WHY CRICKET COMMENTARY HAS TAKEN A PLUNGE

Commentary is suffering these days because the commentators are bad. Most commentary panels these days are filled with ex-players, who despite having excellent on-field careers, still have a lot to prove when it comes to showing their mettle in the commentary box. What many would disagree with here would be the fact if commentary actually requires showing much mettle, isn't commentary simply the description of events taking place on field, designed to mask the silence that'd otherwise be very awkward? Well, no. Legendary Australian commentator, the late Richie Benaud explains, “The key thing was to learn the value of economy with words and to never insult the viewer by telling them what they can already see.”

Cricket is not a game that's packed full of action every second of the way. Every time a six is hit, it takes a considerable amount of time to get the ball back in the bowler's hand who takes his time to start his run up. From a commentator's point of view, these seconds need to be filled with words that provide insight into the game, and cricket sometimes require a lot of explaining. The mistake commentators make is to 'insult the viewer by telling them what they can already see,' instead of explaining the intricacies of the game that most viewers probably don't understand. The cricket seasons are long nowadays, and we see the same players in action over and over again. Listening to the commentators lose their marbles about a perfect Virat Kohli cover drive time and over again does get annoying, but it wouldn't if they took time to explain why it was perfect and what he does different. 

While you can attribute repetitiveness and lack of analysis to lack of skills, one thing supporters can't to tolerate is bias. This begs to ask the question: does this bias really exist or if it's just something the hardcore (and sensitive) fans are making up inside their head? It will never be possible to answer the question with complete confidence but the source of this suspicion can certainly be pointed out. Once again, if we look at a list of current commentators in cricket, almost all of them are ex-players with little or no journalistic experience. And that poses a problem when these players rely on pulling on their on-field experience from years back to provide insight on different teams now. Ramiz Raza doesn't know Bangladeshi cricket nearly as deeply as he knows Pakistani cricket, and because of his lack of journalistic experience, he has to ramble on about Shahid Afridi's all-round capabilities in a Bangladesh vs India match which has at least one all-rounder many times better than him. Sanjay Manjrekar has no option but to talk about Ravindra Jadeja in a similar situation because he simply doesn't know enough. This problem extends to commentators of every nationality, and unless fair representation and/or a strong journalistic approach to commentary can be ensured, this can't be corrected. 

Commentary is a difficult skill, the famous Christopher Martin-Jenkins knew that when he wrote to another legend of the art, Brian Johnston, as a schoolboy asking for advice on how to be a commentator. With the recent passing of Tony Cozier, who followed Tony Greig and Richie Benaud, cricket is fast losing all the famous voices behind the microphone, and struggling to replace them. 

When he's not obsessing over football, Azmin Azran spends his time devising ways to avoid getting mugged, only to fail miserably. Give him advice at fb.com/azminazran