Sport and art of the mind’s eye

FOOD for thought in the letter from Eric Vevers in praise of BBC Test Match Special (Yorkshire Post, June 7) in response to Tom Richmond’s column. Radio can outdo television in the same way that literature has an advantage over screen and stage: the scope of the mind’s eye. This is why the film rarely lives up to the book.

I recall being disappointed by my first experience of cricket on TV, having grown up with the radio commentaries of the likes of John Arlott and Jim Swanton. Early post-war broadcasts of Tests from Australia reached us through a mass of atmospheric interference which only served to heighten the drama.

Mr Vevers identifies the great bugbear of TV coverage: the commercial breaks. This applies also to tennis. Setting aside the essential vacuity of the adverts, a lot that happens at the change-over is worth showing: nowadays some of John McEnroe’ s exchanges with umpires would be lost to us. However, I think your correspondent is missing out by boycotting TV cricket.

Intelligent use of technology has raised coverage to a new level. Shame on the BBC for not even putting up a fight.

Poll position

From: Mrs W Abbott, Boulsworth Avenue, Hull.

PHILIP Smith gives us an explicit description of the House of Lords (Yorkshire Post, June 10) and goes on to say that “we can’t sack MPs who are found guilty of criminal offences”. However, is it not possible that an MP can be de-selected by his/her constituents if they prove to be unsatisfactory?

As Mr Smith points out, our Queen is unelected, but given the choice, I believe the majority would vote in favour of retaining the monarchy than being ruled by a republic.