The Indian cricket team, which won hearts and then broke them thanks to Australia’s attacking bowling, will recover and remain intact for the next tournament.
But hopefully, the Indian commentary team will change: aren’t you just a little bit tired of Sunil Gavaskar, Sanjay Manjrekar, Harsha Bhogle, Gautam Gambhir and even Ravi Shastri? The latter has returned to the commentary box after many years as coach of the Indian men’s team, so maybe his innings with the microphone isn’t quite over.
As a cricket enthusiast whose expertise in the game is next to nil, I turn to the commentary team to understand the twists and turn of the ball—and the game. However, what you often got during the just-concluded World Cup was patriotism in superlatives.
“Superb, fantastic, brilliant” are just a few of the adjectives that the experts used to describe the Indian team, and its performances while winning 10 matches on the trot.
The commentators were true to form: Bhogle is smooth and easy like melting chocolate but the thing is, he’s become entirely predictable. Gambhir simply doesn’t have good commentating manners: he seems so brusque and sullen as though he is spoiling for a fight.
And while we love “Mr Gavaskar” as TV news anchors often call him, why must we see him dressed up like the cowboy he was at the World Cup final? What was it with the boots? Again, we have been watching and listening to him forever, not only in the commentary box but across news channels, too.
Honestly, we need to hear some fresh views and see some new faces—Dinesh Karthik was like a whiff of fresh air.
Also read: Team India are world beaters for sure but not what you were made to believe
Commentators’ bias
The Indian captain, Rohit Sharma, constantly preached the mantra of staying calm in the moment but the Indian commentators were anything but. They couldn’t contain their elation at every wicket India took or every boundary it hit. This increased spectator expectations so high that when we lost the final match, there was shock and unbelievable silence across the country—not just in the stadium.
The entire media, print and electronic, seemed to agree on two things: first, this was the greatest Indian ODI team, ever—although Gavaskar loyally claimed that the 1983 World Cup winning squad would have beaten the current one (India Today).
Second, this was the best team on display at the 2023 World Cup, they said, and we agreed as we watched India flawlessly put big totals on the board and then slice through the opposition’s batting line-up.
We were all starry-eyed. But commentators are not meant to be adoring spectators of the home team—they’re meant to give us expert opinions. What we got was analysis in a thick coat of saffron, white, and green paint. Have any of you watched the Pakistani show, ‘The Pavilion’? The former Pakistani players like Wasim Akram and Shoaib Malik criticise the Pakistan cricket team–perhaps too much– during their analysis. I wonder if any ex-Indian player would do the same, on air?
Also read: Modi Stadium’s silence in World Cup final was fit for Vipassana. It wasn’t sporting culture
More like fanboys
Just listen to the Indian commentators during the loss to Australia in the final. They didn’t have any great insights into why the World Cup trophy has travelled Down Under other than to say that, on the day, Australia was the better team. Gee, we could see that.
The commentary box saw a complete reversal of roles: usually, the Indian commentators’ voices are high-pitched with excitement, soaring with every six a Sharma or Shreyas Iyer hit. During the final, they were subdued, had lost their mojo—or had it snatched away by the Aussie commentators—Ricky Ponting, for instance – who were shouting like schoolboys. Boy oh boy…
Sanjay Manjrekar is a good example of what’s wrong with the Indian cricket commentary—at least for a fan who may not know the finer points of the game. As Travis used his Head to keep calm when other Australian batters were losing their wickets—the team was 47-3 at one stage—and take his team to victory, what did Manjrekar do?
He held the pitch responsible for India’s loss—as well as the toss. He repeatedly spoke about how winning the toss made all the difference between the two teams. Is that all? What about the times India won the toss? Did he attribute India’s win to the toss and the pitch alone? Then, it was all about India’s formidable bowling and masterly batting.
The likes of Gavaskar and Shastri were more gracious in defeat and didn’t blame the pitch or the toss. They gave credit where credit was due—at one stage, Gavaskar said that Rohit Sharma should have set a more attacking field when Australia had lost three wickets—and Shastri readily admitted that the Aussies had out-thought India.
And when the battle was lost and won, the Indian commentators mysteriously disappeared. Earlier, in previous Indian games leading up to the finals, the Indian commentators were seen interviewing the Indian players after every match. On Sunday, not one was to be seen: Gavaskar and Shastri did the post-match analysis with Mayanti Langer, but the Australian players were interviewed by foreign commentators.
Odd.
Onto the presentation ceremony: Graceless is the only way to describe it. It took ages to assemble as if the organisers were so busy mourning India’s loss that they forgot about handing over the trophy to the Australians.
Then, a distracted Shastri read out the names of players from both teams who collected their medals before Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Richar Marles made a brief appearance to hand over the World Cup to Australian captain Pat Cummins. Then, they turned their backs on him, left him looking at them in awkward silence before his team mates clambered onto the stage after a handshake with Modi.
The silence in the stadium was almost deafening—not what you expect of a World Cup final. But it’s given me a bright idea: better to watch cricket matches involving India with the mute button on than be distracted by the commentary.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)