England news January 26, 2012

Giles Clarke warns against internet piracy

ESPNcricinfo staff
124

Giles Clarke, the chairman of the ECB, has revealed that as many as 700 unauthorised websites providing illegal streams of cricket matches have been closed down, and has warned that they are "the biggest danger" facing the game.

Clarke made his remarks on Test Match Special after the ECB confirmed a new six-year deal with the BBC to provide live radio coverage of England's home internationals. The agreement, which covers all forms of the game, will run from 2014 until 2019.

The ECB is also thought to be close to agreeing a new television contract with Sky. The current £300 million, four-year deal expires at the end of 2013 and it is regarded within the ECB as essential to the survival of the 18-county professional circuit.

Clarke said he was concerned by unauthorised websites providing illegal streams not only because they undermined rights deals but also on the grounds that they affected the fight against corrupt betting activities.

"We all have to be very vigilant," he said. "There are a huge number of pirate websites streaming cricket on the internet taken from television broadcasts. We and our broadcasters closed down 700 during last summer's series against India. It's an extremely complex procedure, but it can be done and it has to be done.

"That is the biggest danger to cricket, because they take money out of the game without commercial benefit to us. They are being used by the bookmakers as well. The problem of pirate-site streaming is very big for sport."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • StevieS on January 29, 2012, 9:28 GMT

    And Mr Clarke how can I watch international cricket if I live in a coutry that doesn't show it? Like the MPAA and the RIAA you need to evolve or your business model will die. No longer do TV networks dictate what we can and can't watch and they never will again. Get it?

  • Kolpak1989 on January 29, 2012, 4:06 GMT

    I watch cricket from online streams sometimes. Because there is no other way that I would get to see those games. Create a legal online stream of international test matches and I will watch it.

  • Vincent49 on January 28, 2012, 23:11 GMT

    Gile Clarke comments remind me of metallica and the napster incident in 2000.

  • AqeelAsghar on January 28, 2012, 16:10 GMT

    capital world! who gives a damn abt poor man's happiness!

  • on January 28, 2012, 12:34 GMT

    Clarke,Mate there are no channels here in Greece for cricket so we have to go for the internet. just because you loose money it does wonders for the game. Do you understand not only for people like us who can't reach any of the channels but also people who cant afford to pay for it get a chance that's the truth. Cricket's dying because its not the most exiting game on earth, if u shut live streaming sites we will just shut cricket mate. Soccer is the Most popular,exiting and the most played on earth and i can assure you its not hard to switch. And all soccer matches are being broadcasted here free of charge. In the near future we would say stuff Cricket and stuff you, you can have the cake and eat it your self. cheerzz!!

  • on January 28, 2012, 10:17 GMT

    You should be encouraged by the fact that people go to such lengths just to be able to watch cricket. It means your sport is popular.

    My experience is that most people only stream the cricket when they have no legitimate way to watch it. E.g. when you're at work or if you're in a country where there's little or no cricket on TV.

    This all means that there is a huge market for your product that you're not tapping at all.

    Start streaming cricket legally world wide so that people can watch games at any time and at any place. If you can't get enough ad revenue for this, charge a nominal fee in the big markets - say in the test playing nations. In the rest of the world, keep it free.

    Instead of fiercely defending your little corner of the world, expand the market. It will be good for the game if cricket AND it

  • johnathonjosephs on January 28, 2012, 6:18 GMT

    Biggest danger to cricket is idiots like these who try to get every penny they can from cricket. For a second, I saw "Clarke warns against internet piracy" and I thought they were referring to Michael Clarke, but I realized that the only people who would try to destroy cricket like this are the rich spokesman to Willow and SkySports

  • Nadeem1976 on January 28, 2012, 5:19 GMT

    Wow man, first of all ICC makes all batting friendly wickets and don't allow a great test match to be seen and now they want every body to pay big bucks to watch boring test cricket.

    Test is that boring it should be broadcast free on line through out the world like Bangladesh series on ESPN3.

    T2020 and ODI should be shown on paid tv not test cricket.

    I am not going to pay 25$ to watch a test match and wasting my money. I did that watching WC SF between pakistan and india and it was worth it.

    Test match please do not try to earn my ICC, it's dying product, promote it free.

  • johnathonjosephs on January 28, 2012, 5:11 GMT

    Only 24 hour channels suffer from this and they constitute a very small percentage of the ICC revenue compared to other free local channels. In short, Sky Sports and their spokesman Giles Clarke can go to hell

  • johnathonjosephs on January 28, 2012, 5:09 GMT

    Looking back at this article, it is very very biased. Almost all news stations/tv stations give free cricket in countries in subcontinent. The only countries where you have to pay for cricket are the European/America countries. Meaning that the only TV channels that lose revenue from this is Sky Sports/WillowCricket. Ridiculous really since they are both English based. Furthermore, this is the Internet we are talking about. It is impossible to cut out every single stream. you can cut down on the streams, but internet users will always find a way

  • StevieS on January 29, 2012, 9:28 GMT

    And Mr Clarke how can I watch international cricket if I live in a coutry that doesn't show it? Like the MPAA and the RIAA you need to evolve or your business model will die. No longer do TV networks dictate what we can and can't watch and they never will again. Get it?

  • Kolpak1989 on January 29, 2012, 4:06 GMT

    I watch cricket from online streams sometimes. Because there is no other way that I would get to see those games. Create a legal online stream of international test matches and I will watch it.

  • Vincent49 on January 28, 2012, 23:11 GMT

    Gile Clarke comments remind me of metallica and the napster incident in 2000.

  • AqeelAsghar on January 28, 2012, 16:10 GMT

    capital world! who gives a damn abt poor man's happiness!

  • on January 28, 2012, 12:34 GMT

    Clarke,Mate there are no channels here in Greece for cricket so we have to go for the internet. just because you loose money it does wonders for the game. Do you understand not only for people like us who can't reach any of the channels but also people who cant afford to pay for it get a chance that's the truth. Cricket's dying because its not the most exiting game on earth, if u shut live streaming sites we will just shut cricket mate. Soccer is the Most popular,exiting and the most played on earth and i can assure you its not hard to switch. And all soccer matches are being broadcasted here free of charge. In the near future we would say stuff Cricket and stuff you, you can have the cake and eat it your self. cheerzz!!

  • on January 28, 2012, 10:17 GMT

    You should be encouraged by the fact that people go to such lengths just to be able to watch cricket. It means your sport is popular.

    My experience is that most people only stream the cricket when they have no legitimate way to watch it. E.g. when you're at work or if you're in a country where there's little or no cricket on TV.

    This all means that there is a huge market for your product that you're not tapping at all.

    Start streaming cricket legally world wide so that people can watch games at any time and at any place. If you can't get enough ad revenue for this, charge a nominal fee in the big markets - say in the test playing nations. In the rest of the world, keep it free.

