Sky or terrestrial TV?

Cast your mind back to September, 2005. England had just won that series, cricket was cool, and people who previously mocked the game were annoyingly approaching you in the street or at work and saying how much they now loved the game. All was rosy in the English cricket garden. But a cloud loomed over the game in England, one that split cricket fans opinions down the middle.

The Ashes series of 2005 was the last to be aired live on terrestrial television for the foreseeable future, as Sky were now the top dog when it came to test match cricket coverage in the UK. Before Sky we had the BBC and Channel 4. Growing up in the eighties, cricket to me was Peter West, Soul Limbo by Booker T and the MGs, and of course Richie Benaud. So you can imagine my astonishment, and the general shock among the cricket viewing public of the UK, when it was announced that from 1999, Test match cricket would move to Channel 4. Channel 4! The station of low viewing figures, of horse racing, a Liverpudlian soap opera, a letter/number quiz, but not our national summer sport, surely not.

But this was how it was to be, and there was nothing we could do about it. To be fair to Channel 4, their coverage was a breath of fresh air. Within a year I was a convert to Mark Nicholas, Mambo Number 5 by Lou Bega, and of course Richie Benaud. The BBC’s coverage now seemed so archaic, and it felt like I had my head turned from the safe older option I had grown up with, to a more attractive and younger looking alternative.

Although Channel 4’s dalliance with the game was short, they should be commended on their involvement in the game. And then came Sky. They had been covering England tours since 1990 and to cricket fans they were a godsend on those cold wintry nights. To top it all, they really knew how to present the game to the viewing public. Having said that, it was still a surprise when it was announced that from 2006, English Test matches would be shown exclusively live on this platform. It was a decision that enraged many. How could our summer sport be screened on a station that only a few million people had access to? Why should we pay for the privilege of watching English Test matches? How could the future generations of the game in England gain any heroes if they didn’t have access to Sky? All valid questions.

On the other hand you had the pro-Sky brigade. Those who hoped that the company’s investment in cricket would help the game’s grassroots, and who no longer wanted to have to put up with an Andre Agassi tennis match or horse racing interrupting an important Test. It was a divisive issue.

So where do I sit on this? Somewhat annoyingly on the fence. I appreciate that not everyone has access to Sky and that is not right. Whereas I grew up watching Botham, Lamb and Gower, who will the kids of today learn to idolise if they are not lucky enough to have a dish stuck on the side of their house? But on the other hand, I appreciate having the cricket shown on a dedicated sports channel. One that won’t miss Adil Rashid’s first Test wicket because they have to nip off to Hollyoaks. And if the vast amounts of money ploughed into the game by Sky can be wisely spent then surely that must be a good thing?

To be honest, I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place. Perhaps if I didn’t have Sky then my opinion would be much more definite, although even with access to satellite television I can see where the problems arise. It would be interesting to hear what others think about this. What I do know is that although Sky’s current Ashes coverage is first class, it is a shame that the 2009 series was not viewed by a much wider audience. Perhaps I secretly yearn for that feel-good summer factor of 2005, conveniently forgetting the fact that at key stages of that series, Channel 4 left the cricket to cover horse racing. Oh I really don’t know. If my thinking is so muddled, I wonder what the rest of the nation is like.