What cricket fans have to say about F1 as the BBC turns its back on them
Comment
British sports fans can watch F1 - but not cricket - on the BBC in 2009
Most British F1 fans I know are delighted the sport will return to the BBC next year. But many cricket fans have reacted with anger to the news last week that their sport of choice will no longer be on the same channel – and lashed out at the corporation taking the F1 rights instead.
Here’s a sample of the complaints from last week’s Times letters page:
The BBC recently paid millions for Formula One, but will not pay anything, it seems, for any form of cricket. Why should I pay my licence fee? Formula One is poor by any standard of sport. In fact, is it sport? Ian Dilworth, Suffolk
It’s always interesting to hear non-F1 fans’ views of the sports – especially when they’re so strongly put! Here’s more:
Does the BBC not realise that for the youngsters of today following the cricket is much more to its advantage than the “glamour” of Formula One? F.D. Sturdy, Darlington
England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Giles Clarke had this to say:
How many people play Formula One? There are 19 million cricket fans, 2.5 million men and boys and 900,000 women and girls who play the game. Surely they have a right to expect public service broadcasters to mount bids for the nation’s summer sport?
That line of argument seemed to go down well with the commenters on this cricket blog.
I’m no fan of cricket – but my parents both are and I have a certain respect for it.
I think a lot of the remarks along the lines of ‘F1′s not really a sport’ stem from ignorance. F1 fans understand very well the enormous physical demands piloting an F1 car makes of a top-line driver. But to someone who doesn’t know the sport it looks no harder than driving a car.
F1 drivers have to be super-fit. Jenson Button compte in triathlons, Mark Webber runs a 350km trek/bike/boat race across Tasmani every year, Jarno Trulli contests marathons and so on.
The “how many people play Formula 1?” argument is another statement born of ignorance. How many F1 drivers went straight into the sport without participating in motor racing at some other level? None. Most, if not all, will have started their careers in karting – which large numbers of British youngsters (to say nothing of children in other countries) will have had experience of.
I imagine the debate about what the licence fee should go on holds little interest for readers outside Britain so I’ll confine myself to one point on this – if coverage of any sport is going to be publicly funded, it should be one that would be most compromised by having adverts during the coverage, and I would place F1 above sports that have natural breaks such as football and rugby in that respect.
Finally, I loved the idea implied in the second quote that F1 is “glamorous” and nothing else. There’s someone who’s never stood at Copse, slowly getting soaked to the skin…
As ever I’d like to hear what you make of these criticisms – particularly if you’re a cricket fan!
How should the BBC cover F1 in 2009? Here’s a few thoughts.
Thanks to Alex for the tip
Steven Roy said on 14th August 2008, 13:54
Going to Sky is fine for a sport if they are interested in short term self interest. Football is different in that people are born to support a particular team but individual sports are different.
Right now Britain has some of the best boxers it has ever had but no-one has heard of them because they spent the best year of their career on Sky where only serious fans were prepared to stump up the cash to watch. The same would happen to F1 but fortunately as Keith said the sponsors will insist on it being free to air.
Those of us in Scotland pay our license fees and have been subjected to cricket for years. While there are cricket clubs here they are not exactly popular. So having been fed cricket in exchange for my license fee for as long as I can remember I wll be quite happy to have something worth watching instead.
Chalky said on 14th August 2008, 14:02
I’m an F1 and Cricket fan. I have resorted to following all the English Test matches via BBC 5 Live Sports Extra. I bought a DAB radio for my bedroom to listen to it there and have internet streaming on my laptop at work to listen when I can.
I was disappointed when the test matches disappeared from terrestrial channels and went to Sky. The main problem that I fear the ECB are missing here is that all the young kids on their school holidays may not have Sky Sports and that limits the viewing potential for up and coming players. Not all the kids parents have Sky Sports or has a parent or family member who is a cricket fan. If you want to encourage the younger generation to follow, participate and be passionate about your sport you need “free to air” viewing.
