We are barely two months into the new
year and already cricket has thrown up enough talking points to last
us the whole year. There's been the resurgence of Pakistan, the
ongoing decline of India, the increasing likelihood of Sachin
Tendulkar ending his career on 99 international hundreds and so many
more, yet the most controversial story of all seems to have taken
place off of the pitch and indeed nowhere near a stadium or
administrators office at all.
I speak, of course, of the purchase of alternative commentary broadcaster Test Match Sofa by fusty old Cricketer magazine. A surprising move, yes, but one which has stirred up a furore that none of those involved could have envisaged.
I should probably declare several interests at this point. Back in September 2008 a well known cricket writer and I conceived the idea for something very similar to Test Match Sofa. Unfortunately this coincided with me starting a new job and him landing a book deal, and nothing came of it. I therefore have nothing but admiration for the people who had the inspiration, time, energy and resources to set up Test Match Sofa and make it work so well.
I speak, of course, of the purchase of alternative commentary broadcaster Test Match Sofa by fusty old Cricketer magazine. A surprising move, yes, but one which has stirred up a furore that none of those involved could have envisaged.
I should probably declare several interests at this point. Back in September 2008 a well known cricket writer and I conceived the idea for something very similar to Test Match Sofa. Unfortunately this coincided with me starting a new job and him landing a book deal, and nothing came of it. I therefore have nothing but admiration for the people who had the inspiration, time, energy and resources to set up Test Match Sofa and make it work so well.
In addition, I know a number of those
involved in the deal. I have played cricket alongside some of the
Sofa lot. Andrew Miller, editor of the Cricketer, is someone I have
met on several occasions, 100% of which have involved alcohol. The
magazine's publication director Andy Afford gave me my first writing
job for a cricket magazine (even if he did keep forgetting to credit
me). I have no axe to grind with any of them and I am certainly not
going to join the chorus of people crying 'kissy kissy sell out' at
the parties.
All of which is why I feel so bad that I can only see this merger as a bad thing. I know that it was necessary if the Sofa was to continue and I applaud the Cricketer for reaching out to a younger audience. I know that the Sofa is breaking no laws by what it does (I've done the research, remember) and that the ECB and BBC are making themselves look even more foolish than usual with their bleating about it. And yet to me this deal echoes of nothing but the sound of doors closing.
All of which is why I feel so bad that I can only see this merger as a bad thing. I know that it was necessary if the Sofa was to continue and I applaud the Cricketer for reaching out to a younger audience. I know that the Sofa is breaking no laws by what it does (I've done the research, remember) and that the ECB and BBC are making themselves look even more foolish than usual with their bleating about it. And yet to me this deal echoes of nothing but the sound of doors closing.
One of the great pleasures of the past
few years has been watching bloggers slowly insinuate themselves into
the mainstream media, and this is perhaps more prevalent in sport
than in any other sphere of journalism. It has been my delight to see
Jarrod Kimber progress from his scabrous, scatological Cricket With Balls site to the pages of Cricinfo and on to the point where the man
is now making a film about the decline of Test cricket.
The internet has also presented a
wonderful opportunity for women to show that they, too, have a deep
knowledge and understanding of sports. In South Africa Ant Sims
became one of the nation's leading sports bloggers before most people
even realised that she had two x chromosomes and can now be found
gracing the pages of no less an institution than Sports Illustrated.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Lizzy Ammon – herself a Sofa alumnus - has
gone from being a reluctant blogger unsure if she had anything new
to say to providing online commentary for The Mirror newspaper. There
really is a whole new world of opportunities out there.
Or is there? The problem is that for
every blogger who makes these steps, dozens don't. Even after you
weed out the ones who lack dedication and/or talent, there are still
a substantial number for whom the door is never opened. And with each
successful blogger, there is a door shutting behind them to so many others.
Which is why the Cricketer-Sofa deal is
a bad thing. Suddenly, a part of the cricket establishment has
control over the one opening there is for wannabe cricket
broadcasters. At the same time, the magazine has a ready supply of
new, enthusiastic freelance writers at its beck and call. Quite where
this leaves those who currently commentate but who are already tied
to other publications is anyone's guess, but the future for them
doesn't look rosy at all.
There will be those who blanche at that
last statement, but you don't even have to be as cynical as I am to
realise that however much Miller et al might deny it, there is
going to come a point where it happens. Some suit with a calculator
and a balance sheet is going to become involved. They are going to
wonder why the broadcast medium that they paid a six figure sum for
isn't sourcing its talent from the people they are already paying.
Instead of two breeding grounds for new talent, you get the same old
faces revolving in and out, much like the England team of the 1990s.
As a
result, the door into cricket broadcasting is shut because it
has a new, establishment, doorman and a number of doors into cricket
writing are blocked off because someone has put a Sofa across them.
However much you love what each organisation does, you can't pretend
that this is a good thing.
For possibly the first time ever, I've
written something in the hope that I will be proved wrong.
