THE CACOPHANY OF CRICKETERS TURNED COMMENTATORS

When Sanjay Manjrekar condescendingly called  Ravindra Jadeja a bits-and-pieces player, and not an all rounder, he not just crossed the line of decency but also opened up a can of worms. He is a serial offender who creates and thrives on controversy. This observation was made while on official commentary in a match where the player in question was not even playing. Michael Vaughn, the ex- England captain rebuffed him and Sanjay too hit back and followed it by blocking him in his twitter handle. Clearly there are two matches being played – one among the cricketers and the other among the commentators.

Over the past decade or so, the down slide in the quality of cricket commentary and even in the subsequent coverage in newspapers has been a matter of grave concern. Ever since broadcasters and cricket boards have started the trend of hiring ex-cricketers the thrill of listening to commentary or reading about it is diminishing by leaps and bounds. Their communication skills clearly fall short of the desired standards. Forget using apt phrases for graphically explaining the situation on ground they even fumble for basic words and spend a great deal of air time reminiscing about their glorious era interspersed with hollow laughter and giggles. There is a fine line between those who have played the game of cricket and those who explain the game of cricket with love and passion. Unfortunately most of the cricketer- turned-commentators fail miserably when it comes to generating love and interest for watching the game of cricket.

They are no doubt experts of the game but more often than not they see the game through a prism of their own biases and an outdated thought process. The viewer is constantly treated to their pearls of wisdom as to where the slip fielder ought to have been positioned, why the long leg fielder is not positioned finer as in the good old days, why should the long off fielder be brought up, who should be bowling next, how should the batting order be changed and so on. In case the ball goes through the gap which they had predicted or a particular bowler gets hit for runs about whom they had suggested should be dropped then all hell breaks loose.

These days even a false shot by the batsman is immediately met with scorn and contempt by the ex-cricketer turned commentator. In a sermonizing tone he is admonished not to play such a shot – with the foot away from the pitch of the ball and the head in the wrong position as well. In yesteryears and excited voice full of energy would have said, “ well bowled sir… the ball beat both the intent of the batsman and the bat itself.”

The more you listen to such cynical commentary the more you start missing those professional master craftsmen of words and wit like Nevil Cardus, (lovingly called the Shakespeare of cricket) Christopher Martin Jenkins, Frank Keating, John Arlott,  Bobby Talyarkhan, Suresh Saraiya, Pearson Surita, Anant Setalvad, to name just a few. They could come with descriptive lucid phrases that were born from an innate love for the game. Their knowledge of cricket was never used as a knife to shred reputations but to enrich the game itself and they had a sense of humour and wit that could light up even a dreary test match. Their greatest asset was that they retained an almost school boyish enthusiasm and love for cricket at par with an ordinary cricket fan. The crucial difference between these two generations is that while for the present lot winning is everything for the professional men of words of the past enjoying the game of cricket was everything. When a batsman of great class and repute would be out cheaply a Nevil Cardus would be quick to point out something profound like  – “There ought to be some other means of reckoning quality in this best and loveliest of games; the scoreboard is an ass for we remember not the scores and the results in after years; it is the men who remain in our minds, in our imagination.”

With their unique skill and style which was full of wit, wordplay and scintillating observations the viewer, the listener or the reader as the case may be always could transport himself mentally within a touching distance of his favourite cricketers. Above all one ended up loving the game of cricket and the cricketers irrespective of who won or who lost, who scored or who didn’t. Not once have we ever heard a Suresh Saraiya or an Anant Setalvad berating the batsman for a false shot. In fact it is their magical words that made a Gavaskar or a Vishwanath, a Salim Durrani or an Eknath Solkar a larger than life hero. Their failures were more often than not attributed to the fickleness of lady luck or just the unpredictable nature of the game of cricket itself.

I am firmly of the opinion that ex-cricketers should be restricted to summing up the match after the game or during the breaks. They can also contribute immensely during the pre-match show. But taking over running commentary and ruining it with poor wordplay and wrongly constructed sentences is actually diminishing our love for the game itself because invariably it is mixed up with a pinch of cynicism and an overdose of technicalities.

The mellifluous rendition of the commentators of yesteryears was as soothing as the crackle of the fireplace spreading warmth and comfort or a gentle breeze that soothed our minds and made us love our cricket and our cricketers even more. A far cry from what these cricketers turned commentators have transformed the game too – a strategy to win a war and an arena where reputations are made and tarnished with nationalism creeping in through the back door. 

And cricket will be poorer for that.

                                     

  

INDIAN CRICKET'S ACHHE DIN ARE HERE?

