Australia got 330!
I have watched bits of it so far and it is nice to see the sunny Caribbean - Sky have got David Gower and mates presenting from a luxury beach apartment by the sea - alright for some!!
I shall start serious watching tomorrow!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Cricket World Cup 2007
- Thread starter Petebass
- Start date
Australia got 330!
I have watched bits of it so far and it is nice to see the sunny Caribbean - Sky have got David Gower and mates presenting from a luxury beach apartment by the sea - alright for some!!
I shall start serious watching tomorrow!
The way we've been defending big totals lately, I'm surprised Scotland didn't make 320 in reply..........Australia got 330!
Because few of us got to watch the '07 ashes beyond highlights in the evening. In 2005 the ashes were shown on regular (free) TV (BBC I think, but it may have been Channel 4) in 2007 Sky owned the rights (thanks to the ECB completely letting the fans down and selling to the highest bidder just when they had a chance to really garner some interest in the sport following the 2005 victory) so only those with subscriptions and satellite TV could watch, and as Bruce said, the matches were in the middle of the night.
Trust me, go to the BBC 606 discussion board and see just how many England fans were talking about how rubbish we are. I think, as a nation, we're pretty good losers (after all, we get lots of practice).
Yes, I don't think it's anything to do with us having a 'weakened' side - that's just Bruce's poor excuse. A real cricket fan supports the team whether the side is full strength or not (we might mock them when we lose, but we were following all the same).
What does make Australia different, and why we all love to have a dig when they lose, is their incredible arrogance before the contest. Before the Ashes started the Aussie press had decided the outcome (on that occasion they were right) but following the first ODI matches they were reporting how England weren't a match and how they needed some real practice because playing England was getting boring because it was too easy...and then the wheels fell off and you lost the ODI tournament. If it hadn't been for all the bragging beforehand it would have simply been a (metaphorical) handshake, a few minutes of celebration and on to the world cup, but because of the arrogance shown by the Australian team (well, mostly the press really...but that's what we all see) we HAD to give you a ribbing and really rub it in. Beating New Zealand was good, it's nice to win - beating Australia made us rub our hands together and jump up and down and sing "it's all gone quiet over there".
Of course that was because all your fans had left
Yeah, I know this is three posts in a row...but WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM!? It was a warm-up, friendly game! No one was there to comment because no one watched it! Again, it was only on sky, and it was a friendly. I'm a cricket fan and I had to wait until I got home from work to even check the result! And then the reaction was "Haha, back to form then!" a wry smile and on with the rest of my evening.
You really should read British press if you think it all goes quiet when we lose. The complete opposite is true - we haven't got enough to say! We're lining up to give our own analysis of what went wrong and what we'd do differently. The forums I was on were chock-full of armchair pundits saying that Monty should have been playing and that's why we were losing. I honestly think you're seeing what you want to see. Or you're just visiting the wrong forums.
Check out the 606 forum on the BBC following and England loss - I guarantee it will be FULL of people giving their verdict on the performance.
But it was a pale shadow of the winning team - virtually none of the bowling attack - Flintoff had been out injured all season and no Captain Vaughan - very little chance of winning a game like that. No point in staying up and losing sleep!
Towards the end of the tour a new side was emerging from the ruins...interest perks up - that's all I was saying!
Ashes 2005 a fair fight (and we won)!
Ashes 2007 a complete mismatch - not worth watching!
I completely forgot about the TV debarcle. Come to think of it I remember the emotional CH4 farewels to Ritchie Benaud etc... it completely slipped my mind. I'll admit that is cricket in Austr was on Pay TV only, it would be much harder to follow since I don't have PAY TV and don't plan on getting it - I watch way too much TV as it is
I don't buy the "middle of the night" excuse. Maybe it something you get accustomed to as an Aussie. Being on the other side of the world means pretty much EVERYTHING is on at a rediculous hour. Sleep deprivation is not an obstacle if the event is big enough, and Ashes contests an World cups definitely fall into that category. If anyting it's an excuse for social get togethers where we all celebrate our lunacy and questionable "sleep Vs sport" priorities
It's not uncommon to turn up to work the next day and find that every male in the office, from the mail boy to the CEO, are all a little heavy in the eyelids and drinking more coffee than usual.As for the Aussie arrogance and Buchannon's comments about "England's poor performances ruining our World Cup preparation", you have no idea how much that split the country. Even if you truley believe it, surely the coach of the Australian team should be smart enough to refrain from comments that might just spur on the opposition! He was probably trying to demoralise England further but as the record shows, he had the opposite effect. He's an idiot and I for one won't be sorry to see him go when his contract expires in a couple of months! Deep down we all knew that Eng had some key players who were simply out of form. And we all know how quickly a form slump can end. Collingwood, Bell, and Flintoff are the key for Eng. If they fire and Vaughn stays fit, Eng will do well!
