When it's been 7 months since his last century and Sachin Tendulkar is helping himself to a comeback hundred after missing 14 matches, you'd like to see as many close-ups of his face and not have to cope with a banner ad across his face. But that's what we had live with in the recently concluded DLF Cup in Kuala Lumpur.
And you certainly wouldn't want an ad break before 6 balls are bowled. But that's precisely what happened during a tense Stuart Clarke over when India and Australia clashed in the same tournament in September.
The run-up to the ICC Champions Trophy was full of turbaned cricketers saying cricket is now tying the knot with entertainment. No complaints with that really, but should we be treated to cricket coverage that seems to be deteriorating every season?
There's a special irony here as well; I still clearly remember BCCI vice-president Lalit Modi sketching out his vision for a BCCI-owned channel during a crowded press conference in Mohali sometime in early 2005, when Pakistan was touring India. Modi's diatribe was directed particularly at the poor quality of cricket coverage. No more switching to ads the moment the last ball of the over is bowled, said Modi that evening in the PCA press-conference room. No more hijacking of the viewers' interests over a few extra lakhs of rupees thundered Modi.
I believed him then and when more than a year later BCCI pushed its logo onto the screen, I thought better days were ahead. I wondered then, as to why my fellow journalists failed to be excited by Modi's pronouncements, but on hindsight they probably knew things were unlikely to improve.
I have nothing against the BCCI vice-president, in fact the cricket board is a much-improved outfit these days I'm told. But all this detracts from the point - how long are we expected to deal with badly-placed ads? I briefly toyed with the idea of starting a chain of text messages exhorting people to boycott products advertised during a cricket match, but I realized it wouldn't really work. What seems clear though is that the BCCI and the channels will continue to ignore the viewer unless the chorus of complaints becomes really loud. It's great if channels want to squeeze out every rupee they can out of their cricket rights - we know they aren't in the business for charity. But it really looks like they're sacrificing long term gain for their quarterly balance sheet.
I wonder how many people have switched off the screen or changed channels in disgust. A few market-watchers are already saying football is going to overtake cricket by the time the 2011 World Cup is here. That may be a bit far-fetched, but treating the viewers like poor cousins is certainly not the way to go. Growing the game is important even in a country that accounts for the game's biggest following.
One last observation: cricket channels can borrow from tennis coverage. I noticed during the US Open that the entire screen gets compressed to accommodate the ad at the bottom. It's not great, but the actual 'playing surface' is not disturbed. It is certainly better for the viewer.
I don't know if anyone is going to take note of this simple solution. As for me, migrating to another country, say England is beginning to look like an attractive idea. The weather is a bit too cold and the wind pierces the gut, but I'm told you get better cricket coverage! About the AuthorH R Venkatesh H R Venkatesh is News Editor-Anchor at CNN-IBN. He has just returned from the University of Oxford where he completed an M Sc in Contemporary India as...Read Morefirst published:October 19, 2006, 20:21 ISTlast updated:October 19, 2006, 20:21 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article',container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails',placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails',target_type: 'mix'});
let eventFire = false;
window.addEventListener('scroll', () => {
if (window.taboolaInt && !eventFire) {
setTimeout(() => {
ga('send', 'event', 'Mid Article Thumbnails', 'PV');
ga('set', 'dimension22', "Taboola Yes");
}, 4000);
eventFire = true;
}
});
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
When Ian Chappel announces that Jerome Taylor has just become the first West Indian to get a hattrick in One Day Internationals, you want to hear him complete what he has to say, and not to an animated tiger doing his noisy jig on one corner of the tv screen. But that's what we were treated to on Wednesday's match in the Champions Trophy.
When it's been 7 months since his last century and Sachin Tendulkar is helping himself to a comeback hundred after missing 14 matches, you'd like to see as many close-ups of his face and not have to cope with a banner ad across his face. But that's what we had live with in the recently concluded DLF Cup in Kuala Lumpur.
And you certainly wouldn't want an ad break before 6 balls are bowled. But that's precisely what happened during a tense Stuart Clarke over when India and Australia clashed in the same tournament in September.
The run-up to the ICC Champions Trophy was full of turbaned cricketers saying cricket is now tying the knot with entertainment. No complaints with that really, but should we be treated to cricket coverage that seems to be deteriorating every season?
There's a special irony here as well; I still clearly remember BCCI vice-president Lalit Modi sketching out his vision for a BCCI-owned channel during a crowded press conference in Mohali sometime in early 2005, when Pakistan was touring India. Modi's diatribe was directed particularly at the poor quality of cricket coverage. No more switching to ads the moment the last ball of the over is bowled, said Modi that evening in the PCA press-conference room. No more hijacking of the viewers' interests over a few extra lakhs of rupees thundered Modi.
I believed him then and when more than a year later BCCI pushed its logo onto the screen, I thought better days were ahead. I wondered then, as to why my fellow journalists failed to be excited by Modi's pronouncements, but on hindsight they probably knew things were unlikely to improve.
I have nothing against the BCCI vice-president, in fact the cricket board is a much-improved outfit these days I'm told. But all this detracts from the point - how long are we expected to deal with badly-placed ads? I briefly toyed with the idea of starting a chain of text messages exhorting people to boycott products advertised during a cricket match, but I realized it wouldn't really work. What seems clear though is that the BCCI and the channels will continue to ignore the viewer unless the chorus of complaints becomes really loud. It's great if channels want to squeeze out every rupee they can out of their cricket rights - we know they aren't in the business for charity. But it really looks like they're sacrificing long term gain for their quarterly balance sheet.
I wonder how many people have switched off the screen or changed channels in disgust. A few market-watchers are already saying football is going to overtake cricket by the time the 2011 World Cup is here. That may be a bit far-fetched, but treating the viewers like poor cousins is certainly not the way to go. Growing the game is important even in a country that accounts for the game's biggest following.
One last observation: cricket channels can borrow from tennis coverage. I noticed during the US Open that the entire screen gets compressed to accommodate the ad at the bottom. It's not great, but the actual 'playing surface' is not disturbed. It is certainly better for the viewer.
I don't know if anyone is going to take note of this simple solution. As for me, migrating to another country, say England is beginning to look like an attractive idea. The weather is a bit too cold and the wind pierces the gut, but I'm told you get better cricket coverage!
Comments
0 comment