Well, in a way he was right. 1998. The recent hockey tests series between India and Pakistan was played out on DD. It has been joined by football and tennis (last week's ATP Gold Flake tourney). Why, even a little cricket is being played on DD. Thus, it appears as if DD has finally picked up the gauntlet that satellite channels like Star Sports and ESPN had thrown down. The battle had begun three years ago. These channels had not only bought the rights to nearly every single cricket series played by India as well as other nations, but they had also acquired rights to Indian leaguefootball and hockey. They were even telecasting Ranji Trophy cricket (and still do) and believe it or not, kabbadi! With their ability to promote a sport and make it a real TV spectacle, the future looked bright for Indian sports.

Since then, STAR Sports and ESPN have been losing the game. Hockey was the first loss. Indian Hockey Federation secretary K. Jyothikumar says that the tie-up with Star Sports failed because they could't get a sponsor in time before the Atlanta Olympics. ``We wanted money, but they (IMG which was marketing company) after promising, never delivered.''

The result? Off went hockey from Star Sports and the stunning promos that had been made to sell hockey on television were taken off.

Then there was the telecasting of the National Football League. Again, STAR Sports picked up the rights and what followed was a totally new look soccer game on TV. Great pictures, seven cameras zooming into show Bhaichung Bhutia scoring a goal. Indian football had never looked so exciting. Butthere was a hitch: STAR did not have uplinking facilities to telecast matches live. Sponsors Philips complained, threatened and Doordarshan stepped in to pick up the rights for domestic football too.

But the problem is that DD seems to have learnt nothing from the past or the satellite channels. It's back to its dreary telecasts. Picture quality is fuzzy, cameras are not placed at a reasonable height to capture the action properly. On-line editing of matches is poor, commentary seesawing between so-so and so bad. So when the National Football League ended with a Mohun Bagan win, most viewers had missed the excitement and learnt of the result only from the newspapers.

DD has the ability to telecast matches live. But that doesn't ensure that a sport becomes popular or a money-spinner. It has to be promoted on television -- regularly. It has to be expertly produced, with good commentators and superb visuals. It's in these areas that Doordarshan's failed. Not only in football but in hockey too and cricket.The just concluded Indo-Pakistan hockey Test series was a poor telecast. In Jalandhar where the stadium is not vertical, visuals lacked punch. Sometimes it seemed as if the cameraman was at ground level and unable to give us an overall view of the field and game.

DD lacks quality telecasts (which it blames on cable operators refusal to give DD a separate dish-receiver for its signal) and a knowledge of individual sports. So while DD and sports federations rake in bucks, if not megabucks, will viewers given a choice, watch a game on DD or ESPN and STAR Sports? It's an important question for DD: with a fall in revenue this year, DD needs sponsorships to boost its commercial earnings more than ever before.

Chances are viewers will be put off by DD's poor quality coverage. So have sports federations made the right decision to shun satellite channels? The latter are wary: ESPN now says that it will be picky in picking up domestic sports; Star Sports who have burnt their fingers with the National FootballLeague say, ``We will be very careful in future.'' Careful or not, the truth is that unless there's uplinking, no other sports can survive the onslaught by cricket. Of course satellite channels do pay for uplinking during cricket matches. Because they believe that it is worth the money spent. In the case of other sports, they think otherwise.

So what is the answer? DD has the audience reach and the uplinking facilities; STAR and ESPN the expertise. Here's a suggestion: DD might get it together with ESPN and STAR Sports. Let them be responsible for production while DD looks after the signals. The rights would remain with the home broadcaster and they could split the revenue. That way, fans get to watch slicker action, advertisers get the feel they want and cricket the competition that it badly needs.

When Sky Sports picked up the rights for English domestic football, media analysts screamed that the BBC would be rendered useless and this `Aussie' was taking over British football. Rupert Murdoch remainedtightlipped and when Sky started showing British football on its pay channel, the quality had to be seen to be believed. And of course, BBC does pick up the signals.

Sundeep Misra is Editor of Inside Hockey