I have Sky HD - but I still just couldn't stay awake for any of those games. Right at the time of deepest sleep.
But the day/night ODIs were OK as they were just reaching their climax as I got up!
But the day/night ODIs were OK as they were just reaching their climax as I got up!
I don't buy the "middle of the night" excuse. Maybe it something you get accustomed to as an Aussie. Being on the other side of the world means pretty much EVERYTHING is on at a rediculous hour. Sleep deprivation is not an obstacle if the event is big enough, and Ashes contests an World cups definitely fall into that category. If anyting it's an excuse for social get togethers where we all celebrate our lunacy and questionable "sleep Vs sport" priorities
I don't think you're wrong - real cricket fans wouldn't let it being in the middle of the night stop them watching, but the 2005 ashes got the whole nation talking - cricket fans and non-fans alike - because the coverage was on free TV. I think it's that more than anything else that has led to the relative lack of interest in 2007. The ECB totally shot themselves in the foot as far as garnering interest in cricket went. They had a super chance while interest was high and the whole nation was talking about it, and they blew it by selling the rights to Sky...now it's in the domain of only the sports fans who are willing to pay Sky's exorbitant rates.
I don't see Sky's rates as exorbitant - my sister decided to go with NTL (cable) and ended up paying more than me!
Sri Lanka - South Africa - Australia
to name three......
I think really it's anyones right now. Time (and injuries) will tell.
Sorry english - but you guys just don't stand a chance of the reaching the final. (I'm gettin the hang of this arrogance stuff, and it's fun too!
)
I think they made the right decision -
The money the ECB got from Sky was invested directly in the game, whereas providing a second-rate coverage for cheapskates wouldn't necessarily have done anything for the game - no guarantee, anyway!
Also - Sky are prepared to put the money in and invest in good production values, clear their schedules completely for uninterrupted coverage over long periods.
Whereas channels like the BBC or Channel 4 will only ever see Cricket as a minority interest that will be shunted out of the schedules and starved of funding!
In the end it was a no-brainer!
[even those who can't afford to have Sky can go to pubs,clubs and sports bars etc. to watch - win/win!]
I think they made the right decision -
The money the ECB got from Sky was invested directly in the game, whereas providing a second-rate coverage for cheapskates wouldn't necessarily have done anything for the game - no guarantee, anyway!
Also - Sky are prepared to put the money in and invest in good production values, clear their schedules completely for uninterrupted coverage over long periods.
Whereas channels like the BBC or Channel 4 will only ever see Cricket as a minority interest that will be shunted out of the schedules and starved of funding!
In the end it was a no-brainer!
[even those who can't afford to have Sky can go to pubs,clubs and sports bars etc. to watch - win/win!]
That's not a win-win situation at all. When it was on BBC the clubs and pubs could show it for free, and those who didn't want to go could watch at home...all for free. All that they've done by moving to sky is isolate legions of people who had just started to be interested in cricket after the last ashes because they were the sort of people who were just interested enough to watch, but not so interested that they'd buy sky.
And let's get one thing straight - I don't have sky not because I'm a cheapskate, but because I resent paying £42 a month for a couple of quality channels and a deluge of utter crap. I also could not bring myself to support a corporation like Sky. I'm not alone in this. Fortunately i do know websites that are streaming the games for free
If I could buy *just* sky sports for the cricket then I might, but I can't - I have to buy a 12 month contract and it has to contain channels I have no interest in watching. Therein lies the coup.For you it may be a 'no-brainer' but that's because you've repeatedly demonstrated that you find it hard to comprehend other people's opinions.
