NEWS
OTHER SPORTS
DIARY
PEOPLE
MATCH REPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Expert comments...

Even as Zimbabwe looked for a rare Test win on the fourth day of the one-off Test at Harare on Saturday, it lacked the oxygen of media attention.

The TV commentary team of Andy Pycroft, Ian Butcher and Charles Lambert could not bite deep into the game's fluctuating fortunes, and cliches and repetitive jargons made the coverage a tasteless affair.

There was nobody from India -- but the broadcasting company, South African Broadcasting Corportion (SABC), could have hired a TV commentator from India or asked Dilip Vengsarkar, who is here on a "media assignment" looking to cover the Test for "seven or eight newspapers."

Be that as it may, even the press box is full only with Indian reporters, a Reuters man or the internet army. That the press tent is pitched right in the square leg area did not help matters either.

It made this Test almost a pre-historic event. A throwback to the '60s and '70s - for by '80s the Test matches were being beamed lived into the Indian living rooms - when only clippings and hour-long highlights were telecast late in night.

If millions of cricket fans in India are rueing the lack of telecast, it only shows Test cricket is not dead yet -- merely, the authorities and TV moghuls have it pretty low on their list of priorities.

I wandered around, looking for impromptu reactions from around a hundred spectators present at the ground, as well as from those in media tent, on the quality of international tv commentary in general.

And found that the perennial favourites were Geoffrey Bocyott and Bill Lawry. "They are so opinionated, a reflection of their obstinate, stonewalling presence at the crease, and generally get under the viewer's skin - in short, they make it very personal with viewers."

Henry Blofeld found favour with some. "His humour, which unfortunately is outdated now, was refreshing. As an anchorman, he could needle the experts like nobody else has managed. He could bring out the prejudices and insecurities of commentators most vividly - rattling the obstinates like Boycott and Imran, and playing on the cautious attitude of a Sunny Gavaskar - and pleasing the viewers who are looking for a duel."

From the above, it was obvious that the most highly prized virtue of a commentator is the strength of conviction and the courage to speak his mind, followed by an ability to be irreverent as and when the so-called 'experts' were found deserving of such treatment.

For all his wit, Blofeld is however extremely unpopular in England. He is quite liked in India though. Blofeld is said to have said once: "They say I am extremely popular in India, and it only goes to show that India was dropped on its head as an infant!"

Says Telford Vice, covering the tour for Reuters: "For me, Blofeld is good because he gives you the picture of a typical game on in a village in a quaint setting.

"The thing is, you can't be a commentator and remain colourless. There have been a few commentators who are good, but because of their lack of presence they are not liked," says Vice.

The legendary Charles Fortune of South Africa was one. He was extremely knowledgeable, and had a way with words and did not miss out the other things which went with a match, but was not as popular with South Africans. It is said Trevor Quirk tries to imitate him, and does it very poorly.

Quirk recalled one instance when he was sharing the booth with Fortune and the latter was reading out telegrams which come to commentators from time to time. Fortune read all but one, and kept it under mike. After the tea break, Quirk picked it up and found it was from the Blind Association. It read: "Charles, when you talk, we can see."

Fortune was not liked in South Africa because in its largely closed society -- till now, that is -- humour was seen with suspicion. Sports was always very important to them, because it kept them in the news. It is only now that in South Africa, the public is beginning to relax, to appreciate humour in commentary.

It is this ability to paint pictures, to go beyond what is obvious on the telly screen, which makes for a good commentator. In the box, you need a mix of dry technical knowledge, a la Benaud, with someone who is humourously colourful, like Blofeld. Actually, Benaud and Blofeld would be quite a team in a commentary box.

Says Blofeld: "Being funny is a very serious business." Behind the facade of all those earrings and pretty faces in the crowd, Blofeld has a very good understanding of the game and its personalities. One has to cut through the obvious ramblings, though, to realise the knowledge that backs it up.

There are a few commentators who make the mistake of being nationalistic. In his mercifully brief stint at the mike, Imran Khan always referred to Pakistan as "we". He did not appear unbiased. It was always "we" against "them."

And who is the most unpopular commentator of all? By consensus, it is Tony Greig - "He shouts too much, and generally gets the names wrong of other teams!"