    Instead of fiercely defending your little corner of the world, expand the market. It will be good for the game if cricket AND it

  • johnathonjosephs on January 28, 2012, 6:18 GMT

    Biggest danger to cricket is idiots like these who try to get every penny they can from cricket. For a second, I saw "Clarke warns against internet piracy" and I thought they were referring to Michael Clarke, but I realized that the only people who would try to destroy cricket like this are the rich spokesman to Willow and SkySports

  • Nadeem1976 on January 28, 2012, 5:19 GMT

    Wow man, first of all ICC makes all batting friendly wickets and don't allow a great test match to be seen and now they want every body to pay big bucks to watch boring test cricket.

    Test is that boring it should be broadcast free on line through out the world like Bangladesh series on ESPN3.

    T2020 and ODI should be shown on paid tv not test cricket.

    I am not going to pay 25$ to watch a test match and wasting my money. I did that watching WC SF between pakistan and india and it was worth it.

    Test match please do not try to earn my ICC, it's dying product, promote it free.

  • johnathonjosephs on January 28, 2012, 5:11 GMT

    Only 24 hour channels suffer from this and they constitute a very small percentage of the ICC revenue compared to other free local channels. In short, Sky Sports and their spokesman Giles Clarke can go to hell

  • johnathonjosephs on January 28, 2012, 5:09 GMT

    Looking back at this article, it is very very biased. Almost all news stations/tv stations give free cricket in countries in subcontinent. The only countries where you have to pay for cricket are the European/America countries. Meaning that the only TV channels that lose revenue from this is Sky Sports/WillowCricket. Ridiculous really since they are both English based. Furthermore, this is the Internet we are talking about. It is impossible to cut out every single stream. you can cut down on the streams, but internet users will always find a way

  • johnathonjosephs on January 28, 2012, 5:04 GMT

    This is actually not a problem at all and is purely presumption. Yes, in theory, the ICC should be losing tv viewers to streams and thus losing a big chunk of money, but it is not reality. Anybody who watches streaming knows that the quality is very bad. Even with a good computer and stellar internet, the sound is below quality, the video lags, and advertisements pop up every 2 minutes (especially annoying when they pop up right before the ball is being bowled). I have willow cricket (whopping $20 per month) and it only shows matches in England/SA/Aus/NZ. Therefore, if a match is happening in another country, I resort to streaming, which I do not enjoy as much as watching on my tv. The companies lose very little money from this. Take the movie industry for example. They claim that illegal downloads of movies steal money, but if you look at the facts, the movie industries revenue is ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME as it was 20 years ago (actually higher than before with 3D theatres now).

  • Kal_3L on January 28, 2012, 3:36 GMT

    Mr. Clarke is right.....Piracy IS the biggest Danger! Now that we've successfully established that Pakistan players were not the only ones with Match/Spot Fixing, but before an English County player was brought to Justice, for Mr. Clarke the biggest THREAT/DANGER to cricket was Spot Fixing! I love it of how quickly they forget of what they preach, and decide that its best to "MOVE FORWARD" from that incident, but when it was for the Pakistani Players....they made sure it was all over Cricketing news, even 10 months after this first broke out! Good Job ENGLAND, way to be freakin' Hypocrites!

  • LillianThomson on January 28, 2012, 3:25 GMT

    Giles Clarke would have a point if only international cricket was legally available. Last week's Pakistan v England Test wasn't available live on TV here in Australia - the best v third best current sides! And there's no legal radio or internet radio coverage at all here. If the ICC wishes to stop internet streaming then it should hold the rights to all Test cricket itself, and ensure that TV stations in every Test nation show each game live. Until that point, many honest followers will resort to internet streams not to save money but to access the games at all. Why can't ICC just stream games themselves to territories without live coverage, and charge viewers?

  • fanonfire on January 28, 2012, 2:52 GMT

    so they dont want poor people to watch cricket. if you want to watch cricket on sky it can cost you upto 300 pounds a year which is considerable sum of money for a poor man. so if he is a cricket lover what he is gonnaa do.

  • Fatman on January 28, 2012, 2:36 GMT

    He should be one to talk about illegal sites killing game. I seem to remember not so long ago he and his buddy Allan Stanford doing dodgy deals.

  • Rezaul on January 28, 2012, 2:33 GMT

    utter nonsense statement from a top official. I think this kind of disconnected officials are the biggest threat to the cricket as they are so isolated from audience that they dont understand their needs.

  • on January 28, 2012, 1:32 GMT

    I'm a massive cricket fan, and would happily pay to watch it at home if pay TV (via Sky) in my country (New Zealand) wasn't exorbitantly overpriced. Just like record companies need to embrace the internet and think of ways to creatively and commercially utilise it, so too do sports administrators. Get with the times folks.

  • Ross_Co on January 27, 2012, 23:08 GMT

    What an insight into the skewered priorities of the modern cricket administrator. Stomach turning.

  • oopsswindon on January 27, 2012, 22:39 GMT

    Biggest problem for cricket is not free steaming. Biggest problem for cricket are people like Clark who have bigger salary then their brain. People like Clark don't care about cricket but only care about money. Such a shame

  • on January 27, 2012, 22:36 GMT

    At a time when media sharing is ruling the world, with comments like it shows how disconnected cricket is. Giles, you can never stop internet sharing.Wake up to the new world and find new ways of commercializing cricket.

  • on January 27, 2012, 21:28 GMT

    What should the cricket lovers do who don't have access to TV in remote areas ??? I guess there are a lot of greedy people or "Protectionists" !!!!

  • jeaphy123 on January 27, 2012, 21:19 GMT

    I doubt he has the power to close down all sites...sky in the UK is overpriced as I expect is most pay for view providers. He is probably getting back-handers from these companies who know they are losing money, so I hope piracy goes on because not everyone can afford to pay to watch cricket on TV to line the pockets of individuals who are already rich - Murdoch, The Tata brothers, etc

  • on January 27, 2012, 21:18 GMT

    haha biggest danger?? they should be thankful these people are still watching at all!!! their is no live cricket in uk on free to air tv!!

  • on January 27, 2012, 20:49 GMT

    It's only a danger for these sky muggers who want money for everything !!! Round the world you get all sports channels on the tv for 1 small fee !!!! And how does this put cricket in danger !!! Stupid comment

  • on January 27, 2012, 20:43 GMT

    Utter Non-sense...Sir u seriously need to re-think about it..

  • aliisme on January 27, 2012, 20:11 GMT

    what a whole load of rubbish.what world does he live in.it it end of the day about the the greed of some people sitting at the top of the table,that deprives genuine fans to watch cricket.in ABU DHABI it was free entry so there were fans who came in to watch test cricket,otherwise it would have been like what stuart broad said, " i could hear bumble commenting and had to ask the umpires to turn the volume down" no body objects advertisements.what clarke has said is absolutely lame.AND HOW ON EARTH DOES FREE WEBSITES LEAD TO ILLEGAL BETTING,I SUPPOSE HE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY SO HE DECIDED TO ADD THIS TO ADD SOME SPICE TO THE UNCOOKED TASTELESS SPEECH OF HIS.clarke needs to STFU.

