The scene before play in the Indian cricket dressing room: the players are getting ready, batsmen checking out their gear, bowlers awaiting their turn with the physio for a stretch. Some are drinking chai, eating breakfast, reading newspapers. The TV is on but with one strict condition: the volume is turned to mute.
Nobody flouts this rule or turns up the TV because cricket commentary in the cricket team's dressing room is a strict no-no. Players believe the sounds distracts them, affects their concentration and opinions expressed on air needlessly clutter the mind. Sehwag once explained this in simple terms while talking casually to a TV commentator.
Aap log ise mushkil bana dete ho, he said. In the middle we don't notice half the things you say. Nor do we have time to think.
If cricket to the international cricketer is not as complicated as rocket science (or budget making) why is it analysed so intensely? Why don't people follow David Gower's theory that cricket should be played on the principle of 'see-the-ball-hit-the-ball'?
Football commentary is almost without opinion, players are merely identified as the ball moves around in the field. Tennis experts don't launch into detailed lectures about wrist position each time Federer puts a volley away. So why is there so much talking in cricket?
{{/usCountry}}Football commentary is almost without opinion, players are merely identified as the ball moves around in the field. Tennis experts don't launch into detailed lectures about wrist position each time Federer puts a volley away. So why is there so much talking in cricket?
{{/usCountry}}One explanation is that in cricket coverage there is time to fill (to consume gaps between balls, overs and other breaks) but this is only partially accurate because golf provides many more opportunities for expert intervention (players stride down the fairway for several minutes after hitting massive drives) yet there is little discussion on technicalities, no repeated slow-mo, no comment on the intricacies of Tiger Woods' swing, the position of his left toe or the tilt of Ernie Els' head.
One reason cricket commentary apes the Delhi Police (with you, for you, always, everywhere) is we thirst for cricket gyaan, we love the incessant tuitions, expert opinion and the comment. With the media getting caught up in this (supply catching up with demand) there is just no escape from the barrage.
Be it radio/print or TV, everyone is engaged in a serious battle to present cricket with creativity and innovation, hence the vigorous quest for fresh angles, new insights, unusual presentations.
The Asia Cup has Hong Kong and UAE who won't make much progress in Ranji Plate yet the extent of coverage is staggering. Most times what is said, written and spoken is far from earth-shaking and even though distinguished experts are knowledgeable the sheer excess is killing.
The pictures may be sexed up by putting a Bedi in front of the camera but beyond a point interest begins to sag. We can get hysterical describing Sachin's hundred and his superb straight drive but after a while adjectives run out and one feels burdened and saturated. Nothing escapes debate and discussion — be it Sourav's stubble or the teams huddle.
PS: The law of demand and supply has another side — when any commodity is oversupplied, demand for it dies down.