Skip to content

Deceptive commentators

It really gets my goat when commentators fail to tell the truth: when they embroider banal sporting moments, assuming that their audience will be none the wiser: when they purposely misrepresent the facts to fit the story they are determined to fabricate.
What brought on my displeasure, not to say disgust, was the TV coverage of the first days play in the New Years Test at the Sydney cricket ground. Throughout every session they insisted that the pitch was “ a good surface to bat on”, despite the fact that 13 wickets fell in the day.
Their agenda was to belittle the skills of the Indian batsmen and at the same time to magnify the abilities of the “superbly new found discipline and focus” of the Australian fast bowlers.
To any half knowledgeable observer the first day pitch had a fast grassy surface with moisture giving plenty of swing and seam movement, not to mention varying pace and height. It was, in fact a fast bowler's paradise. If they needed reminding what a “good pitch to bat on” really is, they only needed to switch Channels to the South Africa v Sri Lanka Test where only four wickets fell for 580 runs and it took another 100 or so before the next one. Did the two pitches look the same? Like hell they did. One obvious “green top”, one flat brown “belter” with not a twitch of help for the bowlers.
Individual moments of misrepresentation come to mind. When the very promising newcomer Pattinson came back for a new spell with Tendulkar well set, the new wonderman was not surprisingly a little tight, short of pace and wayward. None of these shortcomings were mentioned. Then he bowled a long half volley wide of the off-stump, another poor ball, only for Tendulkar to suffer a brutal inside edge onto the stumps.
Nobody said “ Oh! You lucky fellow. It is certainly your lucky day today.” No. No. The facts did not fit the fairy tale and he was heralded with another masterly plan duly fulfilled. Bah!
It all started early on when an out of form Ghambir played across a straight ball and nicked it behind. Easily done and simple to explain. But simplicity is too simple. " Pourquoi faire simple, quand on peut faire complique", as they say in these parts. It had to be a great ball “jagging” across, and, of course, due entirely to the bowler's skill – and nothing to do with the pitch.
The trouble with this kind of reporting is that sensible men like Mark Nicholas and Tony Greig get dragged into the messy depths of deception before they know it. Not to say that I was not a trifle disappointed in even them from time to time.
No wonder that I am sure I am possibly not alone in “muting” the commentary for much of the time, turning up the sound again only when there is doubt about a dismissal or near miss when the commentary team has better and quicker information to hand than the home viewer.
I recommend time spent watching games without the perpetual fictional chatter of the “men who know all”, while listening to some quiet pastoral music. A glass or two of a modest wine also goes down well = or so I am told.
Then there is the obvious matter concerning the Indian decision to bat first on winning the toss. In retrospect, it was a dreadful gaffe. But the arguments for bowling that first morning are compelling, to say the least. The Australians were fighting mad to prove that some good quick bowling in the First Test was more than a flash in the pan. And the main reason for not bowling first against Australia for the past 15 years was missing i.e. the threat of Shane Warne's devastating leg-spin on a worn fifth day pitch. Now they dont have a spinner worth sixpence. So asking them to bat first is no longer the poisoned chalice it used to be. Dhoni made an avoidable mistake.
Why was this crucial element of the match strategy not a pivotal matter for discussion? Why? Because the commentary team was wedded to the "good pitch to bat on" premise. They may be experts - at TV presentation to suit accountants - but they did the great game a disservice. It deserves better.

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

No comments

The author does not allow comments to this entry

Add Comment

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
To leave a comment you must approve it via e-mail, which will be sent to your address after submission.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

Form options