  • nav1181 on January 27, 2012, 20:09 GMT

    i watch streams, so what if sky lose revenue

  • Nish8738 on January 27, 2012, 19:56 GMT

    @keekarsingh HAHAHA i agree with you man. i do the same exact thing and i live in CA too. if it wasn't for online sites i woudn't be watching cricket right now.

  • shahidmahmood on January 27, 2012, 19:38 GMT

    The biggest problem is that people like Giles Clarke want cricket to be a commercial money making machine. A cable TV provider in Canada charges $99 for IPL! $99 for a domestic tournament? I can't imagine what they will rob - I mean charge - for the world cup. Seriously, force people to a) empty their wallets on cricket, b) quit watching cricket?! What should be illegal is the rates cable providers charge for cricket.

  • DesiCricketfan on January 27, 2012, 19:29 GMT

    HAHAHAHAAHAH... what in the world this guy wants? We are in USA and there are two companies that have separate rights for different games, We need to have both the companies to watch cricket and pay atleast $200 a month. But still during the world cup all the games were on PPV and the cost was $250.00. guess what we did not pay because of the cost. Now we have an option to watch free stream' and this guys want us to pay these companies. WAKE HIM UP...KNOCK KNOCK...

  • Derek_Haines on January 27, 2012, 19:18 GMT

    And if there was any further proof necessary that one does not need a long neck to be a proper goose. Clearly the holy dollar is still more important than cricket fans. So take away our ability to be fans and where does the money come from then?

    Typical attitude of the closed minded cricket administrators who are doing their best to kill my most treasured of sports. So thank you to this gentleman for taking away my only access to cricket here in Switzerland.

  • Baundele on January 27, 2012, 19:10 GMT

    Cricket's biggest threat is its incompetent administrators. They want to suck every penny out of it, without expanding the sport itself.

  • on January 27, 2012, 18:29 GMT

    It's all about money isn't it? Because if we watch cricket online and not purchase to watch cricket from you, you're loosing money, isn't that right? Usually for the government and corporations like yourself, it's all about money. The fact that I travel around places gives me the option to watch cricket on my laptop with no cost, and as being a student, I don't think I will be able to afford around $100 to watch cricket. But I have the passion to watch cricket. And I promise you, you will never take that away. I enjoy watching both test cricket and other versions of cricket and I think more of my friends have started to get interested in watching test cricket. So with your attitude, the cricket will never spread around the world. But if ever, something stops me to watch cricket like yourself, I will still not buy to watch cricket from you. I would rather check the score and be happy my team is winning. And I don't think people will ever support you in this, so good luck.

  • on January 27, 2012, 18:16 GMT

    I refuse to contribute to Wayne Rooney's disgustingly over inflated salary by subscribing to Sky. Prices and accessibility have made cricket (and rugby) test match tickets almost unattainable. Cricket is no longer shown on terrestrial TV. Kids get hooked by WATCHING the game. Our village cricket scene is dying a slow death because there are fewer and fewer kids coming through to adult cricket, and I blame one thing - the cessation of free terrestrial TV coverage. We don't even get a highlights package anymore, which was an acceptable poor man's compromise. The ECB is busy strangling its future in a frenzy of greed. There is no point in having a richly sponsored ECB this year if the game dies a death in 10 years time because no one plays (or watches) the game any longer. The only spectators left will be Giles and his gin-swilling buddies in the MCC members' stand at Lords. The link to illicit gambling is simply ridiculous and shows how desperate he is to justify his strategic blunder.

  • Dhoni100 on January 27, 2012, 17:48 GMT

    If the ECB and Giles Clarke weren't so obsessed with money and money alone, cricket would be on terrestrial TV, and we wouldn't have this problem in England. Please don't blame the English public for your financial problems/ineptitude/uselessness. The biggest danger to cricket is simple-minded money-loving bureaucrats who can't see past the short term gains of a little extra cash.

  • elsmallo on January 27, 2012, 17:28 GMT

    I don't want to pay Mr Murdoch any of my money. I would be perfectly happy to pay for a legal streaming service provided by the ECB, ICC or other organization, if they had the initiative to offer one. Having said that, the exposure to subcontinent adverts has been enlightening while watching the recent cricket coverage. In particular, the iBall wotsit, where the presenter sits next to a massive red banner, and every highlight subcategory is sponsored by a different company. Particularly funny when Wasim in the analyist's chair was bemoaning how youngsters have too many gadgets to distract them from cricket, and the red banner was proudly advertising all the different gadgets. Ooops. Another favourite is the complete 12-day man pill, where the guy goes from bent double to upright in ten pictures and then a cheesy geezer with a moustache pops out of nowhere, points up at the camera and says 'are you ready for the challenge?' It's a pill for pete's sake! I WANT THAT PILL!

  • SpartaArmy on January 27, 2012, 16:51 GMT

    he is a fool to say that. People wont buy dishes to watch this obsolete game. If they restrict online streaming, its kind of judgement day for cricket.

  • Romenevans on January 27, 2012, 16:49 GMT

    ROFLMAO! and who watch those streams? We are so bored of tis game called cricket, that we don't even watch it on TV, forget about watching on a website LOL. What a joke. Oh wait, i do stream football matches :P

  • Fatman on January 27, 2012, 16:41 GMT

    Haha, he didnt think before speaking. Streaming sites tend to be 2 or 3 balls behind the live action. Are people gonna bet on something that happened in the past!!! Also im not aware of any highlights on terrestial tv for this series.

  • on January 27, 2012, 16:30 GMT

    nonsense by ECB chairman. If its so bad, ecb should make the live stream available to the whole world. All boards should set up websites to show the matches taking place by their media on internet, tv is not always available to everybody

  • on January 27, 2012, 16:15 GMT

    If Willow TV didn't charge arm and a leg here in the USA I would buy it from them but around $200 for Australia - India series does not fit my budget. That is three times more than my monthly cable bill for just one series. TOOO much.

  • gloves71 on January 27, 2012, 15:53 GMT

    If you want to stop piracy, in Europe at least, then OFFER LIVE CRICKET STREAMS!!!!!! I live in Germany and it is IMPOSSIBLE to watch cricket EXCEPT through a very expensive and (actually) illegal SKY connection or Internet stream. It is not a question of money - it is simply impossible to watch. I would happily pay - but no one offers the service. There is no cricket on terrestrial or Sky TV in Germany - there isn't even a pay service for Test cricket outside of England. So instead of moaning about the pirates - start getting innovative (as they have) and start offering a service. I've been complaining about this for nearly ten years and still nothing has changed. The only legal cricket we can watch here is IPL - START COMPETING YOU FOOLS!!!

