Psyche of a cricket mediaman
By Amit - 1 May '03
May 1 2003
As the game of cricket gets bigger, the media contingent, whether in the press box or commentator's box, gets larger. But all is not well on the media front. Sometimes, it can seem as if the average fan is better informed than these lofty experts.
Today, cricket fans use the media and web to find all the latest info on their team. Be it small rumors or massive media releases, the Indian cricket fan will try to get information the same way Harbhajan tries to collect runs in the slog overs: by any means necessary. Sadly, the media’s goal is to print the comments of anyone who’ll talk, from a first class cricketer in Canada to the president of the ICC.
We must exercise discretion when reading or hearing the comments of these so-called experts. These ex-cricketers suffer from a curious combination of regret, anger, and stupidity. And when your most minor statements make it into newspapers worldwide, you will tend to abuse the power.
After much thought, I have managed to categorize these specimens into five broad groups. Some may accuse me of being unjustly biased and one-eyed. My response: if Sidhu, Chappell and Botham can do it, why can’t I?
1st Category: “Never Satisfied”
This category is headed up by Ian Chappell and Michael Holding.
Chappell and Holding torture viewers with their constant criticisms. Holding’s philosophy is that if a ball doesn’t get a batsman out, it's rubbish. Holding was a great bowler, but would it hurt the guy to say something positive for a change?
Ian Chappell is basically an old geezer. During the famous Kolkota test, his first statement after VVS Laxman’s dismissal was a flat and stoic “That was a bad shot by Laxman”. VVS had just played one of the best innings of all time, completely shifting the match in India’s favor, and this is the only praise Chappell had.
Both Holding and Chappell were great players, but that doesn’t give them the license to pretend they never made any mistakes. However, they know what they are talking about, so they aren’t the worst breed of commentator.
2nd Category: “Don’t know about this specific match, but whatever happens, England is the best team ever”
Ian Botham and Dermot Reeve are the commentators who fall into this category.
Botham constantly reminded us throughout the World Cup that in a day-night match the side batting second had a big disadvantage (except when England's opponents batted second). This continued right through the finals. One can picture the biased man from Somerset saying something stupid like “Good thing the final wasn’t a day-night match, otherwise India would have done even worse.”
Dermot Reeve falls into this category because of a completely ridiculous statement he made while India was touring England. On the eve of the last day of the Headingly test this nutcase uttered a comment that must have brought a smile to viewers’ faces. England had 6 wickets left, and still needed 116 runs to make India bat again. Nasser Hussain was on 90 and Stewart on 40. This is when Reeve dropped his bombshell. According to this “expert” England would still be able to win. Andy Flintoff, the greatest allrounder in the world (because he’s English) would score a blistering century. India would then be set 150 odd to win, but the combined attack of Andy Caddick and Mathew Hoggard would demolish India’s ‘feeble’ batting order (somehow this same order managed 628 runs on the same pitch, but Dermott Reeve knows everything so we can’t argue). India continued the next day and won handsomely (with the destructive all rounder asserting his dominance by way of a swashbuckling 0 off 2 balls).
How such absurd comments pass without any flutter in the cricket community is a mystery. Botham and Reeve aren’t all bad though, at the end of the day, their comments are entertaining despite their parochial attitudes.
3rd Category: “I’m so boring I put my co-commentator to sleep”
There is no dearth of media persons in this group. Sanjay Manjrekar, Laxman Sivaramakrishnan, Ranjit Fernando, Bob Willis, Arun Lal, Maninder Singh all belong here.
These are the guys who’ll take a 37 ball century from Shahid Afridi and turn it into a dogged and defensive innings from Sanjay Bangar. At 6:00 in the morning, when one has been up since 10 the previous night, it becomes a Herculean task to stay awake. If Sanjay Manjrekar has the microphone you have as much chance of staying awake as Sunil Joshi has of becoming captain. Here are a few gems from this incalculably vapid man. “The slow motion replay doesn’t show how fast the ball was traveling” (thanks IR.) A slip of the tongue maybe. However, we must display tolerance as Sanjay was most likely explaining to those not-so-quick viewers that the slow motion replay actually slows things down. Kamal hai!
During an ODI between India and the West Indies that was being played in India, our flamboyant commentator pointed out that the stadium was near an income tax building. Guess what Sanjay? Nobody cares! In case one income tax building wasn’t interesting enough, he went on to tell us that there was another stadium in India that also had an income tax building nearby. I probably would have heard more except I fell asleep (while Sehwag went on to hit a century).
Laxman Sivaramakrishan, aside from being annoying, managed a particularly asinine statement that mystifies me to this day. “Douglas Hondo gives the impression of being deceptive”. Question: WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN? If you give the impression of being something that you are not, then aren’t you deceptive?
Fernando, Willis, Arun Lal, and Maninder Singh don’t say anything idiotic but in short, they are monotonous and dull.
4th category: The truly obnoxious
We’ve seen dull, biased, and hard to please, but this category is the pits. If there was justice in the world the persons who occupy this category would have their mouths taped shut. These people find nothing more fun than to use their star status to attack players who have contributed more to Indian cricket than they ever could have.
Bishen Singh Bedhi, when a cricket ball was in his hand, was an artist, when a pen is in his hand he’s a loudmouthed, insolent, and biased human being (human being is stretching it a bit, but the hyperbole makes the prose more interesting). Bedhi has constantly attacked Ganguly and Muralitharan, searching for their smallest flaws and turning them into major scandals. The sad thing about Bedhi is that despite his brainless statements, journalists still seem to flock to him and listen to his words. Maybe these people are looking to sell newspapers rather than provide news.
The most recent addition to this group is Kapil Dev. Back from his self-imposed exile he seems ready to coach the team again, only to find that Wright has whipped them into unimaginable form. And now suddenly, Wright has a new critic. Good to see Kapil is doing what’s best for the team and not himself, it’s so easy to be selfish these days.
5th and final Category: Good commentators!!!
Thankfully, the media is not all bad. Harsha Bhogle, Ravi Shastri, Geoffrey Boycott, Sunil Gavaskar, Navjot Sidhu, Ian Healy, and Richie Benaud are all excellent, unbiased, and entertaining commentators. They manage to point out the more subtle aspects of the game without sounding stiff and boring. All may produce the odd crazy comment, but in the end it's entertaining.
Although commentators must have gone through rigorous interviews to be selected for this highly influential job, one must be wary of what they say. To watch a cricket match without commentary is foolish, to listen to commentary without thinking dangerous.