These are a series of scattered thoughts I have tried to cobble up after listening to the latest Couch Talk with Harsha Bhogle.
1. I would first like to appreciate Harsha for manning up and trying to repeatedly answer the questions posed by serious (if I may be allowed to use this definition) followers consistently.
2. Now, I'll try and make sense of the various points Harsha has made through the conversation. I do understand his point of view. I have colleagues who are casual watchers of cricket and they seem to enjoy Navjot Sidhu. One guy told me, "Jab bhi Sidhu aa jata hai to bahut mazaa aa jata hai (Whenver Sidhu comes, there is so much enjoyment(#njymnt))". And here I sit fulminating over the tripe he has been dishing about without even an iota of nuance. It is frustrating, but from a personal straw poll I did realize I was in the minority who wanted a commentator to provide a more subtler, analytical view of things.
3. Looking at the macro-environment of Indian television, where do you see educational programs on TV these days made for Indian audiences? Yes, History channel does the odd program. But, why don't Mastermind India, University Challenge and the like find a permanent space on our telly? National Geographic did a somewhat serious quiz program, and I hope they continue it. Otherwise, the only quiz show that has had repeat seasons (somewhat staggered, but still) is Kaun Banega Crorepati. The thing with KBC though is it's a show which apart from asking questions, also tries to tug at the heartstrings of a viewer by making emotional pitches about the contestant and so on. I have seen at home, how my mother and grandmother react when they see a contestant's emotional story being told. They suddenly feel more empathy for the participant. Cricket telecasts too probably have taken the same route, wherein they prefer a more emotional, high-pitched approach to a nuanced one.
4. We are now in the age of data, where decisions are taken mostly based on what research suggests. This is good, and bad. Good, because it is predictable. Bad, because it discourages experimentation. Maybe someone should experiment with a nerd version of the commentary and see if it works. How do you know whether something would work or not without even trying it? But, if to the MBA, the numbers haven't added up, he just wouldn't be willing to risk it. Maybe even I might not if I had held that job. It's a question that we will continue to grapple with..
5. With respect to commentary and Shane Warne, I wonder if comfort level with the English language is a huge factor when it comes to commentary. As Shyam Sundararaman has written, Matthew Hayden also did brilliantly in his stint during the Australia tour of India. Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton too are very good. All of them have the advantage of using their native language for commentary and most of the time it's natural to them. Whereas when it comes to a VVS Laxman or an Akram these barriers might be significant. I must listen to Akram's Hindi commentary and see if he does a relatively better job there.
On a lighter note, one would imagine Rameez Raja would have cleaned up his cless ekt after so many years of English commentary, but he still hasn't.
6. But still, I think Star has been making an effort somewhere down the line. Their masterstroke by getting KP to talk during match shows during the World T20 was extremely well-received. If a statistical comparison is made between the viewing numbers of IPL and the World T20, some truths may emerge. But again, during the World T20, the numbers for an India match would tend to be higher and the rest lower and during the IPL the equation would be somewhat different.
To be honest I haven't tried to find any path breaking solutions here, this is just a mere attempt to understand the ecosystem in which I watch and consume cricket.
1. I would first like to appreciate Harsha for manning up and trying to repeatedly answer the questions posed by serious (if I may be allowed to use this definition) followers consistently.
2. Now, I'll try and make sense of the various points Harsha has made through the conversation. I do understand his point of view. I have colleagues who are casual watchers of cricket and they seem to enjoy Navjot Sidhu. One guy told me, "Jab bhi Sidhu aa jata hai to bahut mazaa aa jata hai (Whenver Sidhu comes, there is so much enjoyment(#njymnt))". And here I sit fulminating over the tripe he has been dishing about without even an iota of nuance. It is frustrating, but from a personal straw poll I did realize I was in the minority who wanted a commentator to provide a more subtler, analytical view of things.
3. Looking at the macro-environment of Indian television, where do you see educational programs on TV these days made for Indian audiences? Yes, History channel does the odd program. But, why don't Mastermind India, University Challenge and the like find a permanent space on our telly? National Geographic did a somewhat serious quiz program, and I hope they continue it. Otherwise, the only quiz show that has had repeat seasons (somewhat staggered, but still) is Kaun Banega Crorepati. The thing with KBC though is it's a show which apart from asking questions, also tries to tug at the heartstrings of a viewer by making emotional pitches about the contestant and so on. I have seen at home, how my mother and grandmother react when they see a contestant's emotional story being told. They suddenly feel more empathy for the participant. Cricket telecasts too probably have taken the same route, wherein they prefer a more emotional, high-pitched approach to a nuanced one.
4. We are now in the age of data, where decisions are taken mostly based on what research suggests. This is good, and bad. Good, because it is predictable. Bad, because it discourages experimentation. Maybe someone should experiment with a nerd version of the commentary and see if it works. How do you know whether something would work or not without even trying it? But, if to the MBA, the numbers haven't added up, he just wouldn't be willing to risk it. Maybe even I might not if I had held that job. It's a question that we will continue to grapple with..
5. With respect to commentary and Shane Warne, I wonder if comfort level with the English language is a huge factor when it comes to commentary. As Shyam Sundararaman has written, Matthew Hayden also did brilliantly in his stint during the Australia tour of India. Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton too are very good. All of them have the advantage of using their native language for commentary and most of the time it's natural to them. Whereas when it comes to a VVS Laxman or an Akram these barriers might be significant. I must listen to Akram's Hindi commentary and see if he does a relatively better job there.
On a lighter note, one would imagine Rameez Raja would have cleaned up his cless ekt after so many years of English commentary, but he still hasn't.
6. But still, I think Star has been making an effort somewhere down the line. Their masterstroke by getting KP to talk during match shows during the World T20 was extremely well-received. If a statistical comparison is made between the viewing numbers of IPL and the World T20, some truths may emerge. But again, during the World T20, the numbers for an India match would tend to be higher and the rest lower and during the IPL the equation would be somewhat different.
To be honest I haven't tried to find any path breaking solutions here, this is just a mere attempt to understand the ecosystem in which I watch and consume cricket.
