• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Channel Nine retain Australian cricket broadcasting rights

uvelocity

International Coach
we need jokoguessr where you get a snippet and have to guess the spikey joke that it's a part of
 

juro

U19 12th Man
They should give Ray Warren a go, imo.
Ray Warren is yet another Nine commentator who should have been pensioned off years ago. Just because he was good 20 years ago doesn't mean he will be good forever.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Seriously pyrrhic victory, though - Ten bid them up to twice what they were paying before and who also got the Big Bash anyway.

Nice position for CA in an Ashes year, though. $500 million cash in hand plus full grounds against the Poms. Now if they just ditched Maxwell's central contact they could solve world hunger.
Brisbane obviously excepted.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No one in England is qualified to blaggard this arrangement when they have to pay to watch all of their sport on television. A joke.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
No one in England is qualified to blaggard this arrangement when they have to pay to watch all of their sport on television. A joke.
You wouldn't object to paying when you saw the quality of the terrestrial coverage. Besides, Sky are the only company that actually seem to give a **** about sport.

I can't stand the fact that Sky don't get coverage of World Cups and European Championships.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
You wouldn't object to paying when you saw the quality of the terrestrial coverage. Besides, Sky are the only company that actually seem to give a **** about sport.

I can't stand the fact that Sky don't get coverage of World Cups and European Championships.

You mean in football, right? Coz Star has the ICC rights and it is the same Murdoch group as Sky, I believe.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You wouldn't object to paying when you saw the quality of the terrestrial coverage. Besides, Sky are the only company that actually seem to give a **** about sport.

I can't stand the fact that Sky don't get coverage of World Cups and European Championships.
Was it Channel Four which did the FTA coverage in 2005? Their coverage was ok wasn't it?
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Was it Channel Four which did the FTA coverage in 2005? Their coverage was ok wasn't it?
Actually yeah, Channel 4's coverage of the cricket was absolutely fine, the BBC and ITV's coverage of football most certainly isn't.
 

howardj

International Coach
Not sure how they would fare as TV commentators, but I enjoy hearing about cricket from guys like Craddock, Conn, Coward, Haigh, Lane etc much more than I do from most former players such as Taylor, Healy, Lawry, Benaud, Slater etc (guys like Atherton, Hussain are the rare exceptions)

Former players are as a general rule lacking in analysis, and also are loathe to criticise people/teams who they are close to
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Coward is an embarrassment - sucks up to India something terrible. Appalling listening to him.
 

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
Ray Warren is yet another Nine commentator who should have been pensioned off years ago. Just because he was good 20 years ago doesn't mean he will be good forever.
Really? You are being very generous now about how good he was then.
 

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
Agree about Coward. He'd be perfectly named if he was a character in a morality play. Actually Suckjob would be a better name for him.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
I just hope they can please revert back to 2 people in the commentary box at one time. The 3somes in the commentary box aren't really to most people tastes I reckon
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
You wouldn't object to paying when you saw the quality of the terrestrial coverage. Besides, Sky are the only company that actually seem to give a **** about sport.

I can't stand the fact that Sky don't get coverage of World Cups and European Championships.
Think Sky is better, but Channel 4's coverage wasn't really all that bad, was it? Had all the basics, and decent commentators (aside from Boycott).

EDIT: ah, I see Burgey's already brought this up.
 

Top