For many top sportspeople it is hard to walk away. To have to leave the spotlight, and accept that another has taken your place is hard to comprehend.
This may well be why in today’s world in so many sports, despite their performances dipping, few walk away when they should. Many dragging that time to leave out as long as they possibly can, believing that they can indeed recapture the consistency and performances of the past, when in truth these performances are now just fleeting. Those moments of glory now more and more infrequent.
India’s Sachin Tendulkar is revered in India. He is acknowledged by cricket fans the world over as being one of the greatest batsman of all time. Yet many believe that he went on too long. He scored his 100th International century against Bangladesh in March 2012. Over a year after he had last scored an international century. He kept playing many believed to try and achieve that elusive 100th International hundred.
He took his time achieving his century in that match and India ended up losing it. Much of the blame for that defeat, despite his achievement, was levelled at Tendulkar. In fact his strike rate in that One Day International innings was the second slowest of his 49 ODI hundreds; you had to go back to the year 2000 when India lost to Sri Lanka in Sharjah for him to have a lower strike rate.
There is a saying that has been around for decades, ‘no one is bigger than the game.’ It is so true. For some ex players it remains hard to comprehend.
What has been strange to witness this Summer here in Australia is the promotion of the cricket commentary team over the players and the teams contesting the Test series.
Why would this be so? Is it again a case of a lingering spotlight on past players who are still clinging to what was?
Cricket commentary in the last two decades has declined dramatically. As witnessed with Channel Nine they turned it into an old boys club, in which recently retired players were not prepared to make comment on former team mates. They were too close to the current players to make pertinent observations.
The late Shane Ware was one of the few who truly shone in the commentary box. He showed what a great cricket brain he possessed, sharing thoughts on what he felt teams should have done, or should do to turn the tide of the game. He offered insights that many of the past players sitting in his chair today are simply not capable of articulating.
A decision was made by someone to try and make television coverage more like radio, more conversational. Yet these are two very different mediums. The great Richie Benaud must have been shaking his head when he heard this, for he believed that ‘less was more’ on television. Only speak if you have something worthwhile to say, let the pictures tell the story. He was a true master.
Sadly, the key to radio’s success when covering cricket is in the main that those in the commentary box have been hand-picked. They have been chosen because they have the ability to tell a story, convey an opinion, and also set the scene and share with the listener what is happening. However, more importantly they have people within their team who are well-versed in the history of the game.
This style works on radio because there is no vision. It does not work on television. The banal banter between ex-players sharing ‘in jokes’ and nicknames between themselves becomes grating after an hour, and unbearable during a whole day’s play. It was interesting to read how even during the recent ODI World Cup cricket-mad Indian fans also became frustrated with the commentary on offer.
The sad fact is many of the current crop of ex-players have very little knowledge of the game prior to their own careers. Or if they do they never talk of those players or matches. This is odd in a game that is built on history and statistics. However, modern day statistics have made a mockery of much of what has gone before, with shortened boundaries and the like.
In years gone by many of these ex-players would have been given an opportunity, and once they had shown that they did not have what was required they would have been moved on. As Ian Chappell revealed when he crossed over from player and captain to commentator, “You’ve got two years, maybe three,being a former Australian Captain. After that you’ll live or die on your ability as a commentator.” Now it appears that as with centralised contracts irrespective of performance you are safe in your job.
It is hard to understand why the commentators today, no matter how great they were in their day as players are being promoted ahead of today’s players out on the pitch. .
Then again we have witnessed the promotion of David Warner playing his last test match for Australia by Fox Sports. Warner has probably been the most polarising figure in Australian cricket for over 50 years. There is no doubting his ability as a batsman, but it is as a sportsman and a man that he has alienated many. There are a large number of Australians who feel that he should never have been given the opportunity to play test cricket again after the sandpaper incident in South Africa. His comments this week where he was quoted as having “no regrets” about that particular incident will have done little to change the opinion of those who have not forgiven him.
In fact what was interesting was while the media were trying to stir up a storm about Mitchell Johnson’s column stating that players should not be given a time to decide how they end their career, especially Warner, what seemed to be ignored was how many cricket fans agreed with Johnson. Of course Cricket Australia and the selectors did not want to hear that. Certainly Fox Sports marketing department have not read the room, with their promotion of Warner playing his last test.
Sadly though they have once again shown that their standards are not that high when it comes to quality. In the said advert you hear Adam Gilchrist say “A word to describe David Warner…” he pauses, and then says “Box Office.” Which as many have noticed is in fact two words!
Where is the polish and professionalism of the past? One wonders what the likes of Kerry Packer and David Hill of Sky Sports would make of what is being served up currently.
Just as many academics do not make great teachers, often great players do not make good coaches or commentators.
Past reputations are only worth something if you can still deliver what is needed. Even more so today where people are paying subscriptions to watch. They want to be informed and entertained. What these individuals did as players no longer has as much relevance as they may think. Their knowledge of the game and their ability to communicate that is what matters, but they must never forget that they are not the stars any more. The stars have always been and will continue to be the players, those out in the middle playing the game.
