COMMENTARY is an art form. Radio commentary more so. I remember with great fondness the mellifluous voiced Henry Blofeld and Chris Martin Jenkins. But that was a different age and era. Now we are slapbang in the middle of the visual revolution, the telly beams images from across the world. What the hell, video streaming makes it possible to view cricket on one’s hand held device. Earlier one had specialist commentators backed by former cricketers as experts. The most notable being Lala Amarnath. But with the rapid evolution of the game and the telly becoming the centrifuge of change, cricket commentary too has undergone a metamorphosis. I can only think of one non cricketer from India – Harsha Bhogle – who is making big bucks on telly. Strangely there is nobody – no other non cricketer – who is giving cricket commentary on the telly.
It is a cosy club. Just about everybody is a former cricketer. And some of them are an abomination. There is a blue sky like difference between playing the game and commentating on it. Tiger Pataudi used to join other English commentators whenever India used to travel to England, but he was more of an expert rather than a commentator. His wry wit and gentle Oxbridge sarcasm often got the better of the English line up. It was a treat to listen to the last of the blue blooded cricketers. The commentator has been taken out of the game rapidly. Cricketers are all pervasive. The recent Indian additions to this growing tribe – Saurav Ganguly and Anil Kumble – have a lot of work to do before they can be described as accomplished commentators.
Watching the Ten Sports coverage of the India-West Indies one day series, this blue sky gap that I spoke of earlier was thrown into stark relief. The anchor was a dead loss, he had nothing to ask from the two leading lights – Kumble and Geoffrey Boycott, both extremely knowledgeable about the game. But the anchor (see, I don’t even remember his name) seemed in awe of the two legends and fumbled his way through the chat in Straight Drive. But Boycs, who I befriended when he came as a commentator on the 1992-93 English tour of India, saved the young man and Kumble the blushes. He explained as only Boycs can how the Indian batters were unable to bat against short pitched bowling. He began gesticulating and showed us how to drop your arms in the face of the ‘perfume ball’. He showed how and where Yusuf Pathan did not have the requisite technique to tackle the bouncing ball. Kumble was all non plussed, he said nothing right and like the anchor meandered and mumbled his way through.
Which is a pity for Kumble is articulate and knows spin bowling. He should have been able to highlight some of the technical aspects, but he failed to do so. Saurav Ganguly’s debut on ESPN was equally anti climactic, he had nothing much to say except when Bhogle asked him a question about the mental aspect of the game. It is only then that Ganguly warmed up to the task, otherwise he seemed disinterested. Ganguly knows the mental side from personal experience and he can speak endlessly on this subject. Look at West Indian Ian Bishop, he is strong and knowledgeable, he understands the nuances of fast bowling and is clear in his diction unlike most West Indians. But the subject of this treatise is Indians.
Gavaskar and Shastri are two Indian cricketers who were at the vanguard of this change. In the evolutionary journey of cricketers becoming commentators, they were the first among equals. Gavaskar is still good, he will be 60 on 10 July, he is at his sardonic best when needled. He still has the best insight about batting, for instance he will be quick to tell you that Rahul Dravid’s slump in form came because his bat was coming down from third man or Sachin Tendulkar was susceptible to the inswinging yorker because his bat face would open while attempting the flick on the on side, thus exposing the chink. But sometimes I think Sunny is bored with this nomadic life. The life of living out of a suitcase. In Australia during Monkeygate, guru Gavaskar and shishya Ravi Shastri gave the Aussies, umpire Steve Bucknor and match referee Mike Procter one helluva tongue lashing. And deservedly so. Now unfortunately, because they defected to the IPL and hence BCCI/Neo Sports, we will lose these nationalists when India tours abroad.
Ravi Shastri has his own style, while initially it appeared contrived and cultivated, it is now his very own. Shastri is gregarious and flamboyant and his decibel level refects his persona. It is Shastri, his voice a notch higher than others, speaking his mind as only he can. Who can forget the role that Shastri played when match referee Mike Denness called key members of the Indian team including Sachin Tendulkar ‘cheats’. The alleged scuffing of the ball by Tendulkar became a gravity defying moment in world cricket. And Shastri waded into Denness and company. These two make a formidable team. Shastri was heckled for most of his career and as he once told me in his Worli Sportsfield sea facing home, it made no difference to him or his life. He would shut everything out and go on playing his game. A man known to live off the chappati shot, Shastri became a big hitter towards the latter part of his career. Shane Warne still remembers the hiding that Shastri gave him during his double hundred in Australia. And that incidentally was Warney’s debut game. Shastri like Gavaskar has transformed himself into an astute commentator. Shastri’s strength is his matchplay insight, he is quick to assess whether the captain will make a bowling change, or a batsman will go out and attack or a particular bowler will deliver a type of delivery. That is because Shastri always relied on his gut instinct and he uses the jagged edge of the same faculty while commentating.
Shastri was groomed to become India captain by Gavaskar. But the board did not want another strong headed captain and alas Shastri had only one shot at being Indian helmsman. And he unleashed Narender Hirwani on the hapless West Indies at Chennai. Hirwani landed the sucker punch bagging 16 wickets. Of the other Indians, I used to like Sanjay Manjrekar for his concise and succinct comments, but he seems to have fallen off the radar lately. Manjrekar knows his cricket, he has the pedigree and for most part he is compact and consummate in his commentary. As he once said, he tries to bring a variation by discussing the technical aspects, instead of merely giving a ball by ball description. Laxman Sivaramakrishnan is one of the surprises. He has the qualitative inputs required to dissect and disseminate spin bowling, in the main leg spin bowling. He brings with him the wherewithal and expertise of his craft and guile. While his careerspan was not very long, he was a wonderful purveyor of the subtle art of leg spin bowling. He brings with him that baggage, he understands the revolutions on the ball, the loop and the deadly dangerous art of luring the batter on the gangplank of doom. And he speaks with elan and comprehension. I like his deadpan style and ease of speech. But for ripostes, leave it to Gavaskar who never backs down. That leaves Navjot Singh Sidhu and his over the top Sidhuisms. They were funny for a while, but then they got tired and jaded. More than that repititive. So, why can’t former Indian cricketers make the cut as commentators?
My sense is that Rahul Dravid might be able to do the job, for he he is lucid and well spoken. He also understands the game and has played it well. Why can’t these cricketers give good commentary is something that makes my head spin? So, if we don’t have good former cricketers turned commentators on the one hand and only a Andrew Symonds look alike Bhogle minus the steroids, then we have a bare larder. Remember, English is hardly an alien language for Indians, and most of our modern day cricketers are well educated. Srinath is pretty decent as an expert, but sometimes lacks the humour and fluency. Arun Lal is sensible, no frills, well spoken and often makes a lot of sense. But beyond that, there is nothing.
The channels are chock a block with cricket experts, but of the commentators, these are the only names that stick in my mind’s eye. I didn’t hear Arlott, if I heard him on India’s tour of England in 1974, I don’t remember. I like Ian Chappell, Martin Crowe, David Gower and Jeremy Coney. But I still wonder why Indian cricketers turned commentators don’t have the panache and pizazz that comes with the job description. We need cricketers who can articulate their craft, their understanding of the game, they can take a stand, be jingoist and offer repartee as and when necessary. They shouldn’t be garden variety like it or lump it types, but brazen and fluent. Fluent about the game and its players.
Then we can enjoy them. For there are no free lunches. Not even in the commentary box. You should be there because you have earned your place, not because of your name and reputation.
Perhaps some coaching classes are in order for the newbies.