Certainly the “free to air” viewing of F1 and cricket when I was younger helped my interest in them. Without it, I would probably never have followed the sports.
I don’t blame the BBC as they have to work out value for money in this case.
Now I watch the cricket highlights on Five, but missing so much live cricket to Sky is a disappointment. I can’t justify the cost of Sky Sports for it though.
Dorian said on 14th August 2008, 14:15
‘if coverage of any sport is going to be publicly funded, it should be one that would be most compromised by having adverts during the coverage, and I would place F1 above sports that have natural breaks such as football and rugby in that respect’
Keith, you’ve hit the nail on the head with this point as far as I’m concerned. I have nothing against cricket, though I do find it mind-numbingly boring, but as others have said so do non-F1-fans think about F1. I also appreciate their plight and there is a point to be made about the heritage of cricket and the large proportion of the genereal public who actively participate in the game. Coming from New Zealand (where cricket is very much loved), I’d imagine a similar furore if the same thing were to happen back home.
But an F1 race is an hour and a half!! I find the fact that there’s an ad-break every few laps disgusting and disrespectful to the sport (spoken like a true and stoic F1 fan eh? ;-) How many times have we returned to the coverage from an ad-break only to find something ‘race-changing’ has occurred???…..to me it’s unacceptable and as a fellow F1 fanatic I welcome the change whilst at the same time empathise with the nation’s cricket fans…
bernification said on 14th August 2008, 14:30
Again, Robert McKay hit the nail on the head, the ECB sold out it’s own sport, going for cash rather than trying to popularise it’s own sport.
My brother used to work at Lords, and still helps out occasionally- the governing body is struggling to modernise this game. Women have only just been admitted to the long room.
But ‘more people play cricket than F1′- obviously, but how many people play cricket? This also is a problem for the sport- it’s lost a large share of the market to football.
Ernest Hemmingway said it best really’ There are three sports. Motor racing, mountaineering and bullfighting. Everything else is a game.’
I played cricket for my school and I’m completely with Steven Roy on this one. What a waste of time. If only my school had covered the cricket pitch with a kart track.
This idea would have thousands of kids up and down the country cheering!
graham228221 said on 14th August 2008, 14:31
Andy – //The ironic thing about all this is that BY FAR the best way to experience cricket from home is to listen to the BBC’s Test Match Special on the radio – so much so that, if you do happen to have access to the games on TV too, you’re well advised to turn the sound down on the telly and leave TMS on the radio.//
I’ve heard several people say the same thing about F1, mute the ITV coverage and listen in on BBC 5live. haven’t tried it, but hopefully they can replecate that quality on TV.
Steven Roy – //Cricket is without doubt the stupidest most pointless game ever created. How can anyone invent a game that takes five days to play and then ends up without a winner? Cricket should be banned and the pitches converted to kart tracks.//
Lol, summed up my opinion perfectly!!! I can’t believe that 19 million people in the UK are cricket fans, where are these people?
Peter said on 14th August 2008, 14:37
In response to the question is F1 a sport. It Is one of only three true sports that exist in our world football cricket tennis golf and all such things are games. There is a huge difference between a game and a sport. and as much as the people who dislike F1 (the most popular SPORT in the world FACT)for what ever reason it is F1 that is the first amongst the three sports. I will let the people who know so much look into the facts and not let there opinion color the truth. Anyone for a game Cricket? Obviously NOT!
Chris said on 14th August 2008, 14:38
While I consider myself an avid fan of both sports and have physically attended both on numerous occasions, the cricket fraternity is just sore that like football, cricket will for the foreseeable future be pay-for-view and the BBC’s bid to screen the Formula 1 is the easy ‘drum’ these people have chosen to beat their point across with. Both sports have a large avid following which swells with public interest when success seems to be coming to the Nation (e.g. the Ashes 05/ the mighty Lewis)
I think the point should be made to these people that missing the decisive wicket while queuing at the burger van can easily be matched by having your weekend’s armchair motor racing ruined by listening to some clueless gimp for two hours try and make a soap opera out of the race and then missing the decisive laps/ overtaking pass because the broadcaster has decided I need to photograph a poodle while smashing up my girlfriend’s Ikea shelf & vase collection.
