No, they were commentating some random moments per below:
Did they do any of that during the ODIs?
They didn’t. Richardson and Hodge only really spoke during drinks breaks and for channel changes.
I actually preferred that approach. At stages it felt like Copeland and Blewett were commentating too much, and it was sometimes bordering on waffle. I would have preferred if they left it to the host broadcaster more often.
1 Like
…Australia V Sri Lanka Test and ODI coverage was produced by Rainmaker (SEN) for Seven.
The “commentary” team made reference to being at a “radio event” during one broadcast as well, so Seven was clearly also taking the SEN radio call outside of those studio-hosted periods.
3 Likes
No, Seven did not take SEN’s radio commentary. They took the TV host broadcaster’s commentary for the majority of play, while having their own studio hosts commentate at times as well. Rainmaker produced the TV coverage making extensive use of the Sri Lankan TV host broadcast. It was not associated with SEN’s own radio coverage.
Some of the commentators who worked on SEN’s radio call also were heard on Seven via the TV host broadcaster. This is quite normal right around the world as many commentators who work on TV also work for at least one radio outlet.
9 Likes
The Masters league would have aired overnight on 7+. However I can’t find any replays or highlights on the 7plus cricket tab
Edit: checking at 9:25pm Melb time, the mini for the 1st match is up on 7+
2 Likes
3 Likes
According to The Daily Telegraph, frustrated Channel 7 executives are lobbying hard to overturn a loophole preventing a free-to-air broadcast of the World Test Championship Final this June.
Legislation states that if Australia were playing India or England, then the match would have to be made available for free-to-air broadcasters, but because Australia’s opponent is South Africa, the match is locked away to Amazon.
Seven has expressed its frustration to the government department which runs the anti-siphoning laws.
3 Likes
Is this the same Channel 7 that circumvents the anti siphoning list every year by not airing the home ODIs and T20I
16 Likes
That doesn’t sound right. Where does it say anything about India or England (except for The Ashes)?
1 Like
I think if the government is going to fix this loophole, then they should add a clause about domestic international ODIs and T20s where SBS and ABC are default broadcasters where the FTA rights holder os unable or unwilling to broadcast the event in Australia, regardless of the teams competing. That would mean if say WI were playing SA (in the world cup) and the rights holder viewed it as not value for money SBS (or ABC) could screen the game - ABC radio would likely provide commentary. This is just my thoughts
1 Like
Short answer, it doesn’t.
4 Likes
The Test cricket section is pretty simple,
(1) Each men’s or women’s cricket test match that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia; and
(b) is played in Australia.
(2) Each men’s or women’s cricket match of an Ashes series that:
(a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia; and
(b) involves the senior English representative team; and
(c) is played in Australia or the United Kingdom.
A long time ago matches involving India used to be included, but that’s been gone from the list for 20 something years now.
The fact the act specifies matches part of an Ashes series makes this hardly a loophole. If Seven wanted the rights, they should have bid.
3 Likes
Last year’s rights were offered separately, but when Amazon got the ICC rights, it was made part of the broader package.
The reality is that Australian FTA are only interested if Australia is playing, whereas the ICC are interested in money (and probably an easier deal)
3 Likes
9/Stan will want the 2028-2031 package with a home T20 World Cup and maximum coverage
In an increasingly competitive market, the networks need to be on the ball. If Frank or Kerry Packer were still around (and owned Channel Nine) i daresay that this would not have happened. They would of had their lawyers finding a loophole allowing them to secure the rights for Nine
1 Like
7 needs this.
1 Like