Steve Smith’s dismissal at the Adelaide Oval the other night sent social media into overdrive. It was neither the shot selection nor the quality of the bowling that had people’s fingers tapping furiously on miniature keyboards.
The thing the audience found irksome was the fact that Smith was wired up with a Channel Nine microphone and earpiece.
Seconds before he was dismissed he was commentating on his own batting and extolling the virtues of one of his strokes.
Such was his effort, Mark Nicholas suggested he do some more commentary while facing the bowling.
That was when disaster struck.
More cricket
» David Warner’s big night at the Allan Border Medal
» Warner upsets Smith to take Border Medal
» Ellyse Perry wins Belinda Clark Award
» Cricket Australia must be careful not to kill the BBL goose
» 2016 Allan Border Medal live coverage, updates
Smith meekly holed out to Virat Kohli at extra cover from the bowling of Ravendra Jadeja.
According to many in the Twittersphere, Smith’s dismissal had been brought about by Channel Nine. What the hell were they doing speaking to Smith while he was at the crease?
It was an interesting public reaction.
Throughout the recently concluded Big Bash League – televised to record-breaking audiences on Network Ten – fans again appeared to lap up the comments from players out in the middle. One innings, in particular, was lauded.
It featured England discard and current Melbourne Star Kevin Pietersen despatching the ball to the rope and beyond with gay abandon, all the while chatting away to the commentators and virtually talking the viewer through each delivery.
Many tweeted their appreciation for the insight that Pietersen brought into their lounge rooms. Had Pietersen been dismissed one wonders what the social media reaction would have been.
Yes, the BBL is franchise cricket.
It is all about razzamatazz and entertainment, but aren’t international T20s marketed the same way?
The players walk along a red carpet lined with sparklers to get onto the ground. Music blares between deliveries, often not muted until a fast bowler is in his run-up. Boundaries and wickets are greeted with explosive flamethrowers around the perimeter of the field.
Both the BBL and T20 internationals are laid out in the same fashion – razzle dazzle, high-octane sport morphed with Hollywood-style entertainment.
The major tenet of the shortest format of the code is about generating more interest – through viewership and bums on seats, which the authorities hope will translate into more youngsters wanting to take up or stay with the sport.
Hence it is loaded with the gimmickry that longer form cricket, especially Test level, is not.
When a batsman is dismissed after any innings of note in the T20 game, the audience expects to hear from him before he has even had time to take his pads off.
In Test cricket, great innings are compiled and terminated without a word from the batsman until after stumps.
For whatever reason, a batsman seems incapable of speaking about his innings – with the rarest of exceptions – until the day’s play has been done and dusted. Is that being petty and denying the audience an insight to a significant moment in a Test match?
At present, there is a distinct pecking order in the sport when it comes to the inclusion of the viewer. Test cricket and T20 sit at either end of the spectrum, with ODIs somewhere in the middle with respect to what add-ons are provided to the TV watcher.
But what of T20 cricket specifically? How do the fans – and perhaps even more importantly the players – view it?
Smith could have easily refused to be hooked up to Nine. Nobody was forcing him.
The argument against his direct involvement in the broadcast was largely predicated on two things – it was an international fixture and he got out. But which of those two criteria irked the viewers the most?
Was it that a player should not be subject to such intrusion in an international match or the fact that, bugger it, he got out?
Had Smith not chipped the ball to an equally vocal Kohli, would anyone have complained about the former’s on-field commentary?
The authorities and the players need to make a determination as to just where international T20 cricket sits within the sport’s landscape.
Together both parties need to decide at which point international T20s should differ from the likes of the BBL – or, equally as importantly, whether they need to at all.
Should it remain an interactive event in the hope that fans learn something from the players while they are in the middle, or at least feel more entertained, or should such distractions be left for domestic events like the BBL?
Phil_Ivey
Guest
Mark Nicholas keeping the focus on the other side???? You have to be joking, he's the biggest aussie cheerleader of them all. Surprised no one has mentioned Hussey, who I thought was very good and who, IMO, often does talk about the opposition more than the other commentators. Lee was also not too bad, although it might just have been that hearing new voices is as good as a holiday, so to speak.
