Microsoft Exchange Conference: April 22 - 24

Cut your internet cost now! -- Netwatch

Search
The Indian Express

The Financial Express

Latest News

Screen

Express Computer
Feedback
Travel

Matrimonials

Careers

Lifestyle

Astrology

E-Cards

Columnists

Graffiti

Crossword

Letters

Environment

Jewellery
Info-tech

Power

Steel

Advertisers Forum

Business Forum

In association with Amazon.com

Books Music

Enter keywords


INDIAN EXPRESS FRONT PAGE

Politics

Business

Expressions

General

World

Sports

Leisure

States

 

Friday, April 23, 1999

Should TV commentators play selectors?

EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE  
Cricket commentators are supposed to describe what is happening on the field. They're meant to describe what happens when bat meets ball and 15 men run around. In the days of radio cricket commentary, the people who commentated seldom played the game and few had represented the country. The best known cricketers-cum-commentators were Pataudi and Bedi, called in to shore up the innings, sorry the commentary.

Since then we have travelled a long way. We have learnt from Australia's Channel 9 that cricketers make better commentators than commentators do cricketers, simply because they have been there in the middle and know what happens in the heat of the moment.

Ever since STAR Sports and ESPN, we have been priveliged (?) to watch matches in the company of Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri, Kirti Azad, Geoff Boycott, Ian Chappell, Richie Benaud, Michael Holding and many other former international cricketers. Their presence has undoubtedly enriched the pleasure of watching a game.

But sometimes, it seems, they go too far. Take the current example of Azharuddin and the cricket commentators in Sharjah. Almost singlehandedly but collectively, the commentators have been unashamedly promoting the cause of Ajay Jadeja and in the process, without quite saying so, trying to ensure that Azharuddin stays in the pavilion. In their comments on air, in their newspaper columns the next day, people such as Gavaskar, Shastri, Boycott and Chappell have praised Jadeja for almost every move he made as captain of the team. By the end of three successive matches he captained and India won, they were openly supporting his candidature for the captaincy for the World Cup. The team, they said, had been rejuventated under Jadeja, it had a new cohesiveness under Jadeja, it played as one unit under Jadeja, it had received the kiss of life from Jadeja (or words to that effect).

Praising Jadeja is fine. But calling for his investiture is another matter especially when it is no secret that Azharuddin has been appointed captain of the Indian team for the World Cup. This is important because these comments are placing terrible pressure on Azharuddin, Jadeja and the entire team which will now believe it is playing under the wrong captain. No wonder it played so badly in the finals on Friday.

Praising Jadeja is fine. But to praise him for everything is not. Take one small example: in the past, Azharuddin has sent Srinath in high up the batting order in order to boost our score. It hasn't paid off. Jadeja does the same, it pays off. Luck favors the brave? Perhaps. But the commentators, the Indian commentators, were aware of this fact: however, they never made the comparison.

Whether or not Azharuddin should be the captain of the Indian team is not for us to decide. The question for us is: should TV commentators be choosing the captain instead of the selectors?

Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.


Top


Phone Cards: 48c a minute to India

Seematti: For Silk and Cotton Dresses

 

Click here for a printer-friendly page Printer-friendly page

India Gift House: Send gifts all over India



EXPRESSindia.com
News   Business    Sports   Entertainment
The Indian Express | The Financial Express | Latest News | Screen | Express Computers
Travel | MatrimonialsCareersLifestyle | Astrology
E-Cards | Graffiti | Environment | Jewellery | Info-tech | Power