Ch4 highlights...
David Buttery
few minutes heard on a refreshment seller's radio. Naturally,
therefore, I was pleased to get home in time for the Ch4 highlights
at 7:30pm. But...
My goodness, it was frustrating. They've only got a "commercial half
hour" to play with as it is, so to then use up five minutes of that
on Mark Nicholas's pointless waffling introduction, complete with
equally pointless pics of Eurostars and the like, was not well
received.
Half of Flintoff's innings was shown in slow motion, so it seemed.
Brilliant - here's someone who hits the ball incredibly hard, so
naturally they play a version where you can't hear the crack off the
bat, or anything much else. Oh, and apparently Kirsten pulled a six
later on. This was represented by a close-up of his face.
Honestly, you'd think Ch.4 were *trying* to lose the rights...
--
Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*!
Support the world's oldest motorsport venue!
http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html
David North
news:Xns93F0B811AEC5g...@130.133.1.4...
> I was out today at a hillclimb, so missed the fireworks except for a
> few minutes heard on a refreshment seller's radio. Naturally,
> therefore, I was pleased to get home in time for the Ch4 highlights
> at 7:30pm. But...
>
> My goodness, it was frustrating. They've only got a "commercial half
> hour" to play with as it is, so to then use up five minutes of that
> on Mark Nicholas's pointless waffling introduction, complete with
> equally pointless pics of Eurostars and the like, was not well
> received.
>
> Half of Flintoff's innings was shown in slow motion, so it seemed.
> Brilliant - here's someone who hits the ball incredibly hard, so
> naturally they play a version where you can't hear the crack off the
> bat, or anything much else. Oh, and apparently Kirsten pulled a six
> later on. This was represented by a close-up of his face.
>
> Honestly, you'd think Ch.4 were *trying* to lose the rights...
Totally agree. Too much arty-farty editing, too little action. They certainly seemed to dwell on
Anderson's rejected lbw appeal too long.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk
Chris Henderson
> I was out today at a hillclimb, so missed the fireworks except for a
> few minutes heard on a refreshment seller's radio. Naturally,
> therefore, I was pleased to get home in time for the Ch4 highlights
> at 7:30pm. But...
>
> My goodness, it was frustrating. They've only got a "commercial half
> hour" to play with as it is, so to then use up five minutes of that
> on Mark Nicholas's pointless waffling introduction, complete with
> equally pointless pics of Eurostars and the like, was not well
> received.
>
> Half of Flintoff's innings was shown in slow motion, so it seemed.
> Brilliant - here's someone who hits the ball incredibly hard, so
> naturally they play a version where you can't hear the crack off the
> bat, or anything much else. Oh, and apparently Kirsten pulled a six
> later on. This was represented by a close-up of his face.
>
> Honestly, you'd think Ch.4 were *trying* to lose the rights...
Some of the worst excesses of it are utterly stupid, I can't disagree,
and it's often frustrating for the keen cricket fan who just wants to
see as much as they can in the half-hour. However, I have been told that
if you're a 'marginal' watcher, someone with no great knowledge of the
game, the C4 highlights seem quite entertaining - and C4 are committed
to trying to extend the game's appeal, remember.
The 'traditional style' of highlights that the BBC used to use, just one
clip after another after another using only the live commentary, really
could be quite dreary to be perfectly honest, especially on a
batsman-dominated day. Good for the dedicated fan yes, but possibly not
for the wider public.
Ed Morris
"Chris Henderson" <c.m.c.h...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3F5C9069...@durham.ac.uk...
I always enjoy watching 'Today at the Test' after I have watched the live
coverage as a way of reliving an exciting days play. Partly the fun comes
from the fact that it is a different style of presentation. However if I've
missed the match, there is little point in watching it if I want to see
highlights. I'm lucky enough to have sky for that who do a full three hour
highlights programme.
Ed Morris
dmo
> I always enjoy watching 'Today at the Test' after I have watched the live
> coverage as a way of reliving an exciting days play. Partly the fun comes
> from the fact that it is a different style of presentation. However if
I've
> missed the match, there is little point in watching it if I want to see
> highlights. I'm lucky enough to have sky for that who do a full three hour
> highlights programme.
What do you think of the Sky highlights?
Personally, I find them quite sapping, and usually poorly edited.
I wish they'd aim for the middle ground, and try to make the highlights
about 1 hour in length. My brother lives in Argentina, and I can't see the
point in recording either the C4 or Sky highlights for him. The C4
highlights are quite arty, but with little substance, while 5 days of Sky
highlights would take him days to watch. As a result, I haven't recorded
anything this summer, even though I'd love to have Tresco & Flintoff's
innings for my collection.
Ed Morris
"dmo" <davidtm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bji49n$j6tn8$1...@ID-205301.news.uni-berlin.de...
