South Africa’s batsman JP Duminy. Monday March 2, 2009. AP Photo/Themba Hadebe
I have watched live Test cricket since 1952 (Bombay Test between India and England remembered for centuries by Tom Graveney and my childhood hero Vijay Hazare) and televised Test cricket since 1970 (the Perth Ashes Test when Greg Chappell scored a century on debut).
Both have been experiences to cherish.
But since 1970, television coverage has made gigantic strides, especially when Channel 9 took over during the Packer years and thereafter.
Oh, for colour clothes on colour TV, the slow-mo instant replays, the on-screen on-field interviews of players!
Over the years, the snicko-metre, hawk eye, hot spots and replays from different angles have made life more enjoyable for the viewers and at times more unbearable for the umpires.
Every four, every six, every dot ball is represented in different hues and dimensions.
I wonder why people purchase expensive tickets and wait in long queues to see live matches when they can watch it all and more on TV at home or in pubs – perhaps with a mute button pressed as they listen to the wisdom of radio commentators and a guffaw or four from Kerry (O’Keeffe not Packer).
Also during live matches, I’ve seen spectators watch the replays on TV screens and mouth their opinions like experts.
TV cricket has converted us all into mega-experts.
My only criticism is: why do TV shows the action always from the same angle? Why do we always see the back of the bowler bowling to the batsman?
The batsman is always facing us, the bowler always backing us during a delivery.
There is no indication on TV whether Mitchell Johnson, for instance, is bowling from the Paddington end or the Randwick end at the SCG. I often get disoriented when watching cricket on Channel 9 and on Foxtel.
Do you?
Why not show the action from both ends? Have only one camera for routine presentation.
Then we can realise on TV that Johnson is bowling to Mohammad Yousuf from the Randwick end. And after that Doug Bollinger is bowling to Umar Akmal, for instance, from the Paddington end.
You can distinguish this if you are watching a match live, but not on TV. I would like to see how it feels to face a bowler and the next over to see it from the bowler’s line of vision.
In tennis, you see action from both ends on TV, just as you see it live.
Roger Federer serves from side X then he receives from Rafael Nadal also from side X. After a brief rest break, it is the other way round.
TV viewers see action from both angles in tennis but not in cricket.
Same is the case in football and rugby codes as in tennis. The action is from right to left for Parramatta (for example) before the interval and from left to right for them after the break.
But in TV cricket, it is always a bowler to a batsman. You never see the batsman’s back, except in replays.
The summing up of the Oz-Windies and the Oz-Pak series by Channel 9 after the Hobart Test was won by Ponting’s men was brilliant. Especially Chris Gayle’s contrasting centuries, Shane Watson and Simon Katich’s nervous nineties and Doug Bollinger’s ballistic bowling – all set to music.
Well done, Channel 9.
But do you think the commentators Mark Nicholas, Ian Healy and Michael Slater mixed up the MCG and SCG Tests at one stage?
Nick
Guest
It's a basic rule of film making, you don't cross the line because it is disorienting. Channel Nine does it during the ads with the change of ends so most people don't notice. You always see football matches from only one side of the field. I can't see them doing it live.
Benjamin Conkey
Editor
Mick of Newie that's a great idea. I thought that was the whole point of digital technology for sport. I know they have player cam in English football. Imagine watching stump cam for an entire over. Also my brother posed the question about the best job in the Channel Nine production team...and it's not a commentator. It's being the sound engineer. Think about it..whoever is in charge of the stump mic can crank it up off air and hear everything the players are saying. Imagine the stories that guy or girl could tell about what the players really talk about on the field. Of course they would probably be bound by confidentiality...but still...great job!
Mick of Newie
Guest
With multi channelling and foxtels red button we should be able to choose our angle of viewing. I would also like to see an angle looking over the wickie's shoulder to see as close to what the players see.
preciouspress
Guest
Hi Kersi, My spectating longevity is similar to yours, 1949 England v NZ at Headingly my first. I had the joy and privilege to see many Indian stars who played in the Central Lancashire League, Polly Umrigar, Dattu Phadkar, Vijay Mandrekar, Borde, Gupte and the best of all (in my opinion) Vinoo Mankad. It's a shame that the joy couldn't have been enhanced by the wonders of today's TV coverage. I understand your point regarding changing the viewing angle but don't feel strongly either way. I do however wish for better commentary. The English (Gower, Lloyd, Agnew, even the maligned Boycott), Indian (Mandrekar, Bhogle) and to a lesser degree SA & NZ, are funnier, easier to listen to, less self-cogratulary than the jingoistic Channel 9 team.
Brett McKay
Guest
the Teri Hatcher episode, I remember it well Kersi!!
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Brett, certainly have two cameras; 10 cameras, 25 cameras. But I suggest one camera for the ROUTINE action, others for action replays, UDRS, for showing Shane Watson's parents clapping when their son scored his maiden 100, girls in bikinis, Barmy Army singing songs, man dressed as a gorilla... As I wrote, Channel 9 has revolunised sports presentation since 1978 and it is so much better as a spectacle. And other Channels have copied it. To see the action from the bowler's line of vision has advantages you mention, Brett. But I get disoriented because it is not how I see a cricket match at the ground. I prefer to see the action from both Ends, not just from one End as shown on TV. As Vinay writes, my idea would make televised cricket more REAL even though less spectacular. Remember Jerry Seinfeld's girl friend with a curvatious figure saying, "THEY are real and spectacular!"
Brett McKay
Guest
Interesting Kersi, interesting. I guess the one advantage tennis has over cricket in terms of broadcasting is that the cameras only have to show the players hitting the ball, and can therefore, be placed pretty much anywhere. With cricket of course though, the viewer needs to be able to see the line of the delivery, and where it pitched, and whether it's seaming or swinging, etc, to fully enjoy the experience of the delivery. And then we need to see how the batsman gets into position to play the shot. If cameras only showed action from the Paddington end at the SCG (the northern end, for those unfamiliar with Sydney), for eg, then to a bowler from the Randwick end, we'd never fully see how the batsman played the shot, not to mention seeing contact with the ball, either on bat or pad. Imagine how the UDRS would work (or wouldn't work) if the cameras were only at one end!!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Hi Kersi,you make a good point here and it would make it more "real" However I remember we had a black and white TV in the early seventies and one Xmas,I think 1975,my wife decided to buy a colour TV to feed my cricket addiction. I told her she should have saved it for the next year when the English were due to visit. Because in 1975 the Black and White TV would have been more than adequate as it was the Windies playing Australia.