The Need For Innovation In Cricket Commentary!

What makes cricket-watching on TV a good experience? Is it the quality of telecast or the graphics and the analysis the broadcaster sets up or is it the commentary that makes TV cricket a compelling exercise? Probably a bit of all biased towards the last feature. Back in the 60s & 70s (before TV came into India) cricket commentary was a highly respected facet of the game, for it was completely dependent on the person behind the microphone to picturize live events to an audience that had no other access. The stories that transpire to today’s generations from fathers, grandparents are fascinating; a common line that emerges is the quality of the commentator that made cricket following a wonderful activity.

Soon television entered households, cricket adopted a colourful version and cricket following subtly changed to cricket watching! Enter 2000s and the television industry boomed, leading to multiple channels broadcasting cricket. The variety & diversity could be a good thing but also can be an issue for an average TV watcher. Let us keep the broadcaster part out of the equation at the moment and keep the focus on the men who bring the audio element to live cricket!

Like different kinds of players, today we have a wide range of commentators. Likes of Harsha Bhogle, Ian Chappell, Michael Atherton, Mark Taylor, Ian Bishop & Tony Cozier bring so much insight into their 30-minute or so stints while likes of Pommie Mbangwa, Ravi Shastri, Tony Greig, Simon Doull & Danny Morrison have certain flamboyance to their speech! Tom Moody, Richie Benaud, Kepler Wessels, Sunil Gavaskar, Ian Botham provide sanctity to commentary; Michael Holding, Sanjay Manjrekar, Nasser Hussain, Wasim Akram are reputed for their straight talk, while likes of Russell Arnold, L. Sivaramakrishnan, Athar Ali Khan, Rameez Raja, Arun Lal bring the element of nationalism to the table (these lists are not exhaustive). People have different tastes and the above bracketing could be different for somebody else!

Despite this wide spectrum, you have matches which seem boring not only because of the quality of cricket but also due the commentary. Too much cricket dilutes the anticipation factor; probably the same thing works for commentators as well, diluting the zing in their speech consequently making the entire exercise lumbering & repetitive for the listener. What can be the way out? - Probably by infusing non-cricketing names in the mix who have a decent idea about the game. They may not be technically comprehensive but can complement the technicians well, to lift overall standards. Scroll through the above names once again to realize that only a few don’t have a reputed cricketing career in that list. Examples of Harsha Bhogle, Alan Wilkins tell us that you don’t need to have an elaborate cricketing bio-data to be a good commentator.

Another aspect of TV broadcast is pre- & post-match shows. This involves setting up and dissecting a match, probably as important as commentating live for 30 minutes. The anchoring has been pre-dominantly assigned to those either who haven’t played cricket or popular VJ’s in case of T20 leagues. Barring rigorous TV watchers or dedicated fans, many people don’t enjoy these shows for their longevity and hordes of tiny commercial packages. The viewership of these shows depends on the contest that follows rather it being lesser dependent on the latter facet.

Men in women’s cricket are regularly seen - umpiring, coaching & commentating, but the converse isn’t true. Likes of Mayanti Langer, Mandira Bedi and lately Shibani Dandekar, Archana Vijaya have been in and around the pre & post match scenario or tiny segments during live matches but we haven’t had female voices in the commentary box. The reason that is cited is the lack of spontaneous technical analytical skills and the inability to infuse excitement or generate a thoughtful discussion on air. This might appear true for we don’t have too many big names (in women’s cricket), which is the norm these days for qualifying as a TV expert; but it is hard to believe that we can’t find a single woman for that job! To provide a dimension to the commentary job, the addition of an intelligent female voice could remove the cliché of a woman meant only for the glamour and entertainment aspect of the entire package.

Cricket commentary was an art previously but more of a professional service these days. You get a sense that formalism of this facet has lowered the flair associated with it. Commentary is merely an add-on to the real thing, but in today’s day and age it has become an important subject of scrutiny and criticism due to its reach & widespread. You don’t really watch cricket for the commentary these days (as could be the case say 10-20 years ago), but good cricket with sub-standard commentary is a strong no-no. Sunil Gavaskar once said that radio commentary is tougher as it involves picturisation of a thing which the audience cannot see, probably the commentators today should realize that they have to serve more than what the audience can see!

Disclaimer: The writer is from India and has written on the backdrop of the telecast that is available in India.