That is the essence of the terrestrial argument - that the casual fan can happen across the cricket during one of those pivotal moments and get hooked. Unless one is already a dedicated sports fan then there's no reason to have Sky Sports.
It seems extraordinary that cricket should give up a terrestrial platform when sports like rugby league have spent years trying to claw one back, and rugby union has returned to the BBC.
John
John,
I accept there are dangers. When I answered your opening email, I was writing very much from the perspective of someone who has spent half a lifetime watching cricket and probably never needs to see another cover drive. I find cricket on TV almost unwatchably dull now; I'd rather see a Surrey League match live than watch cricket on TV. I need to smell the grass, see the clouds.
But what of the 12-year-old? If his father is a cricket lover, he is likely to have access to Sky. If he isn't, we will have to pin our hopes on schools. A big slice of the telly dosh is supposed to go to the grass roots of the game. We - or rather you, in your magazine - have to hold the ECB and the counties to account to make sure that happens. There have to be ways of making sure the money doesn't all go to second-rate South Africans trying (and failing) to turn Northamptonshire into a half-decent county club.
Remember, too, that it's only for four years. If Sky balls it up or there is evidence that the game is suffering, take it back from them. The conditions are unique this time: Channel 4 have lost interest; the pre-Charter-renewal Beeb can't be seen to be chucking pots of money and acres of airtime at what remains a minority sport; and ITV have never seen the point of cricket. That's left the field open to Sky and Five. Let's enjoy the Ashes on Channel 4 next year, grab the Sky money, and see how the land lies in 2009.
Stephen
Stephen,
Watching cricket dull? Cricket - and Test cricket in particular - has never been more exciting. Every team scores at about four runs an over and there are speed merchants and wizard spinners all over the place. Oh, and England aren't bad either. That's why Sky value cricket so highly - or rather they value the exclusivity of this new deal so highly.
The chances of a terrestrial broadcaster ever being interested in cricket again are negligible. Covering cricket for a terrestrial broadcaster is hard, but C4 did a great job, even allowing for them nipping off to the 3.30 at Kempton on a Saturday afternoon. And the thanks they get are cheap shots from the ECB about how you'll never miss a ball on Sky. Why would any terrestrial broadcaster ever stick their neck out again to cover cricket?
Sky have got a monopoly on cricket now and the next time the rights are up for grabs they might not even have to pay as much.
John
John,
You're right about the vibrancy of Test cricket and, indeed, of the current England team. I was simply pointing out that nothing beats being at a match: television diminishes cricket; it literally boxes it in. The real scandal is not the ECB selling the game to Sky, but the £40-plus they charge for the privilege of sitting in a squashed plastic seat to watch a day's Test cricket.
I know you have the best interests of the game at heart. But on this occasion media-rights realpolitik point Sky-wards. The ECB negotiators have got a good deal on prime-time Five highlights (the clashing with Corrie argument is ridiculous - aren't there new-fangled things called videos/DVDs?); it is setting up a scheme whereby county members and cricket clubs can get cut-price Sky subs, so all those 12-year-olds can be rounded up for some early-morning cricket practice and then watch Freddie smash a hundred in the afternoon; and, I say again, it is only for four years. That's a blink of an eye in Test cricket's 130-year history.
Cricket was at the height of its popularity between the wars, when telly was just a figment of John Logie Baird's imagination. Matches were packed out; young lads spent their summers playing the game in fields; Hobbs, Hammond and Larwood were superstars. Neville Cardus, master phrase-maker, called cricket "the background music to an English summer". Background music, not overhyped picture.
Yours, Stephen
Dear Stephen,
Wednesday was a sad day for cricket. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) have risked the long-term future of cricket for a short-term financial gain. Channel 4's coverage was exciting and innovative and available to everyone. One highlights package on Five (who watches it anyway?) at a time when most of the country are watching soap operas is scant compensation.
Yours, John
John, hello,
Wednesday was a terrific day for cricket. What a fantastic first day in the Australia v Pakistan Test at Perth. Now, I didn't see a second of that day's play, but I did follow it a bit on Ceefax and could imagine how marvellous it must have been: Sami and Shoaib on that amazingly pacey wicket, with Langer and Gilchrist fighting back.
What does this have to do with the ECB taking Sky's shilling (OK, £200m) you will be asking? Well, cricket (perhaps uniquely) is a game you can enjoy without having seen any of it. I am now fascinated to "see" how this match develops; I can follow it on the internet or Ceefax; I don't need live pictures to be engaged.
The ECB has done a terrific deal: the Sky money secures the future of the game in the UK for the next four years; non-dish owners like me can nip into the pub for those occasional unmissable passages that come around every so often (Headingley 81, Headingley again '91, Old Trafford 98, Lord's 2000); we get guaranteed highlights at 7.15 rather than 1.40am; and we've still got good old Test Match Special on the radio. My dear old thing, cricket is surely a sport best enjoyed sitting in the bath listening to the radio.
Stephen
Stephen,
So now we're encouraging under-age drinking too! Nipping to the pub for those unmissable bits you talk about ought not to be much of an option for those under-18s that the ECB so badly want to attract.
You're right, cricket can be enjoyed without seeing it by those of us with anorak-ish tendencies, but the novelty wears off pretty swiftly for the majority of the population. And if any kids are going to get hooked on it they might at some point like to be able to spot the difference between Fred Flintoff and Fred Flintstone. Listening to Blowers and Aggers on good ol' TMS is not much of a turn-on for the Twenty20 generation.
