Cricket

summerisle said:
The Test highlights were on at 7.00 pm, this is a day/night match hence the later time for the highlights.
Click to expand...

I said that in the post you quoted. Channel 5 had them then when they did them so it would have looked pretty bad if they hadn't tbh. Of course they can't have them on before the game finishes, even though there has been an overlap on some days of the test series with play continuing after 7.

It would be possible at 9.30 or even 10. Eleven thirty pm until twelve thirty is extremely late and is sidelined to the deadest hour in the schedule. If you can't record it basically forget it.
Tbf it's nothing new it was always treated as an afterthought when they did it. Channel 4 took it off them and the difference was quite startling and not just because of the cricket but the analysis, extra cameras and standard of broadcasting took it to a new level.

tbf the BBC has always had good tennis and athletics coverage, just not cricket, it was never a priority. They put zero investment into it and seemingly took it for granted they'd always get the contract to cover it, they just got complacent.
 
Last edited:
Chris O'Connor said:
I said that in the post you quoted, Channel 5 had them then when they did them so it would have looked pretty bad if they hadn't tbh. Of course they can't have them on before the game finishes, even though there has been an overlap on some days of the test series with play continuing after 7.

It would be possible at 9.30 or even 10. Eleven thirty pm until twelve thirty is extremely late and is sidelined to the deadest hour in the schedule. If you can't record it basically forget it.
Tbf it's nothing new it was always treated as an afterthought when they did it. Channel 4 took it off them and the difference was quite startling and not just because of the cricket but the analysis, extra cameras and standard of broadcasting took it to a new level.

tbf the BBC had always had good tennis and Athletics coverage, just not cricket, it was never a priority. They it zero investment into it and seemingly took it for granted they'd always get the contract to cover it, just got complacent.
Click to expand...
The time for the highlights I think is determined by Sky. I would imagine that today's match would be scheduled to finish around 9-10 o'clock, that gives Sky their chance to show their own highlights.
 
summerisle said:
The time for the highlights I think is determined by Sky. I would imagine that today's match would be scheduled to finish around 9-10 o'clock, that gives Sky their chance to show their own highlights.
Click to expand...

Tbf that is a very good point and probably exactly why. I'm almost certainly being very unfair but it's just seeing that scheduling brought back all the bad memories and real frustrations suffered when they used to cover it.

I hope they continue to give it the priority it deserves.
 
summerisle said:
The time for the highlights I think is determined by Sky. I would imagine that today's match would be scheduled to finish around 9-10 o'clock, that gives Sky their chance to show their own highlights.
Click to expand...

I've since had a quick look at the sky schedule and I'm afraid it's clearly not the case.

Sky are due to finish live broadcasting at 10 pm and don't have highlights immediately following or anywhere near tbh, so the criticism is perfectly valid. It's a ridiculous unearthly hour at the deadest time in the schedule and perhaps reflects the priority cricket gets on the channel.
 
Chris O'Connor said:
I said that in the post you quoted. Channel 5 had them then when they did them so it would have looked pretty bad if they hadn't tbh. Of course they can't have them on before the game finishes, even though there has been an overlap on some days of the test series with play continuing after 7.

It would be possible at 9.30 or even 10. Eleven thirty pm until twelve thirty is extremely late and is sidelined to the deadest hour in the schedule. If you can't record it basically forget it.
Tbf it's nothing new it was always treated as an afterthought when they did it. Channel 4 took it off them and the difference was quite startling and not just because of the cricket but the analysis, extra cameras and standard of broadcasting took it to a new level.

tbf the BBC has always had good tennis and athletics coverage, just not cricket, it was never a priority. They put zero investment into it and seemingly took it for granted they'd always get the contract to cover it, they just got complacent.
Click to expand...
Quite right, Channel 4 did a brilliant job and changed the way cricket was broadcasted
 
May have to put any ideas of risk free cricket to bed when we bat and just go for it, just hope we can get somewhere near in the 50.

Or play like Dom Sibley in first gear, either approach will do :D

Gents - The Newcastle fan sites are very funny atm !!!
 
Despite his wickets today you can perhaps see why Willey was the unlucky bowler to miss out for Jofra. His left armers are useful when there's a bit of nip with the new ball but he's hardly a Plunkett in the middle overs, just looks very ordinary.

Looks as though it's a very flat track tbh and excellent for batting. Cue probable England collapse then.
 
Impressed by Rashid but despite his wickets today you can perhaps see why Willey was the unlucky bowler to miss out for Jofra. His left armers are useful when there's a bit of nip with the new ball but he's hardly a Plunkett in the middle overs, just looks very ordinary. Tbh Mahmood was the only one capable of injecting a little pace with some in the high eighties, but they badly missed that real pace of a Wood or Archer. Curtis Campher?, the lad brought up in Pretoria seemed to find the track to his liking, possibly used to the harder wickets in South Africa and playing more from the back foot.

Looks as though it's a very flat track tbh and excellent for batting. Cue probable England collapse then, both openers out early anyway.
 
Chris O'Connor said:
Despite his wickets today you can perhaps see why Willey was the unlucky bowler to miss out for Jofra. His left armers are useful when there's a bit of nip with the new ball but he's hardly a Plunkett in the middle overs, just looks very ordinary.

Looks as though it's a very flat track tbh and excellent for batting. Cue probable England collapse then.
Click to expand...
Despite what the old boys club members like Agnes say, I think both root an Morgan realise you need to develop that x factor and Archer has it. Willey is a very useful cricketer though, with Plunket mid 30s there could be a spot for him to develop into that middle overs role
 

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top