  • zoot on January 27, 2012, 15:45 GMT

    Giles Clarke is just being a mouthpiece for Sky. of course they want a monopoly or a near monopoly as it will force more fans to subscribe to Sky. However I don't think this is good for cricket.

  • on January 27, 2012, 15:38 GMT

    Giles Clark just wants the privileged of privileged to watch cricket in world this will be step that will not allow cricket to spread in the world who will pay to watch cricket on internet on learn from BCCI who put live free streaming on internet in fact all boards should do it it looks like Giles Clark is only concerned about making money

  • on January 27, 2012, 15:30 GMT

    I live in the US and apart from the fact that the BBC doesn't even let me see simple clips on its sports pages the only way I can get to see any cricket is though a (illegal?) stream and then it is difficult to find and keep. I used to listen to TMS but that is now blocked. It is a terribly myopic view of the world these days.

  • barrassd on January 27, 2012, 15:28 GMT

    I'm an England fan in the UK. Over the last 4 years the only cricket I've been able to watch live is IPL. Madness, shear madness! The sooner Giles Clarke follows his illustrious predecessors, the dinosaurs, the better

  • Tom_Bowler on January 27, 2012, 15:24 GMT

    If the ECB had sold domestic cricket rights to a free to air channel and had an advertising supported live stream on its website for non-UK viewers then pirate streams showing England matches simply would not exist. Of course domestic rights have been sold to Sky so the loss making counties can be supported by the national team which also effectively rules out live streaming as domestic viewers would use overseas VPNs or proxies to avoid subscribing to Sky. Giles Clarke is a long way from being the biggest buffoon ever to chair the ECB but this is a problem of his organisation's own making.

  • Morfi on January 27, 2012, 15:14 GMT

    @Matthew Brealey - Spot on mate! By blocking the streams they will ruin whatever viewership there is - you cant get cricket on freeview and Sky is too darned expensive for everyone. Sky sports though with brilliant quality and coverage, is monopolizing cricket coverage and that is NOT good for cricket - only for money-hungry Clarketypes...

  • SannuG on January 27, 2012, 15:12 GMT

    I live in France and only way available to watch cricket is streaming. As others have suggested, they could follow BCCI or they can sell rights to YouTube/DailyMotion!

  • yorkshirematt on January 27, 2012, 15:04 GMT

    English cricket, like football, has sold its soul to the Murdoch empire. And this now from Clarke is absolute tosh.

  • on January 27, 2012, 13:58 GMT

    The biggest danger to cricket is muppet administrators who aren't in touch with the fans, and insist of over-scheduling, 20 match ODI-ous series with no purpose and trying to keep cricket in the twentieth century because they were comfortable there. Massive TV deals do not benefit anyone particularly more than normal sponsorship models, but limit competitive trade. It should be open in each country and make the broadcasters vie against each other to drive tv channel prices down. Internet tv will kill this ridiculous greed mongering, no matter what they try to do to streaming... Get rid of old style blazer and tie boards, get rid of tv monopolies, get rid of ODI cricket all together, open up international T20 to all cricketing nations on an equal basis to make it more like football, and preserve test cricket as a 'special occasion' rather than trying to exploit money out of it.

  • on January 27, 2012, 13:57 GMT

    Biggest danger facing the game? Is this man truly mad?. He clearly has no idea what threatens the sport. It's his cronies messing about with formats and schedules that ruin the game. It's his obsession with money that kills support. Does he think that all cricket fans are made of money? The fact that there are so many illegal streams out there tell you that the sport is too expensive to watch either on tv or in the ground. Wake up Clarke you fool - listen to the supporters, not the banks and the BCCI!

  • on January 27, 2012, 13:54 GMT

    The biggest danger to cricket is muppet administrators who aren't in touch with the fans, and insist of over-scheduling, 20 match ODI-ous series with no purpose and trying to keep cricket in the twentieth century because they were comfortable there. Massive TV deals do not benefit anyone particularly more than normal sponsorship models, but limit competitive trade. It should be open in each country and make the broadcasters vie against each other to drive tv channel prices down. Internet tv will kill this ridiculous greed mongering, no matter what they try to do to streaming... Get rid of old style blazer and tie boards, get rid of tv monopolies, get rid of ODI cricket all together, open up international T20 to all cricketing nations on an equal basis to make it more like football, and preserve test cricket as a 'special occasion' rather than trying to exploit money out of it.

  • on January 27, 2012, 13:25 GMT

    LMAO you can't do it dude , just give up,internet is soo bigger than you think ..!

  • NickNookie on January 27, 2012, 13:23 GMT

    Dear Giles, I have been very disappointed not to be able to follow the current test series v Pakistan. This is due to the fact that recent health and financial difficulties have meant that I can no longer afford the exorbitant Sky sports charges which pay your exorbitant wages. I had no idea that internet streaming of such matches was so widespread and efficient, thankyou for alerting me to its existence!

  • on January 27, 2012, 13:20 GMT

    the fact is that Sky in the UK is so expensive, that people dont want to pay that much to watch cricket. what is surprising is that though u will get football on bbc and other free channels, only sky dishes out cricket and thats y people cant watch it that much and the game's popularity is going down

  • on January 27, 2012, 12:37 GMT

    Absolute nonsense, I have never and will never pay for Sky TV, but even if I did, these grainy low-quality streaming sites are no match for Sky HD, it's more akin to saying that because you can listen to TMS people won't pay to watch Sky.

    I've got one of the streaming sites open now, but the sound is muted, I'll check it when a wicket falls though.

    And how on earth does having streaming cricket cause betting fraud?

  • StoneRose on January 27, 2012, 12:29 GMT

    The biggest danger facing the English game is accepting the Morgan Review, not internet streaming.

  • 9ST9 on January 27, 2012, 12:10 GMT

    Cricket is not football, the game needs to pull in more fans and blocking out fans is a very dumb way of doing it. Here the BCCI deserves applause for having free web casts of all India home internationals as well as the IPL , so people don't throng illegal web sites, they watch it from the BCCI site and it gives them a great chance to have advertisements. Clarke is still living in the stone age.

  • on January 27, 2012, 12:09 GMT

    Sorry mr Clarke. If it werent fro streaming the number of people who watch cricket and particiate in the sport would be a lot smaller. There are only 8 nations were you can expect cricket to be shown on the tv, and the rest if they want to watch cricket they need streams , simple as.

  • ShanTheFanOfSachin on January 27, 2012, 10:27 GMT

    Cricket is not like football which can be watched legally in most of the countries. So do you want to lose those fans?. Why not ECB or anyone take a leaf out of BCCI's book(for a good reason)??. All recent home matches were streamed live by BCCI for all viewers outside India (5 minutes delay in India).. I did not search forany illegal streams as I was getting a legal one and I wouldn't mind watching any ads in between..

    In football you have an option to watch it legally(though its ridiculously priced) anywhere in the world. But cricket, you either live in certain countries or you can't watch them at all. This is stupid and I will encourage all illegal streamers as long as I don't have a legal way to watch it.

