FTA broadcasters don't want to take up entire days of their schedule for longer form cricket.

As a whole can't see FTA ever having any home england matches barring T20, if they were to have cricket again it would be the ICC packages or away matches where the coverage is provided.

ITV/FTA broadcaster want games where the coverage/production already provided, the production cost for cricket is too high to make a profit.
Overseas England games is very unlikely, they could afford it but far less content and England only play 1 series every 4-5 years.
ICC is likely since it has massive games, decent amount games and cost not that high really, the only issue is the package isn't perfect for FTA.

Indeed. I distinctly remember by 1997 the beeb were going to the news on the stroke of 1pm, thus missing most of the last over before lunch, and during the morning when England took 8 Aussie wickets for about 50 actually broke to a weather forecast on TV, while TMS on longwave was simultaneously doing a shipping forecast, so there was no live coverage at all. Staggering arrogance really, showing they didn't really care, even then.

Not to mention that on weekends tv coverage was always patchy anyway.

The only time I can see FTA channel having the domestic or england home games is if they do what happens in South Africa/India where one of the main channel just takes the coverage of the pay channel.

FTA channel pays a fee to Sky to cover few games and use Sky coverage to show it, although this is very unlikely since in the future the likes of Sky and BT will just show it on their own free to air/widely available channels.

the current series in south Africa, Supersports are the host broadcaster but SABC are using Supersports pictures with their own comm team.

Who's commentating?

Don't know the full team.
Swann, Ntini, Gibbs. Ray jennings have been on it.

I must be honest, I thought it was a bit poor that on The Verdict that there was no tribute to Matthew Hobden whose incredibly premature death was announced last night. I know Colvile made a small mention of the black armbands during the highlights, but you'd have thought that they could have closed The Verdict programme with a little tribute from the panel. Perhaps the producers felt that it would be editorially inappropriate given that it was such a special day for England, but a sombre end to the programme wouldn't have gone amiss, IMHO.

Re the FTA debate reignited above, it needs to be remembered that FTA channels *do* give the (limited) sports that they have the rights to the full treatment these days. Therefore, if the BBC were to somehow come to an agreement with the ECB that they would broadcast English test matches then they would do it properly these days, with uninterrupted coverage between BBC 1 and 2 with the proper amounts of build up and reaction. Ditto ITV and C4 who have greater digital overspill available to them these days than either had the last time cricket was FTA. I don't for a second think that test matches will return to FTA, but I think it's slightly spurious to be using examples of poor BBC coverage from nearly 20 years ago. Just look at how the BBC treated the F1 when they got it back in 2009 and they were still extracting the maximum that they could from the rights right up until the end of this season.

On the topic of Supersport and SABC, can anybody else recall an incident in a test match in the 1999/2000 series regarding a low catch and the third umpire? I think it was Herchelle Gibbs who edged to slip and the decision went upstairs. Unfortunately, the third umpire was receiving one broadcaster's feed, where the replay was inconclusive. However, Sky Sports had access to a different angle which clearly showed that the ball carried. Sadly, the decision was given not out, as the third umpire did not have access to this angle.

I never knew whether or not Sky had additional cameras on the field of play (or, indeed, we're making their own feed entirely for that tour) which weren't available to the third umpire or whether Supersport and SABC had different feeds. I guess that the second is most likely. I certainly recall that the C4 highlights package (which used the SABC coverage as its base) did not have access to this additional replay ordinarily, but at the end of the programme, Mark Nicholas discussed the controversy and played in the additional replay which they had obtained specially. But that doesn't clear up whether it was a Sky replay or a Supersport one. Anybody else remember this, and any thoughts on how this could have happened? It wouldn't have been a problem in the modern game, as it's now rare for matches to have more than one feed produced.

I only know the 2009/10 scenario where TMS/Umpires had no sound, but Sky/Supersport had the sound where the edge was heard.

Swann and Agnew was complaining about it during lunch.

think SABC would be host broadcaster with Sky sending their own team and possibly making their own coverage considering SABC coverage might not be good enough for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-PlNuBL7RQ

video of the series.