The ITV coverage has been s**t for some time & I look forward to watching uninterrupted coverage next year. PS. Nothing fills the summer break like a good debate, nice one Keith.
HOSHIYAR said on 14th August 2008, 15:52
this is a very interesting situation…as this kind of thing also is happening here in India..only that its the other sports which are facing the music…due to the popularity of cricket..the national terestrial broadcaster “doordarshan” has been able to get the rights to broadcast all cricket matches of India dubbing them as things of national importance…frankly its all to get the money from advertising…
I would agree to the people who dont know the intricacies of f1 only complain of cars going round and round…my father for sure..as he doesn’t understand the sport as well…
Phil B said on 14th August 2008, 16:48
This is exactly the sort of a problem one gets when a government tries to ‘do’ TV rather than focus on government. We in Britain are taxed for entertainment. Ridiculous.
James B said on 14th August 2008, 17:07
I think the explanation is very simple. The Cricket fans are just bitter about the fact that their Sport won’t be shown on BBC and Formula will
James B said on 14th August 2008, 17:07
Formula One*
lifelongfan said on 14th August 2008, 19:11
I am a big fan of both F1 AND Cricket, and I think that it is a good thing BBC spent the money on F1; over the last few years ITV’s F1 coverage has been detieriorating, with more and more ad breaks. If ou can’t afford Sky Sports (it is bloody expensive) you can still listen to the Cricket on Test Match Special and watch the highlights on Five (as I do).
Rohan said on 14th August 2008, 19:47
Keith, Bernie has stated on a number of occasions that F1 will be on terrestrial TV for the forseeable future. As for cricket vs F1, as an avid fan of both sports (and participator in cricket), it was the government’s choice to remove the home tests from the list of “protected” sports, thus allowing Sky to gain exclusive coverage.
However, there is no reason the BBC could not have bid for the highlights package, especially when it covers such “sports” as equestrianism (which, incidentally, deserves to be in the Olympics about as much as I do), bowls and rugby.
Nick Caulfield said on 14th August 2008, 20:43
I wonder if the perception of F1 as a “rich” sport has something to do with the reaction.
I suspect it’s not just the money to run the teams and the corporate nature of some of it but it may be that some people look at the cost of attending the British GP and feel that that sounds quite a lot for one event notwithstanding the fact that most fans will then rely on the telly for the rest of the season (and I don’t know about you but I find the season much greater than merely the sum of it’s races).
Now if, for whatever reason, fairly or not, F1 is perceived as “rich”, then it probably leads to people feeling more agrieved that license payers money has been payed for the rights to show it.
I guess another thing that struck me – Cricket is a game where to really appreciate the game as a spectator you have to take time to learn the rules of the game, the differences between the different forms of the game, the realtive strengths and weaknesses of different teams and players etc – although I guess many fans will not have realised that this is what they have done unless they think about it.
Perhaps someone like Ian Dilworth might not realise that if he paid a little attention to the rules of F1, the strengths and weaknesses of the different teams and drivers/designers/tacticians etc that he might not be so quick to dismiss it.
the sports might be a little different but the reasons people enjoy them are probably not so much.
verasaki said on 14th August 2008, 20:43
i’ll address the comment about cricket being so much more to the advantage of young viewers than the “glamour” of f1.
i think for any kid watching f1 and wondering to him/herself how they make those cars, how they make them so fast and small and light and strong and why are there so many team people with laptops swarming around the pits it might eventually occur to that kid that yeah, maybe they can’t drive in f1 but they may be able to get the engineering degree needed to help build one.