  • WillPash on January 27, 2012, 10:20 GMT

    Cricket authorities showing and promoting what they have always believed in - Elitism. When the soccer and rugby world cups are freely available, Cricket world cup is only on Sky TV. The problem is that Sky has TOTAL monopoly of all cricket in the UK; even if ESPN had matches, I wouldn't mind that. When the UK courts stopped Sky's monopoly of the EPL, and allowed other broadcasters to have matches; a line was drawn within football. Why don't they do the same with cricket. I admit Sky have done a great job over the years, but it isn't available to the whole nation, keeping it to a privileged few. Those days of cricket being england's no2 sport may be under threat in a few decades if things go on at this rate. The general English public are unaware how England play in the summer.

    Like Boycs mentioned on this weeks podcast, Cricket in England is run by pure greed. Maybe that's the biggest problem facing cricket - Greed and keeping the game to the few.

  • wrenx on January 27, 2012, 10:07 GMT

    Careless and myopic comments, as we have come to expect from the ECB. The association between online streaming and illegal betting is particularly irresponsible. For a game dying a slow death, it's good to see the dinosauric level of thought that seeks to alienate the people who actually WANT to watch the game. What does cricinfo make of this? Plenty of the editors/contributors indicate in their articles that they have viewed illegal streams (thinking especially of an article from a female contributor on India's WC final win.) Maybe the ECB ought to think about making the game more accessible and affordable, instead of always taking the elitist high-road. Top work, that, criminalising your fans. When you read comments like these, you think cricket deserves to die a slow death.

  • on January 27, 2012, 8:50 GMT

    I think live streaming might be the biggest problem Giles Clarke has, just not the biggest problem cricket has... It's shocking that you can't get English test cricket on free tv in England, now that's a problem!

  • on January 27, 2012, 8:19 GMT

    I live in Auckland and there is no way that I can possible watch cricket between England vs Pakistan without the free streaming through the internet. So if you shut this down I don't thing I will be able any cricket happening outside of Australia or New Zealand. I completely disagree with you Sir. To popularize this cricket you must allow every resource over the internet to be able to recapitalize.

  • ARad on January 27, 2012, 8:05 GMT

    Has ICC (or ECB) done a survey of cricket fans all over the world (or even just England) to find out what they want, how they want it, how much payment for streams and TV is optimal that would enable the national boards to generate sufficient income as well as allow maximum exposure of the game to a worldwide audience? Where are these survey results? If Mr Giles hasn't bothered to do so, what does it say about his management skills? Is he the right person to run ECB considering that he has shown lack of judgment in the Sanford affair (and let's not forget the fact that England lacks a marquee T20 league in spite of the fact that T20 was born in England)? CRICKET'S BIGGEST THREAT COMES FROM INCOMPETENT ADMINISTRATORS.

  • on January 27, 2012, 7:55 GMT

    not everyone is as rich as giles clarke. some of us need online streaming,

  • BellCurve on January 27, 2012, 7:51 GMT

    I live in a country where you cannot subscribe to networks that provide cricket coverage. Unfortunately the market is too small so there is no incentive for business to get involved. The ICC should work out how to provide worldwide coverage. With the Indian, Pakistani and South African diasporas sending fans to all corners of the globe there should be an internet based business model that works. But getting license agreements in place in 100+ countries on 6 continents will be tough.

  • PutMarshyOn on January 27, 2012, 7:23 GMT

    The "biggest danger facing the game". Really means "Rupie is really upset he isn't making even more money and he won't let me ECB chairman anymore if it isn't stopped". Go away you greedy, greedy men.

  • on January 27, 2012, 7:22 GMT

    Unfortunate comment from Mr Clarke with regard to this being the games biggest threat. Further to earlier suggestions, can he offer an affordable, global solution so more games at all levels can be streamed legally ?

  • Nerk on January 27, 2012, 5:47 GMT

    A couple of You Tube channels like to show clips of good performances and stuff. Most of the stuff around the world is there, except English cricket. The ECB tear down any clips, and we are talking five to ten minute clips, of stuff that happened sometimes fifteen years ago! Come on ECB, move with the times!

  • on January 27, 2012, 5:11 GMT

    Illegal streaming is one great way to make the game known and popular to the people in the world. I used to live in Manila and there was no way you get to watch any cricket on tv and online paid streaming costs very high. If cricket can be watched in cable networks all over the world like soccer, then I have no problem with stopping the illegal streaming.

  • xylo on January 27, 2012, 4:47 GMT

    Bravo Mr Clarke. You let Stanford slip a doosra past you, and you think that internet piracy is the biggest problem in cricket? Given that you have a ton of money being doled out in broadcasting rights, it could be shocking for you to find that putting up a legal website, or even using YouTube to stream it over the internet and make money for yourself off of ads.

  • me54321 on January 27, 2012, 3:29 GMT

    What is really hard to understand is if these illegal streamers can produce high quality streams for free on the internet, then why haven't Sky or someone set up an online service for those people such as myself who aren't in the UK. I love the online streams, the quality and reliability seems to have really improved over the last couple of years, but there will always be phases during a match where they're getting shut down, or start buffering too much. So I would happily pay a fair price to have a continuous high quality stream available.

  • on January 27, 2012, 3:10 GMT

    All they want is more money somehow, with no regard for the cricket fan world over. There are many places on earth where we have no other viable option but to log in to this streaming? How would they make cricket popular in associate nations when no one watches it. How man I show my son Cricket so he can take it forward in my adopted nation?

  • on January 27, 2012, 2:55 GMT

    how do you expect a student to pay 50 pounds a month for sports channels, streaming is the way forward!

  • Sinhabahu on January 27, 2012, 2:32 GMT

    The biggest danger to cricket is greedy idiots like these and their corporate paymasters who'd rather have fans not watching cricket at all instead of watching it over the internet. Oh and of course, throw in the word 'bookmaker' to really give people the jitters.

  • on January 27, 2012, 1:48 GMT

    So how is a 10-year-old supposed to watch cricket, then? Take out a subscription to Sky Sports? Fork out a hundred quid for a ticket to a Test, (excluding car rental, meals, and parking?)

  • on January 27, 2012, 1:40 GMT

    hey ppl, i live in a place where nobody likes cricket, but only ice-hockey. no tv does broadcasting about cricket. so what is my option to watch my favorite games. Not even cricinfo does that for me.

  • on January 27, 2012, 1:28 GMT

    The reason people watch pirated anything (movies, TV, live sport etc)is because it is not available to them in their country! If you made a website that had live streaming Test, ODI, T20 (or perhaps a site for each) that people PAID to use they would... I pay a $9 subscription to a website to watch Streaming Japanese TV every week and the money goes towards the companies of the shows I Watch... stop being greedy with TV revenue and make a streaming site for people to sign up at!! easy!

