FRONTAL DICHOTOMY

Few things in cricket commentary give me a bigger headache than the good vs the bad.

For instance, a batsman can play identical shots: he hits one for six, he gets out off the other. Yet the former is met with acclaim, while the latter is met with disdain. It's worse with catching. A good catch is a screamer, while an identical chance put down is a sitter grassed. You can't have it both ways.

Gideon Haigh, in an article containing no mention of Sally Warhaft, and with his focus heightened by the excesses of the IPL, expands on this in an excellent piece for CricInfo Magazine:

Night of the screamers

When commentators hype a batsman up for consecutive boundaries only to watch him perish to an imbecile smear, or praise a bowler to the skies for four dot-balls, then see him smacked into orbit twice while closing the over out, they subtly erode their own authority - such authority as they had, anyway.

For thirty years, we here in Straya have been subjected to the hype and huckstering of the Channel Nine commentary team. Their constant GBH of the earholes has reduced most of what they say to pointless drivel. Which is a pity. Whenever any of the Nine team talk cricket outside of the box they have plenty worthwhile to say. The same can be said for Dean Jones' commentary from the recent Straya Pakistan series in the Gulf. Deano is a dreadful commentator liable to explode at the merest on field incident - "That's the END OF THE OVER!!" - or make extravagant snap judgements - "1/44 off 11 overs. Pakistan are getting a STRANGLEHOLD ON THIS GAME!" - but has much to say that makes for interesting listening. Who knew about the importance of the different weights of balls before Deano described it during the 2005 Ashes? The less said about the horror that was the commentary for the South African one day series, the better.

As I see it... or rather, listen it, the solution to the problem is simple. However, given cricket's career path from pitch to commentary box, which is flooded by former players wanting a paid gig talking about cricket, it's never going to eventuate. Cricket needs professional commentators to do the ball-by-ball, and cricketers, preferably lucid and expert in the caper, to provide the insights. The likes of Bill and Tony have watered down their credibility with decades of nonsense instead of progressing to the end of their careers perceived as fonts of cricketing wisdom.

Also, with more and more cricket needing more and more commentators, the problem will only get worse. Expect more, not less, of the tortured delivery provided by the likes of Merv Hughes and Courtney Walsh in South Africa.

Comments

[Martin]

There is also a definite point in one day games where the channel nine guys just have to spruke it up. The game is going no where the team batting second don't have a hope in hell(6 for not many) . And some idiot remark will pass like "if only this pair of batsmen can get set we'll have a match on our hands". Or alternatively it will suddenly become important that a bowler achieves some milestone like "if he can get one more he will be the first bowler to get three for less than twenty-two at the Gabba against India when they batted second on a Sunday in October in a year that's not a leap year". It's as if any misdirection is better than the truth which would sound like this "well this game is boring as they certainly can't win from here we may as well all go to the bar (except Tony)"

[The Don has risen]

Martin may have a point.

I watch few one-dayers however it seems any time my boys con me into it there is Richie attempting to say what an interesting game this one-sided bore is.

You can almost believe he is believing the crap he is saying.

Nine appear better on tests however even there I usually listen to the ABC and not listen to them.

Can somebody try to rationalise why two of the most boring batsman to watch ,Lawry and Boycott, are so different when in the commentary team?

[Adsy]

Its the same with any sport. If the game is boring its up to the commentators to bring it up a notch. AFL is similar in that they constantly go for the underdog to try and will a close game. This gets irritating though because if its your team that's up it feels like they are actively barracking against you as a watcher. To balance it, some commentators have their favourites and talk them up no matter the situation (Geelong anyone?) I'm probably a bit biased myself as the Saints are a side that never seems to get a good run with the commentators, probably because they know they'll fall over at some stage.

At least the cricket commentators have been suitably biased, until now. With no real side to barrack for in the IPL, where do they get their material? Forcing yourself to go ballistic for an agricultural slog (sorry, DLF MAXIMUM!!!!!!WTFBBQ!!!!!@@(*)#&%(*@&#) gets boring when the side is going at 15 an over anyway. Its like a dot ball or anything under six an over is something to celebrate.

P.S - Haigh uses too many similies. Like I use too many brackets.

[Mark]

Over here we're blessed with Bob Willis - master of inanity and describing what we can see with our own eyes.

Archetypal Willis moment - England had bowled Pakistan out for 150 in a 50 over game. Strauss and Tresco opened, and had a careful look at the new ball so that England were only 10-0 off of 8 overs. Up piped Wilis - 'England getting dangerously behind the rate here = they'll need to start putting their foot on the gas soon.'

[Tony T]

There's no doubt the commentators spruik up the game - that's their job. But, over a long time of making extravagant statements when the occasion doesn't warrant it - the average catch that is turned into a "blinder" and the rank slog that goes for a "magnificent six" - the likes of Tone and Bill have eroded their credibility.

Mark hits on an insidious part of the commentary: when the commentators urge the players to start entertaining. For instance, when Bob Dylan Willis, says Stresser and Strausser need to up the run-rate, it's not because he's thick and has misread the game, it's because he wants England to get a wriggle on to stop the Sky viewers from turning over to Blue Peter.

[The Old Batsman]

Absolutely agree, and this is becoming an increasingly relevant point, because kids are growing up listening to this rubbish and their experience of the game is being mediated by it. I hate to be an 'in my day' merchant, but the system where a broadcaster of the talent of John Arlott or Brian Johnson or whoever was most to your taste commentated and ex-pros summarised - usually with some insight, because they weren't constantly being asked to describe what was in front of them, was the perfect blueprint.

The odd ex-cricketer - Benaud being one - who can do it should be viewed as an exception rather than a recommendation. And don't get me started on ex-cricketers who think they can write...

[donthaveaclue]

Great point about the drivel that is cricket commentary now.

But you think you have it bad with bill and tony? try listening to the garbage dished out by messrs shastri, gavaskar, jackman, cooney..all at once! Mistimed pullshots going high in the air to land over the rope (which has been brought it to aroud the 60 mt mark) are described "fannntastic shot, so-and-so taking the attack to the bowler"...

I've blogged about the excesses of the IPL on http://outsideedge.wordpress.com/

[Martin]

Boy. Wolf. Cry. That's the thing they've GOT to talk it up and they do but now they have no credibility. I want to hear whats happening not a promotion of the game.(Conservative old man's view)