Kev
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I don't watch much cricket on Sky, because I don't have Sky, but I have watched a fair bit. I don't like the commentators, I don't like all the 'swooshes' and other crap sounds Sky TV always add in whenever they do anything with the graphics (Am I watching Sport or am I watching Robot Bloody Wars!?), I don't like the Adverts - especially as you are already paying for the privilege of watching it! I also object to having to subscribe to UK Menstrual Plus 1 and other such made up channels that I will not watch, before I can buy a sports package. But most of all only a complete Muppet would prefer to pay to watch something when they could watch the same thing for free.
BBC coverage of Home test matches was certainly preferable to Sky, hell even Ch4 was better. Granted Sky showed willing to cover it and nobody else really would have stumped up the cash but I will always will think it was a mistake to give Sky rights to all live cricket. Some should have remained on a non-subscription basis, with Digital Terrestrial TV (or Freesat for that matter)there is plenty of space for new sports channels, one less shopping network would be a start! Something should have been saved for those who either cannot afford ?50 a month to watch subscription TV, or for those who choose not to. It's damaging the sport, less people are watching it now and personally I'd rather it was shown to a greater audience than putting extra money in KP's pockets.
Don't get this whole HD argument either. First of all HD is not fantastic, its crappy low res - much less than the resolution most of us are viewing this website at, its just slightly higher than normal TV. Now lets face it, unless you are watching TV on a 40inch plus TV, who really sits there complaining that the normal digital TV signal looks poor? Besides HD is available for nowt on Freeset, what the hell are sky doing charging an extra tenner a month for it? That's a total rip off if ever I saw one.
It's TMS all the way for me.
BBC coverage of Home test matches was certainly preferable to Sky, hell even Ch4 was better. Granted Sky showed willing to cover it and nobody else really would have stumped up the cash but I will always will think it was a mistake to give Sky rights to all live cricket. Some should have remained on a non-subscription basis, with Digital Terrestrial TV (or Freesat for that matter)there is plenty of space for new sports channels, one less shopping network would be a start! Something should have been saved for those who either cannot afford ?50 a month to watch subscription TV, or for those who choose not to. It's damaging the sport, less people are watching it now and personally I'd rather it was shown to a greater audience than putting extra money in KP's pockets.
Don't get this whole HD argument either. First of all HD is not fantastic, its crappy low res - much less than the resolution most of us are viewing this website at, its just slightly higher than normal TV. Now lets face it, unless you are watching TV on a 40inch plus TV, who really sits there complaining that the normal digital TV signal looks poor? Besides HD is available for nowt on Freeset, what the hell are sky doing charging an extra tenner a month for it? That's a total rip off if ever I saw one.
It's TMS all the way for me.