  • TontonZolaMoukoko on January 27, 2012, 1:28 GMT

    I can see arguments for both sides here re the free to air/pay TV argument. But I wonder if Giles Clarke gets feedback from responses to his comments, as judging by these comments he seems totally out of touch with cricket fans. Especially as it's often not just a black and white case of someone refusing to pay for Sky. Myself, I've spent the majority of the last 4 years living in non-cricketing nations and without illegal streaming I'd simply not be able to watch any cricket, I can't even listen to TMS online because of broadcasting rights. Perhaps the ECB should do more to ensure that cricket can be seen by the widest possible audience while still earning the money they so clearly crave.

  • on January 27, 2012, 1:25 GMT

    In INDIA BCCI is providing free live Streaming of their HOME matches in its website..

  • dsig3 on January 27, 2012, 1:17 GMT

    What a joke. Is this guy still running england after the Stanford scandal? You English need to wise up.

  • Dr_Van_Nostrand on January 26, 2012, 23:50 GMT

    The coverage of overseas international cricket on pay TV in Australia is brilliant, so I've never had to use streaming. We generally get all series being played in England, NZ, South Africa, India, UAE, Lanka and Windies, so we have nothing to complain about.

  • Geraldine on January 26, 2012, 23:35 GMT

    It is ridiculous to suggest that a medium that connects people to cricket is a danger to cricket.

    "Illegal streaming" over the internet is the best thing that could happen to cricket. It allows people to enjoy cricket for free even when they are in one of the many countries that doesn't broadcast cricket freely.

    And what does illegal betting have to do with streaming? Non-sequitor sir.

  • NewYorkCricket on January 26, 2012, 23:11 GMT

    Legal channel in the US charges a fortune for cricket!! Why don't you work towards getting that charge down.

  • Harvey on January 26, 2012, 23:04 GMT

    @the_wallster - would that be the same "free market" that's just caused the collapse of the world economy? Had the running of cricket historically been driven by the free market, the game as we know it wouldn't have made it much beyond the 19th century. I agree with Angus Bell, and would add that the bigger threat to cricket is not the poor quality streams watched by people who can't afford Sky subscriptions, but people like Giles Clarke who see their role as making as much short term financial gain as possible without regard to the long term interests of the sport itself.

  • on January 26, 2012, 22:13 GMT

    It's simple people.

    Make cricket free-to-air or free-to-stream. Get your money through the advertisers who chomp at the bit to showcase their wares to a billion-odd fans.

    It might not have the immediate spreadsheet allure of the upfront cash for subscription services, but it is a sustainable strategy that engages fans and develops the game - which leads to a positive spiral.

    No business can ever succeed by attacking its potential customers.

  • KKNIAZI on January 26, 2012, 22:09 GMT

    How legal TV channels are promoting cricket?

    If you are in EU then you've gotta pay minimum of £20/month extra for Sky Sports pack which many cannot afford.

    Therefore, those "illegal" streams are doing a service to cricket and what ECB and the rest of the boards want is to take away this so that they can fill their own pockets in rights.

  • DeGM on January 26, 2012, 21:34 GMT

    I signed up with Cricket Australia (not Sky) to pay $5 a day to watch from Germany, only to discover that Germany is one of the countries they don't transmit to. (I got a refund.) Strange and useless copyright laws are costing them customers, and costing the game fans.

    Thankfully, illegal streamers are interested in bringing it to me for free, but obviously with poor picture quality and plenty of advertising. But still, illegal streamers are promoting cricket in Germany where CA has failed. Why? The ICC should thank them.

    Further, Clarke & Sky need to get real and see it like it is: illegal streaming is *competition*, who manage to provide the service free of charge, drawing revenue from elsewhere. Sky should rethink its prices, and the ECB should look more to promoting the game itself rather than chasing big dollars in golden helicopters from criminals. After the $tanford fiasco Clarke has no right to lecture anyone about ethics.

  • the_wallster on January 26, 2012, 21:34 GMT

    It's amazing the absurdity of the comments below. How can it possibly be the case that using a service for free, thatdoesn't intellectually own that service, not be stealing? I pay a fair price for my Sky subscription, purely to watch cricket. However, not only do i get the equivalent to the cost of a day's play at Lords with the return of about 7 matches a month, but i also receive the transmissions of around two dozen other sports. Stop being self-righteous entitlement morons and pay for the service you want. It's called the "Free Market". Get used to it.

  • alika22 on January 26, 2012, 21:28 GMT

    as opposed to match fixing? smh

  • DomP on January 26, 2012, 21:23 GMT

    RodStark lhjmq charlesandrewbudge Sirchris py0alb

    They have all said what I was thinking. Doesn't taxpayers' and TV license payers' money go towards cricket? Yet there is no live cricket on UK TV. When they shut down analogue radio, are Giles Clark and co. going to charge us to listen to Sir Geoff and Aggers? You are the problem Giles Clarke, not the solution. You keep banging on about money for grass roots cricket... I doubt the Windies had much of that in the 1970s and 1980s, but they still produced talent. Why hide the game away from all but the richest, if you want it to be popular. "Cricket? What is that?" is what you will hear if you carry on. Go now!

  • on January 26, 2012, 21:22 GMT

    The biggest danger to cricket is illegal streaming, how deluded is Mr Clarke, most cricket fans would say there are numerous more important issues, like match fixing and fixture congestion and a governing board which struggles to implement DRS on it's members. Another key issue they should address is Cricket Boards chasing money from unscrupulous people, like Mr Stanford a few years ago, which left the ECB with more than egg on their face. The Sky deal is needed to keep the 18 team County Championship going, simple solution, restructure it to less teams playing or stop paying foreign players so much to play.

  • on January 26, 2012, 21:15 GMT

    Just another case of an old timer rich guy wanting the rest of us to pay. I wonder what basis he has to say streaming is "cricket's biggest danger"? I say a bomb threat or a nuclear war would be the biggest danger. What an over bloated declaration.

  • on January 26, 2012, 21:14 GMT

    I live in an affiliate nation (NL). No cricket here, except if you're really able to pay through the nose. Even the WC games were not broadcast on any Dutch station. Live-stream is not ideal, but I actually get to watch a game sometimes. And it has taught me a lot; such as the number of certain brands of car sold in India.

    Live streaming is a way more people get to watch the commercials they make their money from. It gives a station a larger, international viewership. Here's an idea: exploit that fact instead of calling it a problem.

    Cricket's in trouble? Maybe it shouldn't focus on the wrong "problem", namely exposure... I thought they wanted that... Maybe the ICC should just invest in a high quality streaming site for itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the BCCI were to do such a thing.

  • brittop on January 26, 2012, 21:13 GMT

    @Tim Harmer: I can't afford Jaguar's prices - it doesn't entitled me to steal one.

