The combination of Trent Bridge and India looks like an ideal recipe for controversy. In 2007 it was Sreesanth’s beamer to Kevin Pietersen and his confrontation with Michael Vaughan that generated hullabaloo. The legendary ‘Jellygate’ episode occurred at the tail end of the same Test in which India and Zaheer Khan were accused of using artificial means of getting the ball to swing around. This year has seen the Ian Bell run out dispute and the on-air spat between Nasser Hussain and Ravi Shastri – reputed commentators and former captains of their respective nations.
Since the race for the ‘Number One’ title is veered towards a foregone conclusion at the moment, the scrap for seizing control is only being witnessed in the Star Cricket commentary box. In accordance with the latest ICC regulations, the BCCI’s reservations regarding the infallibility of technology, the ongoing Test series between England and India does not include reviews for LBWs. Following Harbhajan Singh’s dismissal last Saturday, where he was adjudged to be out although replays clearly showed that there was a thick inside edge, the BCCI came under Nasser Hussain’s gun as he condemned their stance regarding the DRS.
He was adamant that despite the DRS system not being completely foolproof, its use can purge cricket from howlers like the one Harbhajan had to bear. Hussain’s demonstrative words, in essence a correct reflection of the pictures, struck an antagonistic chord with the Indian contingent and they sure as hell got Ravi Shastri spoiling for a fight. Shastri outlandishly asserted that England were in fact “jealous” of the success of the IPL and of India’s surge towards the zenith of the sport, adding the fact that “they have never been bloody Number One in the world.”
Shastri’s frenzied outburst was meticulously dealt with by Nasser Hussain when the pair got together the following day. However, this did not prevent things from becoming discomfiting, as millions around the world endured the pitiful confrontation. Their cricketing success has got to heads of the Indian commentary team, who were warped and narrow even in India’s not-so-glorious age. Who can forget Sydney 2007-08 and ‘that’ Michael Clark catch that never was. The instance instigated a 10-minutes long Harsha Bhogle tirade and he completely forgot about commentating on the action.
Instead he chose to rumble on and on, and along with an incandescent Sunil Gavaskar, unleashed low blows galore! They even attacked the integrity of some of the Australian players which was completely uncalled for. The Indian crew do have a tendency of taking things personally and transforming their one-dimensional perceptions into ugly scuffles. The Star Cricket lineup is certainly not the only guilty party. The Chanel 9’s predisposed coverage from Down Under is another example which, for the decade or so of Australian hegemony, gave the world inestimable doses of snobbery and arrogance.
Ian Heally would habitually go overboard while describing how classy “Gilly’s” cover drive was or how “Warney” was the best thing since sliced bread. Ian Chappell, knowledgeable though he undoubtedly is, normally fails to locate the flimsy line separating straightforwardness and downright disrespect. Though the Channel also caters far and wide of the Australian audience, taking benefit of the satellite revolution, their condescending mannerism of addressing all things foreign was quite contrary to the crux of commentary.
Seemingly, one can conclude that a sense of superiority is the natural corollary of success. However West Indian media legend Tony Cozier is the living embodiment of that claim’s rebuttal. Cozier has been the face of West Indian commentary for around 40 years and while one can discern his anguish at the West Windies’ current plunge, he was gracefully neutral in his commentary and journalism during their heyday. Michael Holding is another West Indian who expertly combines knowledge, expression and neutrality – the nuts and bolts of cricket commentary.
The preeminence of cricket commentary can be traced back to the golden days of John Arlott and Trevor Bailey of BBC’s TMS (Test Match Special). The lightheartedness of the BBC radio show, coupled with cricketing connoisseurs at its helm, made it a household name before the television era reached its peak. Arlott in particular spread the gospel of cricket majestically. He was a quintessential commentator who had unparalleled cricketing know-how and an astounding flair for proper depiction.
Staying on the British front, Geoffrey Boycott is another recognized name whose oft-sardonic expression was usually mocking but never prejudiced. Boycott deserves all the plaudits for completely renovating himself from the dour batsman he was to an explicit voice behind the mike. Such recognition of viewership demand and the resulting adaptability is almost extinct nowadays – and coming from as stubborn a character as Boycott, it reflects that understanding of the game and the demands of the audience – in front of the stumps when he batted and on the television screen when he commentated – has been well taken care of.
The Channel 9 wasn’t always imbalanced and biased either. A certain Mr Richie Benaud comes to mind as the true ambassador of television commentary. His frequently mimicked style became a global brand (who could have described Abdul Qadir’s magic better and in terms more simpler than this: “He bowls and bowls again”). He was of that rare breed of cricketers who actually went through journalism as a part of their switch towards commentary; the current batch of ex-cricketers continues to be oblivious about its importance.
The emphasis on a commentary ensemble of former players is a fallacy in the cricket media. Most channels hankering after ostensible credibility in the shape of recognizable figures deprive themselves of some genuine talents. Take the example of Alan Wilkins and Grant Nisbett; both of them non-cricketers but they lie in the top drawer of presentation in a wide array of sports.
The educational quandary in our backyard is hindering the rise of our commentators. Our international commentary expertise is spearheaded by the world renowned Ramiz Raja and despite Wasim Akram occasionally found searching for words to express his inner thoughts, he is starting to make a name for himself through his colossal stature and by judicious analytical skills.
Even though the eccentricity of Pakistan cricket has meant that our fortunes swing around like a pendulum, both on and off the field, our presenters rarely become a picture of bigotry. Even Imran Khan’s classic “If I were the captain…” discourses on-air were suffixed with impartial thoughts. Sports commentary is a responsible job, as the expressed opinion becomes the first source of sports education for the young starry eyed followers of the game and the real connoisseurs. The principal goal of on-air commentary is to generate insight and create thrill.
Whatever happened to the Bill Lawrys and Tony Greigs of this world? Lawry’s, “Bang! That’s a four…” or “That’s a ripper!” used to give one complete feel of the action and enthralled one and all. Contemporary commentary has shriveled to the stature of political articulation and blinkered remarks. The presenters toe the official line as if they were beholden to their nationalities, and, if one may say, respective cricket boards. And this is where one finds fault. While one would resist to call it blatant dishonesty towards the job at hand, it has to be acknowledged that the partisan analyses are blighting the game – not to mention its already much blighted spirit, with money mostly coming from India.
And here is the smoking gun. Gavaskar and Shastri are being paid Indian Rs36 million (double the figure to get the Pakistani equivalent) a year from the BCC. Why? To align their opinion permanently with the BCCI? Does this explain their collaborated disapproval of the DRS? While former cricketing greats can be invaluable to the audiences with their superlative understanding of the game, if they align their analysis to please their boards or present a ‘come-what-may I am going to favour my side’ outlook, it will damage credibility beyond repair – not just their own but also the medium they represent.
Restoration of perspective is, thus, the need of the hour, or else live cricket coverage would soon resemble a dogfight between two partisans. Cricket deserves better, and this must be realised by the leading lights from amongst the commentariat who are, unlike the generation before them, are fortunate enough to not just continue to hog the limelight but also benefit monetarily as well long after their sell-by date as players.