Sky and Sports coverage

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:43 am

The Ashes begin soon

I'm old enough to remember sticking a radio under my pillow at night and listening to coverage of the cricket from Australia

It was a couple of hours per day if we were lucky

Often was just hourly updates on the news

Compare that with now - every last ball in glorious colour

Now, my question is this

Without Sky, would coverage of sport have moved so far in under 30 years

Was it just they came along at the right time to ride on the back of technology advancement, or did Sky and their ilk drive things forward

See, I know things are moving fast, but would the Beeb/ITV have ever got off their arses

Sky get so much stick, but I not be without my dish this winter

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:51 am

don't you mean "wireless", you old giffer??

officer_dibble · Post by **officer_dibble** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:53 am

Think yourself lucky you can afford it.

At least I have teletext!!!

keveh · Post by **keveh** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:54 am

Sky has replaced the dog as a mans best friend, simple as.

Sports coverage would be nowhere near where it is now if it wasn't for Sky.

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:55 am

communistworkethic wrote:don't you mean "wireless", you old giffer??

bet you had a tranny in your bed

Gertie · Post by **Gertie** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:55 am

I don't understand what goes on in cricket, all very confusing but I know lots of people like and do understand it, and therefore sky do a very good job.

I was really chuffed to hear that sky was organising showing some international netball games, it's only ever on the TV during things like the Commenwealth Games which isn't very frequent. It's a good sport to watch and take part, and maybe even boys might watch a bit. (You can even get to boo a Neville as Phil's twin sister, Tracy, plays for England).

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:56 am

CAPSLOCK wrote:
communistworkethic wrote:don't you mean "wireless", you old giffer??
bet you had a tranny in your bed

Your dad was always welcome at our house.

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:03 pm

I heard your mum rated him very highly, but then she obviously wasnt choosy

Anyway, the question isn't whether Sky provides a good product and covers comedy like netball, its whether the technology that allows me to watch cricket live from around the world would have been in place regardless of Sky, and I'd have got cricket from the Beeb

Or would their - then - monopoly have led to em just sitting on thei arses and giving me 25 minutes of highlights, often after the next days play had begun

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:10 pm

Gertie wrote:I don't understand what goes on in cricket, all very confusing but I know lots of people like and do understand it, and therefore sky do a very good job.

I was really chuffed to hear that sky was organising showing some international netball games, it's only ever on the TV during things like the Commenwealth Games which isn't very frequent. It's a good sport to watch and take part, and maybe even boys might watch a bit. (You can even get to boo a Neville as Phil's twin sister, Tracy, plays for England).

ah Tracy, she's inherited the family good looks...

as for cricket..

You have two teams. The captains toss a coin to see who is in.
The team that is not in, has to get the team that is, out
When the team that is in is out, the team that got them out goes in

see all very straightforward

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:20 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:Anyway, the question isn't whether Sky provides a good product and covers comedy like netball, its whether the technology that allows me to watch cricket live from around the world would have been in place regardless of Sky, and I'd have got cricket from the Beeb

Or would their - then - monopoly have led to em just sitting on thei arses and giving me 25 minutes of highlights, often after the next days play had begun

It's more a question of wall-to-wall sports scheduling rather than huge advances in technology that makes Sky what it is, isn't it? The BBC and ITV do manage to screen things from abroad, live, when they are so inclined (Formula 1 etc.).

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:24 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:Anyway, the question isn't whether Sky provides a good product and covers comedy like netball, its whether the technology that allows me to watch cricket live from around the world would have been in place regardless of Sky, and I'd have got cricket from the Beeb

Or would their - then - monopoly have led to em just sitting on thei arses and giving me 25 minutes of highlights, often after the next days play had begun

25 minutes of highlights. It's all any network can realistically provide without having dedicated sports channels, something I don't think you'll ever get with the BBC.

Plus (and I never thought I'd say this) Phil Neville is clearly the looker of the family.

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:26 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote: It's more a question of wall-to-wall sports scheduling rather than huge advances in technology that makes Sky what it is, isn't it? The BBC and ITV do manage to screen things from abroad, live, when they are so inclined (Formula 1 etc.).

Thats my question

It comes down to 'when they are so inclined'

And tahts despite the technolgy

So I've got to suspect we'd still be stuck with the radio

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:27 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:25 minutes of highlights. It's all any network can realistically provide without having dedicated sports channels, something I don't think you'll ever get with the BBC.

Plus (and I never thought I'd say this) Phil Neville is clearly the looker of the family.

Not so

Cricket from Oz is on through the night

So, is ideal

Alan Thompsons sister played international poncing around girly basketball

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:33 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:I heard your mum rated him very highly, but then she obviously wasnt choosy

she was choosy enough to blow you out

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Suppose thru-the-night coverage would work except that's when the beeb show their obligatory minority stuff. There's no reason why ITV couldn't do it though instead of that quiz call thing though. No money in it for them I guess.

To answer the question then: No, without Sky, sports coverage wouldn't have moved on. You'd still be fannying by gaslight.

David Lee's Hair · Post by **David Lee's Hair** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:37 pm

Sky's improved sports coverage no ends, but i've got to say I don't rate the commentators as much for the cricket coverage as those on C4, or for the rugby on the BBC (used to be an egg chaser so have a soft spot for union!)

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:37 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote: It's more a question of wall-to-wall sports scheduling rather than huge advances in technology that makes Sky what it is, isn't it? The BBC and ITV do manage to screen things from abroad, live, when they are so inclined (Formula 1 etc.).
Thats my question

It comes down to 'when they are so inclined'

And tahts despite the technolgy

So I've got to suspect we'd still be stuck with the radio

I agree.

The answer to your question is probably that the technology would be there, but the inclination would not.

This is not implied critcism of the BBC though. If they could film the stuff for free and all it would cost is sending a few cameramen over there, then I'm sure they would show it. Fact is, sport and sportsmen do not come for free and the BBC should not spend all of its dubiously acquired funds on it.

Gertie · Post by **Gertie** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:39 pm

I thought that BBC did well with their Olympic coverage, despite not having a dedicated sports channel. They have a lot of sports to cover and get them all in plus round-up and highlights - especially useful during the Oz ones.

They also provide a good service in the world cup (I could be wrong AGAIN!) but don't the organisers of olympics/world cups etc insist that the terrestial channels get the first rights in order to gain as much coverage in the country as possible? I do feel that the BBC/ITV imitate what they have seen on sky in terms of their football coverage, but then I suppose there is only so much you can do with stats and replays. Only not as well (was it Andy Townsend's tatics truck???!!)

It's hard to say how they would have covered sports had sky not been invented with all their flashy whizzbang bits and pieces.

As for comedy netball. It's a tough and very skilled sport, is it just a laughing matter cause girls do it????

How Rude!!!!!

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:58 pm

Am I imagining it or was The Ashes not on terrestial TV. I saw a lot of it, and I don't have Sky?

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:04 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:Am I imagining it or was The Ashes not on terrestial TV. I saw a lot of it, and I don't have Sky?

Last summer was the last time you'll see cricket on normal telly for abit

Connect with your social network account

Sky and Sports coverage

Sky and Sports coverage

Who is online