"When pressed, the authors of such laments backtrack with “well, not at the Test level, but I’ve heard its bad at lower levels”."
Ok. Provide such an instance of someone saying "I've heard its (sic) bad at lower levels". Because if it's Paul Potter, well, I'm he, and at no point did I say that. Nor was there a backtrack. I said that a global umpires union would help umpires receive the consistency of games that they need in order to maintain and improve their standards - that doesn't mean that I think the standards are bad.
As for the rest of the article, if you ever get the chance, try making the central argument you have made here to those that select television commentators. Commentators sounding different depending on which commentary team and network they are on is not an accident. Channel Seven might be trying to appeal to the same audience as Channel Nine used to but that doesn't mean they go about it exactly the same way.
Fantastic piece, thank you. A couple of somewhat related things:
1. These commentators represent a depressingly large section of the fanbase. To take a different sport - the number of times someone will mention a footballer 'can't control a ball', despite that player being at the elite level, is maddening.
2. If I owned a television network, I would make it law that commentators could not view a replay of a decision until they'd given a definitive view of what happened. Did it happen too fast? Did you have the wrong angle to view it? Great, now you know how the officials feel, and yet they get the vast majority of decisions right.
3. How many times are the umpires the lowest-paid people on the field? In cricket this probably happens less often than in professional football, but it will still be the common case. I found these articles amusing, both about the 2019 IPL:
Very well-written piece. I wouldn't say anybody is wrong here. An average mind craves drama rather than knowledge, understanding, or wisdom. And average minds make up the majority of the population. Tv channels and commentators are simply doing what they're supposed to be doing. If the Michael Clarke-style commentary goes mainstream, it would only reduce the viewership. The rants seem to have come from pov of a person who is in an echo chamber of intellectual peers. Still a fantastic article though. Enjoyed reading it.
"When pressed, the authors of such laments backtrack with “well, not at the Test level, but I’ve heard its bad at lower levels”."
Ok. Provide such an instance of someone saying "I've heard its (sic) bad at lower levels". Because if it's Paul Potter, well, I'm he, and at no point did I say that. Nor was there a backtrack. I said that a global umpires union would help umpires receive the consistency of games that they need in order to maintain and improve their standards - that doesn't mean that I think the standards are bad.
As for the rest of the article, if you ever get the chance, try making the central argument you have made here to those that select television commentators. Commentators sounding different depending on which commentary team and network they are on is not an accident. Channel Seven might be trying to appeal to the same audience as Channel Nine used to but that doesn't mean they go about it exactly the same way.
Fantastic piece, thank you. A couple of somewhat related things:
1. These commentators represent a depressingly large section of the fanbase. To take a different sport - the number of times someone will mention a footballer 'can't control a ball', despite that player being at the elite level, is maddening.
2. If I owned a television network, I would make it law that commentators could not view a replay of a decision until they'd given a definitive view of what happened. Did it happen too fast? Did you have the wrong angle to view it? Great, now you know how the officials feel, and yet they get the vast majority of decisions right.
3. How many times are the umpires the lowest-paid people on the field? In cricket this probably happens less often than in professional football, but it will still be the common case. I found these articles amusing, both about the 2019 IPL:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/ranking-the-8-ipl-teams-based-on-average-salary-of-players
RR had the lowest salary bill, with an average per player of 2.99 Crore.
https://crickettimes.com/2019/08/ipl-2019-here-is-how-much-umpires-and-match-referees-earned-during-the-tournament/
> And well, one can only say that the figures were staggering. Each official earned more than Rs 25 Lakh
So it's 'staggering' that umpires are paid around a tenth of the average player. But the author was surprised they earned so much!
Very well-written piece. I wouldn't say anybody is wrong here. An average mind craves drama rather than knowledge, understanding, or wisdom. And average minds make up the majority of the population. Tv channels and commentators are simply doing what they're supposed to be doing. If the Michael Clarke-style commentary goes mainstream, it would only reduce the viewership. The rants seem to have come from pov of a person who is in an echo chamber of intellectual peers. Still a fantastic article though. Enjoyed reading it.