|
Post by venceremos on Feb 25, 2015 13:06:51 GMT 1
Caught the closing overs and it was a cracking finish. Have to support Ireland but felt for UAE after such a good performance. I'd love to see Ireland make the quarters (and stick it to the pwoers that think the associate countries should be excluded) - much more enjoyable to watch than England!
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Feb 25, 2015 15:38:44 GMT 1
My name got mentioned during the interval discussion about Ireland on TMS (they read out a tweet of mine as an example of popular opinion on the decision to exclude them from the 2019 world cup). Was surprised!
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Feb 26, 2015 7:35:37 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 8:57:59 GMT 1
Done
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Mar 1, 2015 6:52:28 GMT 1
Blimey, have got used to our batting collapsing and getting hammered but to get hammered today after posting 309 takes the cake. One of the most disheartening, toothless, idealess, spiritless bowling and fielding performances I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Moores and Saker, off you trot, goodbye and thanks for your efforts. Jimmy and Broady, enjoy the rest of this World Cup because afaic you shouldn't be playing ODI again afterwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 12:42:28 GMT 1
Pathetic
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Mar 9, 2015 12:45:22 GMT 1
If Moore really wants to be a coach, I suggest they take his teeth out and put seats in. Shameful. The laughing stock of the cricket world.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Mar 9, 2015 13:55:06 GMT 1
Makes our FIFA World Cup exit on the back of narrow defeats to Italy and Uruguay look positively spirited and admirable. Absolute f**king disgrace. ECB clowns.
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Mar 9, 2015 14:05:41 GMT 1
I fear the ECB gang of old school tie wallahs are reminiscent of the Football Association who would rather appoint someone like Hodgspn rather than a progressive young coach. Take a chance on someone like Cloughie a few years back? Not a chance.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 9, 2015 14:24:02 GMT 1
Forgot to check the score but these posts tell me we've just lost to Bangladesh. Tells me all I need to know - our humiliation is complete.
When they made cricket a minority viewing sport in exchange for Sky's pot of gold, remind me what all that money was meant to be used for ......?
|
|
|
Post by siabod on Mar 9, 2015 14:56:31 GMT 1
So if cricket was still on BBC TV all would be well ?
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Mar 9, 2015 15:22:33 GMT 1
So if cricket was still on BBC TV all would be well ? ? I think he said we were asked to swap being able to watch a losing team for not being able to watch a winning team. Now we can't watch a losing team (unless we stump up for sky)
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Mar 9, 2015 15:50:55 GMT 1
So if cricket was still on BBC TV all would be well ? ? I think he said we were asked to swap being able to watch a losing team for not being able to watch a winning team. Now we can't watch a losing team (unless we stump up for sky) No but if young people could watch live cricket on FTAT, then perhaps participation would be higher leading to a larger pool of "talent"
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Mar 9, 2015 15:59:17 GMT 1
So if cricket was still on BBC TV all would be well ? If it was on BBC it would be more popular at grass roots level and wouldn't be so elitist, so yep if not better now it would get better and has got worse since exclusive to Sky
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 9, 2015 15:59:55 GMT 1
So if cricket was still on BBC TV all would be well ? Clearly not what I meant. For all the extra money that the Sky deal provided, does the output of English cricket since then suggest it's been well invested? Has the exchange of a bigger TV audience and public awareness for more money proven to be worthwhile for the sport as a whole? The evidence suggests not. Might English cricket be in a better place now if it had less cash but a bigger audience and more public interest? Don't know but there are questions to be asked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 16:04:02 GMT 1
Sky money means that we now can afford well paid failures instead of poorly paid failures. On the other hand it could be argued that since 2005 (the last time cricket was on terrestrial tv) the England Test team has achieved number one status in the world (however fleetingly), won the T20 world cup and the Ashes 3 times. That's a vastly superior record than the previous 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by siabod on Mar 9, 2015 16:18:29 GMT 1
So if cricket was still on BBC TV all would be well ? Clearly not what I meant. For all the extra money that the Sky deal provided, does the output of English cricket since then suggest it's been well invested? Has the exchange of a bigger TV audience and public awareness for more money proven to be worthwhile for the sport as a whole? The evidence suggests not. Might English cricket be in a better place now if it had less cash but a bigger audience and more public interest? Don't know but there are questions to be asked. Fair play but attendances at county cricket suggest that not too many people are interested in watching. Were more people watching cricket on TV when it was free to view, I don't know the answer but suspect not. One of the problems is that 20 over cricket attracts crowds (and money again) but does not produce cricketers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 21:01:00 GMT 1
Easy to criticise Sky but were they to blame for the depressing period of the early/mid 90's? When I watch some old cricket from that era then you see half empty crowds even at the Ashes, whilst test cricket is struggling around the world the crowds are decent in this country.
Onto the shambles today, the only positive I can say is at least losing may well shake up the powers to be to realise how far behind we are in this form of the game, had we got through then it may have masked our shortcomings. T20 has had a huge impact on cricket and clearly we have struggled to adapt, there will no doubt be a clamour for KP, Trott etc but we need to think to the future. I look forward to another review and'new era' being heralded just like after the Ashes shambles.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 10, 2015 13:42:44 GMT 1
Clearly not what I meant. For all the extra money that the Sky deal provided, does the output of English cricket since then suggest it's been well invested? Has the exchange of a bigger TV audience and public awareness for more money proven to be worthwhile for the sport as a whole? The evidence suggests not. Might English cricket be in a better place now if it had less cash but a bigger audience and more public interest? Don't know but there are questions to be asked. Fair play but attendances at county cricket suggest that not too many people are interested in watching. Were more people watching cricket on TV when it was free to view, I don't know the answer but suspect not. One of the problems is that 20 over cricket attracts crowds (and money again) but does not produce cricketers. County cricket has long since had its day as a spectator sport and that will never change. But it should always have its place because there could be no test cricket without it. I don't think one day cricket gets the crowds it did in the 1960s and 70s, when there was a novelty to it, although T20 seems to have rekindled something of that atmosphere. I don't know the TV ratings either but I can't believe an expensive subscription channel like Sky can have bigger audiences for cricket than when it was free to view on terrestrial TV. If a lot of kids don't see cricket, they're less likely to play it and the pool of talent shrinks. The governing body can have all the money it can get but this won't translate into better players unless enough youngsters play the game. We need to get kids playing the game and I don't believe that's helped when the shop window for the sport is tucked away down the side streets of satellite TV. Sky aren't to blame; they just want to fill their schedules with top sports and have the money to do it. The ECB, or whoever, had the decision to make and went for the money. Fair enough, I'm just asking whether it was the right decision and, if it was, why has English cricket evidently failed to develop? I don't think the one day game or T20 can be blamed. It hasn't stopped other countries producing strong one day and Test teams, so what's wrong with England? I'd guess that India is the only country that could compete with England financially, so why are we consistently worse than so many of the "poorer" nations?
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Mar 10, 2015 14:45:46 GMT 1
I assume a chunk of the Sky money is going to pay a coach who is used to failure having already been sacked and deemed to be not up to the job. Bowlers who have been feared and are capable of getting wickets with good length balls and Yorkers, are suddenly being encouraged to bowl short pitched rubbish and are getting little reward. We sacked our captain for a serious of poor performances and replaced him with someone just as bad. No doubt Morgan will now be cast aside, but Moores looks likely to retain his position because he is mates with Paul Downton, who should also stand aside. I think one of Mr Wycherley's root and branch reviews is called for, much as Beefy Botham was calling for in the morning papers.
|
|