Well you completely missed the point I was making - which was that it was a no-brainer for the ECB - not me particularly!
So as I said - more cash to invest in cricket, better coverage and the possibility of higher quality analysis.
Whereas - there is little in it for them if a few people who are vaguely interested, get it for free - just means they are less likely to turn up and attend matches!!
[Just off to watch England on Sky - I shall also be watching Live Premiership matches. "Lost" in HD on Sunday - in fact, all my favourite things in the highest quality!
]Well you completely missed the point I was making - which was that it was a no-brainer for the ECB - not me particularly!
So as I said - more cash to invest in cricket, better coverage and the possibility of higher quality analysis.
Whereas - there is little in it for them if a few people who are vaguely interested, get it for free - just means they are less likely to turn up and attend matches!!
[Just off to watch England on Sky - I shall also be watching Live Premiership matches. "Lost" in HD on Sunday - in fact, all my favourite things in the highest quality!
This is exactly my point - I don't want to watch "Lost", I don't want to watch Premiership football, I just want to watch cricket. But no - I can't do that, I would have to buy a package including football and including the Utter American Dross (tm) that is Sky1...and I don't want that, that's not choice, that's a monopoly. Sky have more and more tightly packaged their 'product' so that you end up with a whole lot of stuff you don't want just to get the stuff you do. If this was the football world cup it wouldn't be allowed to be on Sky only. The same should be true of cricket, but we were let down on two fronts: by the government removing, in this case, the Ashes, from the list of protected sports events; and by the ECB for selling out.
You say that the amount of money generated by Sky's bid is good for the game; I think better for the game is getting young people interested in the first place so they decide to play cricket. To use that phrase loved by pundits, we need more encouragement at grass-roots level. There's no point pumping hundreds of thousands into the professional game if there are no young people watching it and deciding to play. On sky they will watch it if they're interested; on the BBC or C4 they might just come across it by chance and watch out of curiousity. Sky is killing the game. I know you won't see it that way, you're a capitalist.
I agree 100%. It would be interesting to get more detail on Sky's idea of "investing in the game". More corporate boxes probably, or something just as useless that makes them more money but does nothing whatsoever to bring the game to a wider audience........
If you want to see what happens to a team when grass-roots development isn't given priority, look at Australia in the 80's or the Windies in the 90's. Not good.
That was a wasted day off work! I wonder if you watched the whole game, or did you change the channel when you realised Eng weren't going to win - that would be arrogantI'm looking forward to the first game against New Zealand, even more now - after they slumped to defeat against Bangladesh and England bowled well in their warm-up!
I am having the day off work and shall watch every minute on Sky TV!
I'm looking forward to the first game against New Zealand, even more now - after they slumped to defeat against Bangladesh and England bowled well in their warm-up!
I am having the day off work and shall watch every minute on Sky TV!
Excellent game I thought.
I didn't see it (see previous posts about Sky for why) but it seemed to be a typical middle order collapse
Very frustrating, just not enough runs on the board. Now the Kenya match is even more important and they're not a side to be underestimated - if England don't play their best and Kenya do, it could be a very tight thing.On another front, nice to see Bangladesh beating India. If the lower test-playing nations are doing well it can only be good for the game.
Also also, I see Ireland look set to beat Pakistan, assuming the rain disappears fairly shortly.
Never underestimate an Irishman on St Patrick's day
They even managed a Tie with Zimbabwe in their previous game. Could Ireland be the dark horses of this tournamant? Pakistan are finished!
How about Herschell Gibbs hitting 6 x 6's in an over! The funny thing about that is the 6th ball was a long-hop. I'm struggling with the bowler's psychology:
"OK he's hit me for 5 sixes in 5 balls so far. What can I do to reel him in on the 6th ball? OK I'm not allowed to bowl under-arm thanks to that Trevor Chappell idiot, so maybe I should put it short - but not short enough or fast enough to be a bouncer. That'll fool him! And if it's a little wide, I might beat him with width......"
