We’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the BBC’s nightly World Cup highlights programme.
It’s great to have some cricket back on terrestrial television, but why, as ever, does it have to transmit so late in the evening – usually at 11.20pm, after Newsnight on BBC2. Much as we might deride the tournament, it’s still the biggest single event in the sport, and deserves a more prominent slot, if for no other reason than to give children who live in non-Sky Sports homes the rare opportunity to see some cricket.
Couldn’t they find an hour at 9pm on either BBC3 or 4? They wouldn’t treat the rugby World Cup like this, and it’s worth remembering that not only England supporters have a stake in proceedings. It’s plausible that there are more followers of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia and South Africa among the UK television audience than there are fans of the Scottish rugby team.
Another gripe concerns the over-long preamble before the highlights actually begin. Do we really need the travelogue-style opening sequences? Why can’t they just cut straight to the action instead of showing off? The programme is short enough without having to include two minutes of scenery from Bangalore.
Meanwhile, hearts sank across the nation when Manish Bhasin popped up to introduce the show. You’ll remember him as the nincompoop who was almost reduced to tears by Geoffrey Boycott during the 2006/7 Ashes. We assume that since then he has re-read an explanation of how cricket works from the back of the same fag packet.
On the plus side, during yesterday’s Ireland-South Africa commentary, Ian Botham (sorry, Sir Ian) sounded less annoying than he has done for years. Might it be something to do with England not being involved in the match? Perhaps when he’s a neutral, the old roisterer files away his patriotic machismo, relaxes, and watches the play more thoughtfully.
Speaking of Ireland, who have played more than respectably all tournament, where does the side go from here? They’ve looked a massive cut above the other three participating Associate nations, but they’ll need to keep being stretched if they’re to progress further. Is it feasible to establish some kind of ‘junior’ test status, in which the best two Associate nations play occasional quasi-tests either against the major teams themselves, or their second-strings?
To look beyond Ireland, Afghanistan have the greatest potential to become a ‘proper’ cricketing nation. But they mustn’t suffer the fate which befell Bangladesh – who were fast-tracked to test status without first serving a meaningful apprenticeship. In theory, the ICC will have learned the lessons of the Tigers’ sorry experience – but it’s probably foolish even to write a sentence like that.
Thoughts?
Apart from the timing issue you mention above, the other part of the highlights that really annoys me is that 5 to 10 mins seemed to be taken up with nice arty shots of the beach or the sea, a presenter positioned in the crowd or outside the ground and then a rambling monologue about the team’s last game and key players. Why? It adds nothing to the coverage and just pads out the program.
I absolutely agree, Goose, and it’s among the points I discussed above. The reason for this ‘padding’ comes down to the dynamics of the TV production process. When the producers hold a meeting to plan the coverage, there are no brownie points for saying, ‘let’s just show the highlights’. Instead, the natural editorial instinct is to show off, by adding VT sequences of scenery and context to ‘establish’ the story. But in reality, cricket fans just want to watch the action. It’s similar to the hour long 9pm BBC2 Wimbledon highlights, which allot a good fifteen minutes to ‘colour’ pieces about the atmosphere, fashions, and strawberries rather than just sticking on actual tennis.
I suspect that it dissimilar to premiership highlights: Sky have the rights to highlight and the BBC are the ‘secondary rights holder’ can only show say 20 mins of footage from the game, and only after 10pm, and …
The ICC (and the EPL) like this as it is a means of maximising their rights revenue… As does Sky who become the sole provider forcing people to pay £19 per month just to buy the right be able to purchase their sports package.
So actually probably not the beebs fault but what the rights owners permit them to broadcast.