  • on January 26, 2012, 21:01 GMT

    I pay 100 odd dollars on Indian channels here in California.In which i get Willow TV and Tensports but i still watch cricket online 30,40 % of the time.you know why? 1) interaction while watching with my buddies over FB, reading comments of people in cricinfo live commentary and on the website. 2) i dont like watching TV too much ,i'd rather be on my laptop. 3) willow's coverage of india downunder has no channel nine commentators ,s o online i watch that feed to listen to richie benaud,mark nicholas and taylor and greig, 4) its in the comfort of my room in my bed ,no one to bother. 5)if it gets boring i can easily switch thru other matches or watch other interesting things online which arent on TV.

  • Mokumbo on January 26, 2012, 21:00 GMT

    This is rubbish. They don't even show cricket where I live, - if streams become inaccessible, nobody here will watch the sport at all. I literally couldn't buy it, even if I wanted to. It says something about this guy that he would rather have nobody watch the game at all, than have them watch it for free.

    Besides, I used to work for a software company and we discovered that when people could afford the real thing, they would buy it as long as they felt the price was proportionate. The people who went for piracy usually couldn't afford it in the first place.

    The biggest threat to the game is incompetent administration. From corruption to short-sighted pursuit of television revenue, they have lost sight of why people watch the game in the first place - because they can.

  • r1m2 on January 26, 2012, 20:33 GMT

    Monsieur incompetent le grand speaks! Internet streaming the biggest danger facing cricket, not Giles' shady deals with Stanford and his successful sabotage of a proper T20 league in England, and thereby causing millions in losses for ECB on what could have been. Look how even BCB was able to get their T20 league started with the minimum of fuss, a country where I thought any dev takes ages before it's realized.

  • Aubm on January 26, 2012, 20:18 GMT

    Yes, people actually wanting to watch cricket is definitely the biggest threat to the game. Well done Mr Clarke!

  • YorkshirePudding on January 26, 2012, 20:18 GMT

    The BBC which broadcasts TMS is the one that decides if it is available world wide, if you want to listen to TMS outside of the UK then all you need to do is set up a proxy and listen to it through that. the BBC isnt the only broadcaster that does this, I believe ABC do the same in regards to australian games. I was in Aus last year and wanted to listen to TMS but could only get ABC, though i didnt mind as the presenters on there are very good, still I missed the likes of Aggers and Boycotts 'discussions'.

  • simon_w on January 26, 2012, 20:16 GMT

    I'm (fairly) sure Giles Clarke _thinks_ he's acting in the best interests of the (English) game... I am in a situation where my only option to get coverage of the cricket (beyond the wonderful CricInfo text commentary) is to use "pirate" streams (the quality of which is simply excellent, by the way), and to configure my computer in such a way that the BBC thinks I'm in the UK and so will let me listen to TMS. My other choice is not to watch or listen, except for when I go home for a couple of weeks a year. @M-S-R has it right: the biggest danger is cricket being run by accounts departments. The health and success of cricket cannot, must not, be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. -- @GRHinPorts: the pirate streams _do_ affect the game: they bring it to millions of people who would not otherwise get to see it! (and at little or no cost to the "rights holders").

  • Munkeymomo on January 26, 2012, 20:11 GMT

    Cricket is not alone in not keeping up with technology. All of the media (music/film/tv) industries have but few saving graces (netflix/spotify) whilst the rest of the business is run by people who don't understand the world. ECB is the same, Clarke is an old buffoon much like the rest of them. It was literally impossible to watch BBL in England. I would have watched some but I couldn't. Cricket should use the internet to its full power not moan about pirates.

  • on January 26, 2012, 19:58 GMT

    I pay an extra £20 for SKY sports. £14 of which goes to one sport...Soccer. I have no interest in soccer what-so-ever, in fact I begrudge that sport making more money. If it can afford to pay some of the educationally sub-normal idiots who wander around on football pitches £80,000 a week, it doesn't £14 from someone who will never watch a single game. I had Sky sports for 11 years and in that time watched ONE soccer game (and that was when mates came around. I think it was Chelsea United V Manchester Athletic or something) Let us pay JUST for cricket and not subsidize a sport generates enough cash without taking it off people with no interest in it. £8-£10 for cricket alone would be fine by me £20 when most of it goes to football is not.

  • on January 26, 2012, 19:48 GMT

    No, Giles, the biggest danger to cricket is that an entire generation of kids is growing up who have NEVER HEARD OF CRICKET because you moved it from free TV to Sky because you wanted to make more money for yourself and the ECB in the short time you're in power. A sport can only survive as long as it is visible, accessible and entertaining. You have caused a 75% reduction in TV viewership, denied generations of children of discovering the game, and provoked such insane price hikes in ticketing that barely 1% of the population can afford to go to a match. Because of your actions, clubs up and down the country are folding because no one under the age of 18 is signing up. And because of your gawd-awful scheduling (7-match ODI series v India, followed by 7 more ODIs v India, to be followed by a 9-match ODI series v India with an Australian glut in between) you and your ICC Executive pals are putting even the most ardent cricket fans off the game. Let's not forget your treatment of Ireland.

  • py0alb on January 26, 2012, 18:59 GMT

    I'm curious... Given that the majority of cricket fans can't afford Sky, what would Mr Clarke recommend we do? Would he prefer we simply didn't watch the cricket at all?

    If that's the case, he should say that. I want to hear him say: "We'd like all our fans to stop watching us. In fact try and forget about cricket altogether".

  • Stark62 on January 26, 2012, 18:58 GMT

    How?!?!

    I'm not going to lie or anything but I've used one of those sites but let me tell you that, the video quality is just, just FUGLY and there is a higher risk of getting a virus through the streaming.

    Nothing to panic over!

  • on January 26, 2012, 18:56 GMT

    This is another case of the dinosaurs not embracing technology. We used to be able to draw big crowds for test cricket, and since Sky started to monopolise the broadcast of England games both crowds and viewing figures have dropped, ashes tests are about the only ones that sell in this country these days. And the pricing of sky sports is just obnoxious.

    The IPL and Champion's League T20 tournaments are aired on free to air TV, and they seem to be going from strength to strength. In my opinion the biggest threat to English cricket is being locked in to sky.

  • Sirchris on January 26, 2012, 18:53 GMT

    @ M-S-R. Could not agree more! Most national cricket boards seem to want nothing more than to profit from cricket, often to the detriment of the game. Schedules are pretty much dictated by the broadcasters. Yes, I can imagine that they lose a bit of revenue here and there by pirate websites, but there are much bigger issues that need sorting!

  • on January 26, 2012, 18:40 GMT

    @StoneRose I sympathise with your plea. It would be another sad betrayal of local radio if it disappeared at the end of 2012. ESPNcricinfo plans to extend coverage of county cricket in 2012, but its future is worrying without committed support from key media outlets, including BBC local radio.

  • charlesandrewbudge on January 26, 2012, 18:39 GMT

    Hold on; he's complaining that people stream cricket online, but the ECB is still closing in on another deal with Sky? I don't speak for anyone else, but if he hadn't sold English cricket to Rupert Murdoch, I wouldn't have to stream it on the net.