Bob Sims
Guest
It's all bullshit - why can't we just concentrate on the cricket! If I want Hollywood (which I don't), I'll watch Fox 8!
Bakkies
Guest
There is a player mic in Sky's Rugby coverage that started recently.
Bakkies
Guest
The Beeb tv commentators are like that too. Brian Moore and Eddie Butler are similar to Aussie colour commentators but don't over do it and saying 'that's nothing but a gay slap' on Australia would generate weeks of over reactions.
John
Guest
Sick of Brayshaw telling me what a powerful man Finch, Warner, Faulkner and Mitch Marsh are and how exciting Maxwell is do we really need to hear it during every game. Tell us something new JB
VivGilchrist
Guest
It's clear that the selectors don't take it seriously.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
"Yet he behaves just like Australian players do" Ishant Sharma did not deserve the death look since the big quick had taken the catch. During the World Cup a certain reporter had to face massive abuse from Kohli. I can't imagine an Australian player behaving like that and getting away with it. So no, Kohli does not behave like Australian players, far from it. He has a very short fuse.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
Kohli's attitude and behavior has been childish to say the least. He even had a go at Ishant Sharma for little confusion when taking a catch. Seems like when scoring runs it's OK to act like a Waaaaanker, especially when BCCI is behind you.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
BBL quality is improving with every year. Already surpassed IPL quality.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
Really!
Brian
Guest
Gilchrist is also quality.
Peter
Roar Rookie
It's a good point from Pepper Jack. the argument that T20s should be left for franchises is contrary to the fact that we absolutely love to watch our national team play, as shown by the ratings.
Charles Plowdog
Guest
Ch 9 started the trend to mike up players, but they chose the 'stars' (Smith and Warner) as is their wont, but of course they don't do this regularly. Ch 10 gets people who are able to manage the two activities and are practised at it (KP, Hartley etc) and they do it often so the commentators can manage the timing of the interaction better. And in any case it was a one off, not a regular problem. If the viewers like the interaction with players, and I think they do, it will continue.
Charles Plowdog
Guest
It's interesting, many contributors here don't seem to like Kohli. Yet he behaves just like Australian players do, and he is good enough to back it up. I like watching Kohli, he is a great batsman but i think he only gives what he gets.
Charles Plowdog
Guest
Won't happen. Too much money for cricket bodies, incentive to get picked for IPL for players and national pride.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I like TMS. Boycs can be a bit over-the-top but generally they all say very sensible things about the cricket. I have noticed a bit of fan boy stuff creeping in over the past few years it has to be said. Listening to someone dribble on about their favourite player when they are bowling or batting really detracts from the experience. It's one of the most tedious things about nine and I do expect a bit more professionalism from TMS. Over-praise, hell over-description lessens the value of almost everything.
Maggie
Guest
Well there is some debate about 'correct' catching technique with Ian Chappell for one being a strong critic of the 'fingers pointing upwards' method. (Very interesting discussion here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/556192.html ). But that wasn't really my point, just a thought on what might have been a contributing factor. What I was suggesting (from seeing both dropped catches just the once, live at the ground, so not necessarily an accurate observation) was that both players seemed not to have watched the ball right into their hands.
Maggie
Guest
Exactly. Kevin Pietersen was one of the most interesting mic-ed up players in the BBL, and almost always very obliging in responding to the commentators. But there was one match in which he firmly told them that he needed to concentrate on his next shot and simply went "off-air". Smith could have done the same. And indeed I suspect the whole Australian team could have refused. I don't think it is likely that the Indian team were not also asked to have players with microphones - I assume they simply (politely) said 'no'.
Don Freo
Guest
Hands above the head...right in front of the eyes...is the correct technique. If the ball is heading for the eyes, you will always catch it.
Maggie
Guest
It looked to me as if Lyon and Marsh both made the common error of not watching the ball right into their hands, exacerbated by their technique of hands above their heads with fingers pointing upwards which may have partially blocked their view of the ball at the last moment. I am wondering if the technique on high-ball catches has regressed since the departure of (baseball) coach Mike Young.