It was Day 3 of the third Test between India and England in Mohali. The visitors had been bowled out for 283 and India had taken a first innings lead. Newbie Jayant Yadav pulled to deep mid-wicket and refused the strike to tail-ender Umesh Yadav, trying to prolong India’s innings for some more time.
While the two Test-old Jayant Yadav was giving proof of his mental grit and maturity on-field, Ravi Shastri and Laxman Sivaramakrishnan, in the commentary box, ignored the youngster’s mettle, instead ranting about the taste of steamed idlis in Chennai.
Leaving behind the enchanting voices of Richie Benaud and Tony Cozier, cricket commentary today, is spiced with repeated clichés, unpolished anecdotes and harsh criticism. In India, particularly, the presence of Sanjay Manjrekar and Sunil Gavaskar make it a yawning atmosphere for the television watching audience, who are perennially subject to their shallow insights and dull narrations of incidents.
Banal talk
Be it an extended description of the art of taking selfies, wherein Manjrekar and Gavaskar spent almost five overs scrutinising and analysing the perfect methods to click the flawless photograph as Murali Vijay and Cheteshwar Pujara sweated it out in the middle against New Zealand or Gavaskar’s extended discussion on the process of adorning a tie accurately, cricket commentary nowadays lacks the polished lucidity and elegant charm of the past.
Richie Benaud’s aura lied in his ability to guide the spectators sans exaggerated comments. He believed in maintaining an economy with words by never insulting a viewer by stating what they were already witnessing. Gavaskar, in his own words, admitted that his best lesson behind the microphone was imparted by Benaud in Australia a few years ago.
After a batsman completed his century, Gavaskar picked up his microphone but was immediately stopped by Benaud, who wanted the TV audience to soak in the atmosphere by applauding the batsman in their own way. It turned out to be a valuable lesson that was never implemented.
The Board of Control for Commentary?
A possible explanation to the rather abysmal state of commentary in the subcontinent can be attributed to the complacent arrogance of the former players, who feel that it is their right to hone the role of a broadcaster, once their heydays are over. Unwilling to learn the language of television, many commentators nowadays often impart unnecessary objective views, which appear as too harsh and at times even irritating. It was for this reason, that people like Benaud or Harsha Bhogle continue to be revered as much. By being “above the battle”, they balanced things out, presenting facts as levelled admirers and enthusiasts of the sport.
It is here that the Board of Control for Cricket in India decided to live up to its name, controlling and gagging the neutrality of the commentators that it had hired. Having their own broadcasting unit ensured that any comment which exposed the flaws in the BCCI system were vehemently eradicated, with the hired commentators expected to toe the guidelines that had been strictly laid out.
Hence, there was no mention of the Indian Premier League spot-fixing controversy that rocked the image of the world’s largest super power on air. India’s refusal to use the Decision Review System could not be debated, selection matters were a topic which could not be touched upon on air and Srinivasan’s conflict of interest was never to be treaded upon.
Danny Morrison and HD Ackerman were sacked by the BCCI in 2013 for lavishing praise on captain-in-waiting Virat Kohli, when MS Dhoni’s captaincy was being questioned. The same year, Manjrekar was dropped for criticising N Srinivasan, who was the president of the Indian cricket body then, on a webcast. For this very reason, Ian Chappell has, time and again, refused offers with the BCCI for a series. When someone like Lalit Modi can be termed as “Moses” by Shastri, it is obvious that the BCCI is trying hard to remain engulfed in its self-proclaimed utopian world.
By taking itself so seriously, the Board has tried its best to avoid embarrassment in controversial matters, which has been brought about by curbing the creative rights of journalists. Sadly, for praising a young Bangladeshi team, while they were playing against India in the World Twenty20 earlier this year, Bhogle received the boot.
Where are the engrossing debates?
When Australia’s Channel 9 brings the country’s national selector Mark Waugh on air, the audience receives first-hand accounts of the available talent pool. When Nasser Hussain criticises Alastair Cook’s captaincy, it leads to an extended debate on the affairs in English cricket. When Michael Holding speaks about the lost flavour of fast bowling in West Indies, the cricket-loving public sympathises with his reminiscence. As for the BCCI-contracted commentators, they have no other option but to remain unbiased, which results in a boring story-telling of unrelated events.
By trying too hard to fit into the younger generation, Manjrekar often gets caught up in awkward blunders. While the pedestrian advices of Gavaskar border on undue disparagement of even young players, Shastri’s clichés turn cricket into piffle. Taking efforts to teach his contemporary commentators, the difference between a “bullet” and a “tracer bullet” or engaging in morbid comments like “he gets to a well-deserved century” every time Virat Kohli reaches the magical mark only takes away much of the charm of commentary.
Excluding the witty nonchalance of Virender Sehwag, the current BCCI commentary panel lacks the additional charisma to keep the audiences engaged which, if continued, can seriously turn watching cricket in India into a morose business.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!