McGrath finished on 499 wickets at the end of the Auckland Test match. This is entirely appropriate, and it would have been a shame had he collected the 500th today.
Why do I make this judgement? Easy. There were only a few diehard fans in attendance at Eden Park, with no atmosphere of excitement and had McGrath taken one more, our memories of the event would be dim - not to mention the fact that few Australians would have been able to see it, happening in the early afternoon of a working day with coverage on pay TV. (Not that I have any problem with cricket on pay TV per se).
We can now await the event with relish. McGrath will take the new ball for Australia at Lord's on July 21 (or 22 or 23) and the first wicket he takes in that match will be the One. In front of a capacity crowd at the home of cricket, a venue and an occasion to be savoured.
"JPD" <john_p_darcy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:424921e4.117483435@news.bigpond.com...> Ooh Ah.>
McGrath finished on 499 wickets at the end of the Auckland Test match.> This is entirely appropriate, and it would have been a shame had he> collected the 500th today.>
Why do I make this judgement? Easy. There were only a few diehard> fans in attendance at Eden Park, with no atmosphere of excitement and> had McGrath taken one more, our memories of the event would be dim -> not to mention the fact that few Australians would have been able to> see it, happening in the early afternoon of a working day with> coverage on pay TV. (Not that I have any problem with cricket on pay> TV per se).>
We can now await the event with relish. McGrath will take the new> ball for Australia at Lord's on July 21 (or 22 or 23) and the first> wicket he takes in that match will be the One. In front of a capacity> crowd at the home of cricket, a venue and an occasion to be savoured.>
How one envies the venerable Holmans >
-->
JPD
Agree with you about McGrath and Lords.
Also I have heard that cricket rights in England has gone to PayTV
Not pay TV in the sense of buying the matches individually, but after this summer cricket will only be shown on subscription channels (Sky Sports to be exact)
Will S wrote:> "JPD" <john_p_darcy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > news:424921e4.117483435@news.bigpond.com...>
Ooh Ah.>>
McGrath finished on 499 wickets at the end of the Auckland Test match.>>This is entirely appropriate, and it would have been a shame had he>>collected the 500th today.>>
Why do I make this judgement? Easy. There were only a few diehard>>fans in attendance at Eden Park, with no atmosphere of excitement and>>had McGrath taken one more, our memories of the event would be dim ->>not to mention the fact that few Australians would have been able to>>see it, happening in the early afternoon of a working day with>>coverage on pay TV. (Not that I have any problem with cricket on pay>>TV per se).>>
We can now await the event with relish. McGrath will take the new>>ball for Australia at Lord's on July 21 (or 22 or 23) and the first>>wicket he takes in that match will be the One. In front of a capacity>>crowd at the home of cricket, a venue and an occasion to be savoured.>>
How one envies the venerable Holmans >>
-->>
Agree with you about McGrath and Lords.>
Also I have heard that cricket rights in England has gone to PayTV>
Well subscription channels are known as PayTV out here. Whats the percentage of people that have PayTV in England ? Is it very few, not many etc etc .?
"Jeff Green" <jeff@the-greens.org> wrote in message news:1112117655.35856.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.uk.clara.net...> Not pay TV in the sense of buying the matches individually, but after this > summer cricket will only be shown on subscription channels (Sky Sports to > be exact)>
Will S wrote:>> "JPD" <john_p_darcy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> news:424921e4.117483435@news.bigpond.com...>>
Ooh Ah.>>>
McGrath finished on 499 wickets at the end of the Auckland Test match.>>>This is entirely appropriate, and it would have been a shame had he>>>collected the 500th today.>>>
Why do I make this judgement? Easy. There were only a few diehard>>>fans in attendance at Eden Park, with no atmosphere of excitement and>>>had McGrath taken one more, our memories of the event would be dim ->>>not to mention the fact that few Australians would have been able to>>>see it, happening in the early afternoon of a working day with>>>coverage on pay TV. (Not that I have any problem with cricket on pay>>>TV per se).>>>
We can now await the event with relish. McGrath will take the new>>>ball for Australia at Lord's on July 21 (or 22 or 23) and the first>>>wicket he takes in that match will be the One. In front of a capacity>>>crowd at the home of cricket, a venue and an occasion to be savoured.>>>
How one envies the venerable Holmans >>>
-->>>
Agree with you about McGrath and Lords.>>
Also I have heard that cricket rights in England has gone to PayTV>>
"Will S" <wlsuttonrenove@gmail.com> was moved to say:
bloody top posters >
Well subscription channels are known as PayTV out here. Whats the percentage >of people that have PayTV in England ? Is it very few, not many etc etc .?
I had heard - possibly on Foxtel, which may taint the validity of the report - that pay TV had now penetrated over 50% of British households and that the Premier League was the cause.
"Will S" <wlsuttonrenove@gmail.com> was moved to say:>
bloody top posters >>
Well subscription channels are known as PayTV out here. Whats the percentage >>of people that have PayTV in England ? Is it very few, not many etc etc .?>
I had heard - possibly on Foxtel, which may taint the validity of the>report - that pay TV had now penetrated over 50% of British households>and that the Premier League was the cause.
Official reports say that over 60% of households have digital TV. That includes the people who have the free channels on Top-up TV or whatever it is, which accounts for nearly 2m households, or about 15%.
