4 February 2008

Two thoughts on cricket coverage

A recent highlights show had a shot of the umpires signalling 4 or 6 for every single boundary. Now there are all sorts of ways that the ball can be hit or nicked to the boundary but even if you're Billy Bowden there's a limit to the number of different ways that you can raise your arms above your head or wave one across your stomach and it's not as if they're doing something unpredictable. So more cricket and fewer umpires' signals please.

Another thought that occurred to me was how often commentators go on about slow over rates. Often a fair comment but don't you sometimes get the feeling that what really upsets them is that it means more hours at the, very pleasant, office for them and more of a scramble to file their copy in time?


Ed said...

To be fair to the guys in TMS, I think they are genuinely upset if they miss any of the planned cricket as play has gone past the scheduled close of play. It's unlike you to be so cynical!!

Peter Lamb said...

I think you'll find that you see so many umpire's signals in the highlights because it's a convenient edit point exactly because they are pretty well the same each time they do it: after you've seen Tendulkar or Ponting or whoever stroking it to the boundary you don't necessarily see the immediately following umpire's signal, it's quite likely one a quarter of an hour or so later for a much more streaky shot not worthy of the highlights.
For the same reason football highlights tend to show too many goalkicks: watching the goalkeeper hoof it into the centre circle isn't an inherently fascinating part of the game, but it does look the same each time it's done, so it gives the editor a chance to discard the (say) 10 minutes of uneventful play in between the two goalkicks.