Thanks for that link. I've just done some googling around and it was actually Kallis who nicked Tufnell to Chris Adams at slip in the second test of that 1999/2000 series. All the newspaper articles that I can find online from that time make reference to the SABC coverage being shown to the third umpire and Sky's (not Supersport's) additional super slo-mo replay not being available to him. So it seems that Sky did produce their own feed of that series - clearly they were not happy with the SABC coverage provided.

But they do for other sports so I don't really see that as a serious objection.

Good point with the commercial channels, but there is absolutely no way I can see the beeb taking it again. Apart from them possibly even cutting some channels and the red button there's also the increasing tendency of tests to finish inside 4 or even 3 days leading to hours of unscheduled programming to fill, which I wouldn't have thought they'd want on the main channels. Then of course outside of the ashes series would they want to show tests against even the windies and nz these days, never mind Bangladesh?

Other than special events like the Olympics what sports do FTA broadcasters regularly dedicate 7+ hours live coverage a day for a number of days?

Wimbledon would be one of the few, but there can't be many others

I think when Sky were doing overseas tours in the past they would have a few of their own cameras to supplement the coverage provided by the host broadcaster. Totally different from this tour which really feels like it's being done on the cheap.

Although the average standard of coverage around the world is a lot higher these days.

Snooker gets the full treatment.

World Championships maybe, but not regular tournaments, (at least not on BBC, ITV, C4/5) would be 4/5 hours

Yes, I meant the world champs.

Bumble only doing the Test matches.
Chances are Nick knight the so called One day expert will replace him.
I wonder if Nasser will also have his first gig of the winter.

I think this answers your question.
http://www.supersport.com/press-rele...c_England_tour

I dont get why people call Nick Knight for being classed as a One Day expert when his record it outstanding and only KP has a better one for somebody who has played so many matches. To all intense and purposes he is an expert.

Most people seem to forget what Nick Knight did as a player, because after he retired from international cricket he still played county cricket for another 4 or 5 years. Most commentators these days retire from international cricket and walk into the commentary box the next day

…in this country players are traditionally judged by their test record.

Though in the case of Knight it is more clouded by the fact he is not a good commentator.

So when people mock Sky dubbing him their "one-day specialist" it is more aimed at him being treated as an expert commentator rather this cricketing record.

Probably because he is an awful commentator and can never make his mind up lol.
if he was an expert he wouldn't hesitate all the time, also don't really see him knowing much about the ODI game, considering he was going on about how 2 new balls and needing proper english openers and then randomly changing is tune 12 months before the world cup. make your mind up will it be a bowlers tournament or a flat deck power hitting tournament. Saying that looking at the world cup cycle from 2011-2015 a lot of the sky commentators were slow to recognise what type of cricket England needed to play or pick. baffling really considering ODI in Aus/NZ were never bowling friendly, they literally assumed because the ball swing and seam a lot in england it would be hard to bat in the world cup.
Still remember Knight and co thought ODI were moving to the test direction around 2013 and that how their justified having Cook in the team, although at the time Cook and bell were actually quite good in the game although the explanation given was ridiculous and fast forward 18 months and they say the game is like a longer version T20 game.
Can't blame them too much considering Downton was surprised about this during the bloody world cup, must have been listening to the sky boys in 2013 lol.
Haven't really seen him contribute or give any great insight into the odi game unlike Nasser or Atherton do in the test or any format for sky.
would prefer if Nasser/Atherton did more of the Analysis in the odi game rather than Knight doing some stuff.

He might have played 100 odi for england doesn't make him an expert if he doesn't really know what he is talking about.
TBH looking at it closely don't actually think anyone can claim to be an expert of ODI in this country.

Sky coverage is top class in the test format/T20 format.
but Sky coverage isn't actually that great in the ODI format. a lot of the time the commentators insight, Analysis is all over the place in the format.

Watched...no, make that tried to watch a couple of the "Big Bash" games. Wow...those commentators take the biscuit. The three of them (one of whom is Andrew Flintoff) just won't bloody shut up . And the cameras seem to spend as much time watching them as they do the game. It's like sitting in front of three boorish mates that each wants to speak louder, and longer, than the other.
At least I can't blame Sky for it as it's not their production
Really is dumbed-down to the n'th degree; and I hope that if Sky or any UK channel trued that then it's audience will desert!!
Luckily in the UK if ever that happens we have the radio to fall back on....syncing excepted!!