Once you take into account ad breaks and so on but with three you do feel
like you've seen the whole match, if you have the time!
Ed Morris
David Buttery
2003:
> Some of the worst excesses of it are utterly stupid, I can't
> disagree, and it's often frustrating for the keen cricket fan who
> just wants to see as much as they can in the half-hour. However, I
> have been told that if you're a 'marginal' watcher, someone with
> no great knowledge of the game, the C4 highlights seem quite
> entertaining - and C4 are committed to trying to extend the game's
> appeal, remember.
>
> The 'traditional style' of highlights that the BBC used to use,
> just one clip after another after another using only the live
> commentary, really could be quite dreary to be perfectly honest,
> especially on a batsman-dominated day. Good for the dedicated fan
> yes, but possibly not for the wider public.
[Deliberately left unsnipped, as I couldn't find a way to do so
representatively.]
The obvious solution, of course, would be to give us a bit more than
a "commercial half hour" every night. If it were 45 or 50 minutes,
there'd be plenty of time for the Mark Nicholas waffling *and* the
actual play.
Besides, I'm afraid I'm an old buffer before my time on this issue,
in that I really hate the "let's make cricket sexy" attitude. With my
head, I quite understand that something has to be done to get cricket
going in this country, but a) I don't follow sport with my head, and
b) England winning seems to do the trick more than anything else!
Andrew Dunford
"dmo" <davidtm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bji49n$j6tn8$1...@ID-205301.news.uni-berlin.de...
As one who has been watching the 30-minute Channel 4 highlights packages
from 12,000 miles away, I concur. I don't want to condemn their coverage
completely, because I find some aspects rather refreshing, but at the end I
feel as though I've seen very little cricket.
Mind you, I can't imagine how Sky fills three hours.
Andrew
John Hall
Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> writes:
>As one who has been watching the 30-minute Channel 4 highlights
>packages from 12,000 miles away, I concur. I don't want to condemn
>their coverage completely, because I find some aspects rather
>refreshing, but at the end I feel as though I've seen very little
>cricket.
What annoys me most is the title sequence, with the film of batsmen
playing awful crossbatted slogs that would surely immediately get them
dropped from the Test team. And why do they show an admittedly very
attractive girl who, judging by the colour of her tee-shirt, seems to be
supporting Italy?
--
John Hall
"Three o'clock is always too late or too early
for anything you want to do."
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
michael
"John Hall" <news_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JaIj0JOzLjX$Ew...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
> In article <C5a7b.47$tv1....@news02.tsnz.net>,
> Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> writes:
> >As one who has been watching the 30-minute Channel 4 highlights
> >packages from 12,000 miles away, I concur. I don't want to condemn
> >their coverage completely, because I find some aspects rather
> >refreshing, but at the end I feel as though I've seen very little
> >cricket.
>
> What annoys me most is the title sequence, with the film of batsmen
> playing awful crossbatted slogs that would surely immediately get them
> dropped from the Test team. And why do they show an admittedly very
> attractive girl who, judging by the colour of her tee-shirt, seems to be
> supporting Italy?
That and the use of "Mambo No. 5" by German one-hit-wonder Lou Bega. He's
no Booker T.
And did they poach the editor from a University foreign art film course?
Close-up of bowler's face. Focus in on bat. Then stumps. Then umpire. Show
crowd. Overhead view. Cue graphs and charts.
They might as well drop Nicholas and get it narrated by Jean-Luc Besson,
with subtitles for the English viewers.
Andrew Dunford
"michael" <michae...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bjlg6h$km1sk$1...@ID-197978.news.uni-berlin.de...
Whoever was responsible for Sunday's highlights was obviously a foot
fetishist, because the viewer was regularly treated to close-ups of the
bowler's front foot landing. Perhaps there was a good reason, but if so I
missed it: they weren't no balls, the foot holds weren't disintegrating and
the bowler didn't have his shoelaces tied together.
<snip>
Andrew
David Lewis
michael <michae...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bjlg6h$km1sk$1...@ID-197978.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> news:JaIj0JOzLjX$Ew...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <C5a7b.47$tv1....@news02.tsnz.net>,
> > Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> writes:
> > >As one who has been watching the 30-minute Channel 4 highlights
> > >packages from 12,000 miles away, I concur. I don't want to condemn
> > >their coverage completely, because I find some aspects rather
> > >refreshing, but at the end I feel as though I've seen very little
> > >cricket.
> >
> > What annoys me most is the title sequence, with the film of batsmen
> > playing awful crossbatted slogs that would surely immediately get them
> > dropped from the Test team. And why do they show an admittedly very
> > attractive girl who, judging by the colour of her tee-shirt, seems to be
> > supporting Italy?
>
admiringly at, er, Andy Caddick running in to bowl. They did something
similar when they first started, with someone resembling the one in Cold
Feet who died at the end of the last series.
Cheers
David