Cricket commentary has become a platform for showing off
Television delivers brilliant pictures but the downside is having to put up with non-stop chatter from commentors. Some discussion is fine because we are not in the pre Alam Ara era but the information overdose and constant technical tuition is both irksome and a distraction.
Passing information to viewers using stats is understandable as cricket is stats based and numbers reflect the state of the game. In a "day's game" viewers must know team and individual scores and in a "overs game" add-ons are needed (run rate, strike rate, bowling economy) to get a better picture.
The commentary team states the obvious, then repeats it to make sure the point is not lost. Trouble starts when stats are used to manufacture analysis and insight. Screen space is consumed by pitch maps, weak zones and wagon wheels and commentators never fail to seize on stats to give a technical tuition to viewers.
When in a subdued mood there is serious discussion about seam and wrist position, Kohli's bat speed, Shikhar Dhawan's backlift, revs on Ashwin's off breaks. And in inspired moments the discussion is centred on Umesh Yadav's flawed follow through, Shami's ineffective left hand during delivery stride, Suresh Raina's wobbly head when facing bouncers and someone's hesitant front foot trigger movement.
Their favourite topic, however, is guessing the nature of the pitch. Surely there are more theories about the pitch than opinion about the mysterious swings of the sensex. Nobody accurately knows why pitches behave the way they do but everyone seems to have an inside track and is in a hurry to broadcast it.
This is not to suggest commentary is not entertaining and uplifting, there are experts whose comments contain sharp insight and terrific entertainment value. But the overall impression is of people straining to give gyaan, dissecting the game minutely to establish their credentials and educate the viewer.
Wouldn't it be better if focus shifted from knowledge sharing to relaxed engagement, informed opinion and information? When tennis and golf television coverage can strike this balance why is cricket so dominated by expert opinion?
Apparently, this sawaal was recently researched by a sports channel, and the responses of people surprised them. They found out that an overwhelming majority of viewers had never visited a cricket ground to see a "live" match, and had only a hazy idea about the intricacies of the game. But they understood maths (runs required from balls available and remaining wickets) and the drama of the contest as the overs ran out.
Armed with this research they invested in a Hindi channel and instructed their commentators to be relaxed and easy, informal and entertaining. The basic learning: Viewers want to have fun, and television is not a tool for distance learning.