  • on January 26, 2012, 18:36 GMT

    @Ravi TMS surely is a very good but very biased though have to say...

  • lhjmq on January 26, 2012, 18:23 GMT

    So the problem is that there are pirated live streams and not the over-blown TV contracts which only serve a restricted audience over a small period of time. The problem is that when TV contracts are signed they are not signed so that cricket can be reached to the highest number of people but which market given the best return on investment.

    North American viewers no chance except buying expensive monthly contracts to watch games which are not even in the same time-zone. The problem is not piracy but availability.

    You cannot tell me that a fan would not pay $10/month for HD coverage of cricket year round any time he likes. Extrapolate that over millions of viewers at an average of $5/month. That's more than a TV contract for 3-4 years.

    The whole economic model of cricket broadcasting is flawed. Give fans an opportunity to watch the games in a convenient fashion and they will shell out money. Just look at netflix!

  • RodStark on January 26, 2012, 18:21 GMT

    When the ICC claims to want to spread cricket around the world, it is ridiculous that Test Match Special seems to be blocked in the USA whenever it's outside England.

  • on January 26, 2012, 18:08 GMT

    Well maybe we cant all afford skys STUPID prices! so i will continue to use these websites all while there around!!

  • on January 26, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    I wouldn't worry if I was him. The quality of illegal streams is flipping terrible, full of adverts and on sites who make money by cookie stuffing, trojan planting and keylogging. I had SKY last year - and that was flipping awful as well. Kept going off every 20 minutes, and that's thorugh a 1 Gigabit server connection (that's chuffing fast - you can stream about 25 HD movies in parallel on that), but not watch SKY sports 1's cricket coverage because SKY's service sucks

  • RichDeGroen on January 26, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    thats funny, I hadn't watched live broadcast cricket for about 10 years until I discovered pirate sites. I think running the game as big business has already done far more damage to cricket than some illegal sites making it accessible again. Would cricket be any worse if the ECB and the BCCI weren't making so much money? Of course Giles would say so, but would it? Really? Would the county championship really fold? First class cricket manages to exist in Zimbabwe, NZ, Sri Lanka, West Indies et al, without 300 million pounds to pay for it. Get real. Do the administrators and national bodies need to be making profits? I don't believe it's helping the game. In fact the massive wealth of the BCCI is a curse on the game. And the current crop of administrators are the games biggest danger, because the game is not even their priority any more.

  • GRHinPorts on January 26, 2012, 17:58 GMT

    This really goes to show how money sick and greedy Giles Clarke really is. As if a few pirate sites really affect the game that much other than knock a few pounds off the value of Sky's donation to the ECB coffers.

  • on January 26, 2012, 17:55 GMT

    The ECB need to talk to a british Terestrial channel to show coverage of England Matches. Sky sports is too expensive for the regual fan and national sports should be free to air. You can watch the England football team on free to air TV so why cant you watch the current number 1 test team in the world. Madness really.

  • on January 26, 2012, 17:54 GMT

    see mr.clarke many people around the world may not have access to watch live cricket.... say they are in u.s.a canada... and other nations where cricket is not well known 2 people there we need 2 subscribe live telecast of cricket via pay per view basis and these websites that provide live streaming of all cricket matches will be of great help for the fans 2 enjoy all the games of their favorite teams..... IT'S NOT A CRIME... IT'S PASSION TOWARDS THE GAME....

  • M-S-R on January 26, 2012, 17:49 GMT

    Greed & want to squeeze every single penny out of it by the cricket boards - are the biggest danger, Mr. Clarke........not a few free streaming here and there!!!

  • on January 26, 2012, 16:39 GMT

    Great.. TMS is still one of the best thing associated with cricket, it reminds traditional values of pure cricket.. hope its online telecast will be available worldwide, not only just for UK.

  • StoneRose on January 26, 2012, 14:10 GMT

    Please save county cricket on the radio

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • StoneRose on January 26, 2012, 14:10 GMT

    Please save county cricket on the radio

  • on January 26, 2012, 16:39 GMT

    Great.. TMS is still one of the best thing associated with cricket, it reminds traditional values of pure cricket.. hope its online telecast will be available worldwide, not only just for UK.

  • M-S-R on January 26, 2012, 17:49 GMT

    Greed & want to squeeze every single penny out of it by the cricket boards - are the biggest danger, Mr. Clarke........not a few free streaming here and there!!!

  • on January 26, 2012, 17:54 GMT

    see mr.clarke many people around the world may not have access to watch live cricket.... say they are in u.s.a canada... and other nations where cricket is not well known 2 people there we need 2 subscribe live telecast of cricket via pay per view basis and these websites that provide live streaming of all cricket matches will be of great help for the fans 2 enjoy all the games of their favorite teams..... IT'S NOT A CRIME... IT'S PASSION TOWARDS THE GAME....

  • on January 26, 2012, 17:55 GMT

    The ECB need to talk to a british Terestrial channel to show coverage of England Matches. Sky sports is too expensive for the regual fan and national sports should be free to air. You can watch the England football team on free to air TV so why cant you watch the current number 1 test team in the world. Madness really.

  • GRHinPorts on January 26, 2012, 17:58 GMT

    This really goes to show how money sick and greedy Giles Clarke really is. As if a few pirate sites really affect the game that much other than knock a few pounds off the value of Sky's donation to the ECB coffers.

  • RichDeGroen on January 26, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    thats funny, I hadn't watched live broadcast cricket for about 10 years until I discovered pirate sites. I think running the game as big business has already done far more damage to cricket than some illegal sites making it accessible again. Would cricket be any worse if the ECB and the BCCI weren't making so much money? Of course Giles would say so, but would it? Really? Would the county championship really fold? First class cricket manages to exist in Zimbabwe, NZ, Sri Lanka, West Indies et al, without 300 million pounds to pay for it. Get real. Do the administrators and national bodies need to be making profits? I don't believe it's helping the game. In fact the massive wealth of the BCCI is a curse on the game. And the current crop of administrators are the games biggest danger, because the game is not even their priority any more.

  • on January 26, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    I wouldn't worry if I was him. The quality of illegal streams is flipping terrible, full of adverts and on sites who make money by cookie stuffing, trojan planting and keylogging. I had SKY last year - and that was flipping awful as well. Kept going off every 20 minutes, and that's thorugh a 1 Gigabit server connection (that's chuffing fast - you can stream about 25 HD movies in parallel on that), but not watch SKY sports 1's cricket coverage because SKY's service sucks

  • on January 26, 2012, 18:08 GMT

    Well maybe we cant all afford skys STUPID prices! so i will continue to use these websites all while there around!!

  • RodStark on January 26, 2012, 18:21 GMT

    When the ICC claims to want to spread cricket around the world, it is ridiculous that Test Match Special seems to be blocked in the USA whenever it's outside England.