Jump to content

Things that piss you off that shouldn't


AVFCforever1991

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Presumably Sky won the rights to broadcast The Ashes in a fair auction, thus there's absolutely no issue with them having it. 

It's not as simple as it being an auction in the free market. If it was, the fa Cup and football World Cup wouldn't be on terrestrial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Presumably Sky won the rights to broadcast The Ashes in a fair auction, thus there's absolutely no issue with them having it. 

It shouldn't be an auction.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't even remember pre sky owning it all 

Did bbc 1 give it the same treatment as Wimbledon and the open? As in shifted everything out of the way so that it was prime time viewing? 

With the format of the ashes would any of the channels give it the airtime it needs? Or demote it to BBC / itv 4? 

I think it's the latter so I dont think they actually deserve it

Would any of them actually stump up the money to show a series in oz and then give it the nightly coverage it needs? 

Edited by villa4europe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, there have been several English batting collapses this year, so I'm sure you can point me to tweets which do exactly that. 

The only 'political' point is that it would be better if big cricket matches weren't on sky, a point which is hardly particularly controversial, and which has been voiced throughout the cricket press all summer. 

Just looking to be annoyed by nothing imo. 

Yes I awoke this morning, saw that tweet and just decided to be annoyed

I'm absolutely positive the ECB would love to go back to BBC levels of funding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

Did bbc 1 give it the same treatment as Wimbledon and the open? As in shifted everything out of the way so that it was prime time viewing? 

It was usually on BBC 2 but yes they did, apart from breaking for the news. It also swapped channels from 1 to 2 around the schedules

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

I'm absolutely positive the ECB would love to go back to BBC levels of funding

I'm sure fifa would love the opportunity to flog the world cup rights as well, but **** them. There aren't many times we still get prioritised over private interests, I'm not going to shed any tears for them. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xela said:

C4 did a great job with the Ashes in 2005. Think it has been on Sky since?

Even Channel 4 would cut away for horse racing and come 6 o'clock they would stick it on Film 4 so they could show re-runs of Friends.  Test cricket's problem is that it takes so long and is unpredictable so hard to schedule.  I don't think the BBC have even showed any interest in getting rights for cricket on TV since 1999.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tweeted (why I bothered I'll never know) that this was a cynical, self-advertising tweet and got a load of people saying "Well Hardy's ARE the offical sponsors, they give money to the ECB, so they can jolly well Tweet what they like!!"

I didn't know people could get so uppity about slagging off a tweet to a corporate company (apart from Apple).  I mean, Hardy's tagging in Ben Stokes, the ECB and Jack Leach is basically begging for attention, isn't it? The glasses thing I get because, y'know.. he wiped his glasses.. Why Hardy's felt the need to chirp in and say "WELL WE SUPPLY A BOTTLE OF BESPOKE WINE (hastagged)!! WOULD YOU LIKE SOME JACK?? WHAT YOU RECKON STOKES?!! SHALL WE GIVE HIM SOME OF OUR BESPOKE WINE!? (hastagged).. Like anyone gives a **** :lol:  

Evidently, they do, and I got some "top banter" from randoms too. 

I wish people would realise no-one gives a shit about their opinions LOL.    

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

What's a 5-fer. Pretend I am a 6 year old that knows nothing about cricket. 

"a five for" is how you'd really say it.  It's just how you say it verbally. 

It's when a single bowler gets 5 batsmen out, via LBW (leg before wicket), hitting the stumps, or getting the batsmen caught by one of the fielders. 

A 6-fer is when a bowler gets 6 batsmen out, and so on until you get a 10-fer.

Edit.  To add, the "5 for" would actually extend to "5 for 100", or "5 for 30".  The changing number at the end represents how many runs the bowler has conceded.  

So a 5-for 100 is WORSE than 5-for 10, 

cos conceding 100 runs is worse than 10! 

 

HAPPY TO HELP FRIEND! 

Edited by lapal_fan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lapal_fan said:

"a five for" is how you'd really say it.  It's just how you say it verbally. 

It's when a single bowler gets 5 batsmen out, via LBW (leg before wicket), hitting the stumps, or getting the batsmen caught by one of the fielders. 

A 6-fer is when a bowler gets 7 batsmen out, and so on until you get a 10-fer.

That's explains it in terms I fully understand. Thank you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Cricket.

No sport should be as complicated as Cricket.

I always maintained that football is the most popular sport in the world because it's the easiest sport. You don't need nets, bats, ice rinks, pools, any equipment.

You just kick stuff and whoever gets more goals wins. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â