Dear Editor,
Prescott Mann’s October 31 letter, “There is hope for better Super50 commentary” is most timely. He notes that “Lots of people are hoping for some level of change, as live cricket commentary is supposed to be educational as well as enlightening,” and this is indeed so very true. Many times, thanks to modern technology, I keep revisiting the archives, bringing up the many greats such as John Arlott, Christopher Martin Jenkins, Jonathan Agnew, Tony Cozier, Brian Waddle, Henry Blofeld, Alan McGilvray, Jim Maxwell, and Brian Johnston etc. What was noteworthy for all of these, and it goes for the entire pantheon of legends, is that their commentary of the ‘live’ action was well delineated, and on this point, I have a few things to say.
First, live cricket commentary is exactly what it implies, that is, it is ‘live.’ This means that the action, meaning the movement of the ball, must be so described that listeners can envisage what is actually taking place. I recall, on radio, Joseph ‘Reds’ Pereira, an icon himself, emphasising that commentators must ‘follow the ball.’ This ball, I may add, is the centre of attraction. Yes, the bowler releases it, and the batsman reacts thereafter. His reaction is specific too, that is, a ‘named’ shot/stroke is played. What I get these days is the shrieking monotony of a batsman ‘hitting’ say ‘high and hard’ or just ‘hitting’ or ‘missing.’ Getting back to the greats of recent times, I keep noticing the ease with which they utilise language. Their grammar was intact and their vocabulary was rich, diverse and appropriate. These traits were well buttressed by the ability to be true to what was unfolding. There was no ‘forced excitement’ when nothing was happening, and these ‘chaps of old’ had the ability to carry on a secondary, but related conversation, even as they were ‘calling the action, ball-by-ball.’
Editor, like Mann, I too am happy that Sean Devers is back. He has been around for some time and has the raw materials to grow and get better. He should be a staple. I am pleased also that Naim Chan resurfaced during the Inter County games, and I believe that he can and should make some inputs with the likes of John Ramsingh and Inderjeet Persaud, who have been struggling along (without help) for quite some time now. Unlike Naim Chan, these two have no ‘radio upbringing’ and so they struggle in terms of finding the correct ‘roister’ for their coverage. They tend to talk or shout, and I am sure ‘commentating wise,’ Naim can give guidance that inheres in his decades of experience as a top-class radio and TV presenter. I still have a lot more to say on cricket, but at least with Naim and Sean back, I feel that we have a model for aspiring commentators to look up to. For now, I iterate a million times what quite a few have been saying in recent weeks. It is that cricket commentary and radio announcing on the whole must be restored to acceptable standards.
Cricket Commentary and Radio Announcing are ‘specialised’ professions. One writer noted that “… there are just too frequent and numerous defectively produced speech; socially abhorrent enunciations; and nonconformist pronunciations.” So, I too call on Minister Kwame McCoy to search for and appoint ‘experts’ (as close as he can get to), in the basic ‘use of language,’ to address these gross issues, so that there will be “… quality and professionalism (not being far) far removed from international standards and expectations”. Lots of people are ignoring live cricket commentary and radio on the whole. In fact, listening to the news (sports especially) on the Voice of Guyana is a cumbersome job. The reading is primary schoolish and at the end, I barely know what was the thrust. As a caveat, and as most people know, the present batch (Heads of DPI, NCN’s VOG, and Chronicle) are not journalistically savvy enough nor adequately language equipped).
Sincerely,
Deodat Singh