The ECB haven't secured the future of the game, they've secured a fat wad of cash for the 18 first-class counties which they can spend on the next bunch of South Africans with EU passports who turn up in the Heathrow arrivals hall.
Yours, John
John,
Your argument is based on the bogus premise that youngsters stay in at the height of summer glued to cricket on terrestrial TV. Now, admittedly, I used to do that when I was 12. I would pitch up at 11 in the morning and watch Boycott and Edrich crawl to 44 for no wicket at lunch on the opening morning of a Test. I even enjoyed Jim Laker's interminable silences. I was such an "anorak" that, when it rained, I would sit there watching that little card saying "rain interruption". I got excited by umpires' inspections. I was a sad case.
No self-respecting teenager would do that now. Channel 4's audiences for the Tests were never very high and, privately, they won't be too disappointed to be shot of it. The audience for cricket on TV is overweight middle-aged men happy to sit in front of the TV for eight hours a day. Let them pay the Sky sub. The kids can watch the highlights onFive, go to Twenty20 matches, or better still play some cricket! Rather than fat kids (like me when I was 12) watching, let's get thin kids playing.
Stephen
Stephen,
You talked earlier about those iconic moments (Headingley 81, etc). So kids (and their parents) have got to wait for the highlights, have they? In any households that aren't cricket-daft already they'll all be watching Corrie or EastEnders.
It's not right to say that C4's ratings were never that high. As England's fortunes improved so did the ratings. And they surged during those pivotal moments like Lord's 2000 against the Windies and at various stages last summer when the Tests were at their most exciting. That is the essence of the terrestrial argument - that the casual fan can happen across the cricket during one of those pivotal moments and get hooked. Unless one is already a dedicated sports fan then there's no reason to have Sky Sports.
It seems extraordinary that cricket should give up a terrestrial platform when sports like rugby league have spent years trying to claw one back, and rugby union has returned to the BBC.
John
John,
I accept there are dangers. When I answered your opening email, I was writing very much from the perspective of someone who has spent half a lifetime watching cricket and probably never needs to see another cover drive. I find cricket on TV almost unwatchably dull now; I'd rather see a Surrey League match live than watch cricket on TV. I need to smell the grass, see the clouds.
But what of the 12-year-old? If his father is a cricket lover, he is likely to have access to Sky. If he isn't, we will have to pin our hopes on schools. A big slice of the telly dosh is supposed to go to the grass roots of the game. We - or rather you, in your magazine - have to hold the ECB and the counties to account to make sure that happens. There have to be ways of making sure the money doesn't all go to second-rate South Africans trying (and failing) to turn Northamptonshire into a half-decent county club.
Remember, too, that it's only for four years. If Sky balls it up or there is evidence that the game is suffering, take it back from them. The conditions are unique this time: Channel 4 have lost interest; the pre-Charter-renewal Beeb can't be seen to be chucking pots of money and acres of airtime at what remains a minority sport; and ITV have never seen the point of cricket. That's left the field open to Sky and Five. Let's enjoy the Ashes on Channel 4 next year, grab the Sky money, and see how the land lies in 2009.
Stephen
Stephen,
Watching cricket dull? Cricket - and Test cricket in particular - has never been more exciting. Every team scores at about four runs an over and there are speed merchants and wizard spinners all over the place. Oh, and England aren't bad either. That's why Sky value cricket so highly - or rather they value the exclusivity of this new deal so highly.
The chances of a terrestrial broadcaster ever being interested in cricket again are negligible. Covering cricket for a terrestrial broadcaster is hard, but C4 did a great job, even allowing for them nipping off to the 3.30 at Kempton on a Saturday afternoon. And the thanks they get are cheap shots from the ECB about how you'll never miss a ball on Sky. Why would any terrestrial broadcaster ever stick their neck out again to cover cricket?
Sky have got a monopoly on cricket now and the next time the rights are up for grabs they might not even have to pay as much.
John
John,
You're right about the vibrancy of Test cricket and, indeed, of the current England team. I was simply pointing out that nothing beats being at a match: television diminishes cricket; it literally boxes it in. The real scandal is not the ECB selling the game to Sky, but the £40-plus they charge for the privilege of sitting in a squashed plastic seat to watch a day's Test cricket.
I know you have the best interests of the game at heart. But on this occasion media-rights realpolitik point Sky-wards. The ECB negotiators have got a good deal on prime-time Five highlights (the clashing with Corrie argument is ridiculous - aren't there new-fangled things called videos/DVDs?); it is setting up a scheme whereby county members and cricket clubs can get cut-price Sky subs, so all those 12-year-olds can be rounded up for some early-morning cricket practice and then watch Freddie smash a hundred in the afternoon; and, I say again, it is only for four years. That's a blink of an eye in Test cricket's 130-year history.
Cricket was at the height of its popularity between the wars, when telly was just a figment of John Logie Baird's imagination. Matches were packed out; young lads spent their summers playing the game in fields; Hobbs, Hammond and Larwood were superstars. Neville Cardus, master phrase-maker, called cricket "the background music to an English summer". Background music, not overhyped picture.
Yours, Stephen
Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.
Use the form below to email this article to your friends.
