You did once get almost all of a home Test covered by the BBC, at least when they weren’t cutting away to the tennis, or going on strike.

Sky both cover overseas tours and cover them with technical excellence way beyond anything the BBC would have attempted. Though the commentators bug me.

I don’t like football, and couldn’t care less about it, but the Premiership (which I must concede some oafs do enjoy) wouldn’t exist without Sky, either.

That may not be a good thing – I don’t know. I do remember the days when Match of the Day was QPR v Oldham, often IIRC involving lots of blokes skilllessly hoofing an orange ball around a mud patch/virtual piste.

The good old days.

And the other point stands, regardless. If I don’t pay for the BBC I go to court, with the full force of the State ranged against me; if you don’t pay for Sky you just get the chance to whine in a slightly supercilious fashion.

Yes I agree entirely. Personally I love being asked to pay £522.50 + the cost of a TV license a year for something I used to be able to get for the cost of a TV license.

It doesn’t annoy me at all that the cost is this high because they pay £1bn a year for football rights, and £70m a year for cricket, but there is no way to watch the latter without also paying for the former.

If only I could get over my moral objection to giving money to an organisation which employs Gary Neville, Sky could have hundreds of my pounds, and I wouldn’t resent them at all.

Good reference.

I feel your pain KC. Following Cricket and cycling but not being a lover of SKY is one of life’s challenges.

Cheers. Sounds like a 3-1 England series win to me!

I could go on…

…in fact, I realise, I already have gone on!

We were hoping it was going to be the definitive opening delivery of a Test match – mid-paced, outside off, safely left – in which case we were going to write reams about it. But actually it was slightly better than that. Rogers defended, but it was a thickish edge which went to gully and hinted at plenty.