The dull art of TV commentary

Television doesn't depend on text for its survival. Pictures, as they say, are worth thousands of words. Especially with sport; cricket, in this instance. Unless one is, say, from America - where the game is now being promoted fiercely - viewers from cricket playing nations rarely need the crutch of commentary to lean upon for their guidance through the course of a match.

Radio, however, depends entirely on the visualistic talent of the commentator - the one with a fluid skill for accurate but powerful imagery, ball after ball. Australian radio has some incredibly gifted "callers," in this regard: Men with years of experience who seamlessly blend the happenings of the moment with liberal lashings of wit and statistics - all seemingly at the tip of their fingers, or tongues. If I didn't love watching the game so much, I would still turn to radio commentary if only to escape what is currently passing for televised 'calling' of the game.

When commentators start telling you what you can already see and clearly read, something is sorely amiss - either that, or the said TV commentator is not taking his role seriously enough. Television commentators, I feel, should be more of the insightful kind. That's why, at least I think, television employs past greats who have played the game, to talk viewers through sessions of play.

In many cases they do, with great excellence - dwelling on technicalities, discussing bowling actions and dissecting batting techniques. But increasingly, the trend is to jabber ceaselessly, sometimes even when a delivery is being bowled which I find disrespectful. And then when they get into this jabberwocky fit, they aren't too fussy about how repetitive they sound, or how cliched. Couldn't care less, mate. Take it or leave it. Turn off the TV, turn on the radio.

Interestingly, that's exactly what a large number of people are doing, I read recently. Turning down the volume to zero on the television, then turning on the radio commentary so that they get the benefit of both: The visuals, plus the eloquently described progress of the game from the radio commentator. It's win-win.

Television ratings aren't falling, while more radios are now being tuned in to. Sadly, at the expense of Mr Television Cricket Commentator. Over the course of the recent summer series here, I too got tired of hearing certain commentators voice their own anxieties: For example, "I hope so-and-so is ready for a bouncer which is almost certainly going to be the next delivery bowled by so-and-so." Prescience, to boot!! That ball, as it turned out, was a yorker. For which the commentator, not to lose face, opined: "Oh well, he's saving it for a surprise. I imagine it won't be long, though, before he unleashes one aimed at the throat. And I hope so-and-so will be ready."

No bouncer was let loose the next over, or the one after that. After which the bowler was given a rest. By which time the omniscient commentator had moved on to predicting some other "secret fear." Bias has crept into the language. Leanings are apparent and neutrality (which lends itself to a more balanced description) is disappearing like a species going extinct.

I think it's time the cricket commentator realised he's in a battle - and he's the only one that can save his species. Otherwise, I'm afraid, even more households are going to be watching television with the volume muted and the radio turned up.

Kevin Martin is a journalist based in Sydney, Australia.