As India snuffed out the South African challenge in Pune to seal the fate of the series the focus shifted to the  modern day democratic version of the ‘night of long knives’ at the BCCI where a dramatic late night twist paved the way for Sourav Ganguly to become the President of India’s most powerful and arguably richest sporting body. A cricketing legend on the field and a Dalmia protégée off it, Sourav has all the credentials to turn around the image of BCCI which had taken a battering both under Srinivasan and the court monitored COA. Sourav, more than anybody else, would be perfectly aware that he wears a crown of thorns and carries a huge burden of expectations. The wolves never give up and at every opportunity they would try to get back at him.

While ‘Prince’ Sourav is all set for an eventful ten month reign in the Board room, ‘King’ Kohli  is busy ticking all the boxes and stamping his authority with an aggressive brand of cricket. These developments obviously augur well for Indian cricket.

The man of the match at Pune for me was Pandurang Salgaonkar the pitch curator. At the age of 70 this man’s tryst with cricketing destiny has had a long, controversial and chequered history. Arguably India’s fastest bowler in the seventies he was crucially ignored during his peak and a subsequent tweak in his bowling action paved the way for his eventual decline. He was not included in the Indian team that toured England in 1974 . India lost all three Tests by large margins. Relying almost entirely on spin, the Indian attack was ineffective on pitches favouring pace and seam. Wisden commented: "Probably the Indians would have benefited from including Salgaonkar, of Maharashtra, easily the quickest bowler in the country.”

 His stint as Pune’s pitch curator too had a fair share of controversy. From being ‘involved’ in tampering of the pitch and suspended for six months to the pitch being rated ‘poor’ by ICC in 2017, he has clearly been through hell and back. Last week’s pitch however was a beauty. It had pace, it had bounce even in the fourth day and the odd ball turned. This was a text book sporting wicket where the batsmen, the fast bowlers and the spinners all had a fair chance to excel provided they had the necessary skills. This is precisely what is needed for Test cricket to survive and indeed flourish.

The other great ex-cricketer turned pitch curator is of course Daljit Singh. He worked as the chairman of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) grounds and pitches committee but was sacked in December 2009 after an ODI at Delhi was called off with the match referee declaring the pitch "dangerous" and unsuitable for play. His CV has an interesting detail. He worked for one year at 10 Janpath, where he prepared a cricket pitch inside the residence of the Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri for Shastri's son who was interested in cricket!! He is best remembered for the pitch at Mohali that has traditionally given bowlers the extra bounce and the batsmen the liberty to play on the up.

The reason why I mention Salgaonkar and Daljit is because they not only prepared great pitches but also, more importantly, created tracks that were not conventional dust bowls for India spinners to run riot with the opposition and wrap up the match in three days. Their pitches have ensured a battle between bowlers and batsmen and more importantly both spinners and fast bowlers had a chance to showcase their skills. This will go a long way in encouraging fast bowlers in India as well as challenging spinners to bring in more variety and deception.

The second aspect that cricket lovers in India must take note of is the attitude of Kohli. It gladdens the heart of the connoisseurs of cricket when they see captain Kohli touching the feet of Daljit Singh in full public view. It is no secret that India has been traditional lions at home decimating opposition with consummate ease. But right through the ages the pitch curators were mere puppets at the hands of administrators and the Indian captains. They had every right to throw tantrums at them in full public glare if they noticed a tinge of grass here and there. In fact they were not referred to as pitch curators but contemptuously dismissed as ‘maalis.’ This is what led to the creation of ‘dust bowls’ where the ball spun from the word go. While Indian tracks are still spin friendly it is no longer the case of the spinners just ‘putting it there’ and allow the pitch to do the rest. They are now forced to work harder on their skills.

Such has been the change in the attitude of Kohli that he has embraced the challenge of the changing nature of Indian pitches and encouraged his fast bowlers to put to good use their art of reverse swing. Our quick bowlers too are now excelling in these conditions and bagging wickets in both innings. There has been a crucial change in the mind-set of the Indian bowling unit under Kohli. They look to attack, they look to take wickets and more importantly they refuse to take the easy route of criticizing the pitch. It is this change in approach that will help India win matches even when the chips are down.

ICC would do well to take a look at the quality of cricket balls. For far too long now we have been discussing Kookabura vs SG and Duke balls. While complete standardization might not necessarily be the solution there has to be a set of norms on the quality of seam and the hardness of the ball especially after forty to fifty overs. If ICC can evaluate a pitch as ‘poor’ and deduct points then surely they can do something similar about different cricket balls also. Test cricket could do with more challenging conditions if it intends to survive and flourish.