Do you prefer radio or television?

[James]

Something I was wondering what most people prefer.

I prefer listening to the radio than watching cricket on the television, but would obviously prefer to go to the ground where possible.

What's everyone preference?

 

[Bees]

Television by a country mile, for mine.

Comparing the formats, as available to Aussies - Channel 9 vs ABC Grandstand...

Most people hate the Channel 9 commentary, but I really don't mind it. Even if I hated it, I would still prefer TV for the visual aspect.

The vast majority of cricket is dominated by vision, yeah? You also get to hear it too. But I've not been watching cricket until recently, and have only listened to a few days on (digital) radio. James, why choose radio over TV? Portability would be one reason, stylistic preference another - two huge reasons, actually - but I can't think of any others.

 

[Bees]

For clarification, do you mean watching cricket on television meaning vision and sound? Or muted?

 

[Jono]

TV. Radio commentators may generally be better, but nothing like watching the game on the tube.

 

[Zinzan]

There should be the option of watching TV on mute with the wireless on

 

[Sanz]

Listening Radio commentary is awesome, especially when I need to do parallel tasking.

 

[duffer]

As good as the radio commentary is, I prefer seeing the game and making my own mind up when I watch any sport rather than rely on other people's descriptions and interpretations.

 

[masterblaster]

Radio commentary is fantastic when you're driving home from work or even at work. But nothing beats watching the game on television.

 

[Xuhaib]

Radio Pakistan is awsome for cricket,especially the urdu commentary.

 

[susudear]

Both

Wherever possible, I put the TV on mute, and listen to radio commentary while I watch it live. Best of both worlds.

 

[Craig]

Radio Pakistan is awsome for cricket,especially the urdu commentary.

Unfortunatly I don't understand Urdu, so I am stuck there. TV for mine.

 

[BoyBrumby]

TV. Radio commentators may generally be better, but nothing like watching the game on the tube.

This. TMS's comms are so far ahead of Sky's it's almost embarrassing, but that could easily be rectified by the latter hiring Aggers, Simon Hughes, Vic Marks et al.

 

[Evermind]

The poll's a bit silly. It's like asking whether you like Pizza or Pizza AND Pasta.

 

[Xuhaib]

Unfortunatly I don't understand Urdu, so I am stuck there. TV for mine.

poor you, life is so unfair.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In the halcyon days of radio commentary in the Uk a large section of the cricket loving population listened to TMS whilst watching TV with the sound turned down. These days the commentators are such a pile of bat droppings that it doesn't make much difference. The radio commentary now is so poor that you need to see the action for yourself to have a proper idea of what's taking place.

 

[Richard]

TV, but the likes of Aggers, CMJ and Henry Blofeld on TMS are excellent at describing play if you're good at visualising it. Very often I'll have listened to radio commentary, will have formed an image of how something might've happened, will see the highlights later, and lo-and-behold it'll be exactly as I'd guessed.

If I can't get TV, I'll happily have radio and the disappointment is not massive.

 

[zaremba]

Each has its place - as indeed does cricinfo commentary when I'm stuck at work and can't listen to the radio.

Sky's TV commentary is generally very poor indeed, but the footage itself is absolutely first-rate. I don't know why Sky are so fixated with the idea that ex-Test stars necessarily make good commentators. So the question is whether you have the TV on with the sound turned down, and TMS on. When Botham is "commentating" I tend to do this, even though the commentary precedes the pictures by a couple of seconds which is irritating.

TMS is generally excellent, although I'm not convinced by some of the recent additions to the team - Pougatch is lightweight and Simon Hughes is out of his depth (although in his role as The Analyst on Channel 4 he was immense). Aggers and CMJ are wonderful.

When thinking about commentators and coverage it's easy to forget how poor things used to be in the past. Sky's footage is a million times better than the BBC's used to be (it took the BBC some decades to realise that you need a camera directly in line with the pitch, and another couple of decades to realise that you should always use the camera from behind the bowler's arm rather than from behind the batsman - see eg the footgage of Bob Massie's 16 wickets at Lord's, where the main camera used was the one from the wrong end). And we are spared the misery these days of having to put up with the likes of Peter West, Tony Lewis, Fred Trueman and Jim Laker, and we escape with mercifully reduced doses of Jack Bloody Bannister.

 

[fredfertang]

Since signing up with Talksport Jack Bannister has become a really grumpy and cantankerous old git and is immeasureably more entertaining as a result

 

[Uppercut]

This. TMS's comms are so far ahead of Sky's it's almost embarrassing, but that could easily be rectified by the latter hiring Aggers, Simon Hughes, Vic Marks et al.

Would ideally go for this, but it's always out-of-sync. Also televised cricket tends to focus in on little things like a bowler's action or batsman's footwork and it's good to know what they're talking about.

 

[grecian]

The out-of-syncness, is a major problem. Used to love the old days when the radio and tv were exactly the same time, and I used to do both. Now it's just TV, I don't mind Nasser, Atherton, Gower and Bumble, and I just put it to mute when ****ing Bothams on.