Tuesday, January 22

Cunning Gavaskar

Reactions: 
Finally, someone noticed! I thought it was only me listening to Sunil Gavaskar and his heavily biased commentary on ESPN. While he is an expert and thespian of the game, everytime an Indian bowler raps the batsmen's pads and is not given out, he goes "Oh-ho-ho", or something similar without even bothering to look at the replay.

Frankly, speaking despite ESPN-STAR's sterling coverage of the India-Australia series, Gavaskar stands out like a sore thumb. True, no one can match his technical expertise, but you do ask for some objectivity from even a pro-Indian commentator, and his comments and absurd reactions really take away from the coverage.

One incident I especially remember is that when someone from India (I think it was Sachin) reached a landmark, he started criticising the Australians for not applauding! "How is not professional to applaud?", is what he asked. And the cameras quickly followed suit focusing on each of the Aussie fielders who weren't clapping. Why is an opposing team obliged to applaud? I don't think Gavaskar himself was a major applauder.

Richie Benaud stated that had the Indians salvaged a draw at Sydney, the whole sportmanship thing would have been played down. I think in addition to that, it was things like this that added fuel to the fire, unncessary chaabi-marofying by one of the great batsmen of all time. Hopefully the ICC pulls him up for his irresponsible commentary and rash talk, so that we can all get clean, bias-free commentary.
What do you think? Leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. if the aussie fielders are not "obliged to applaud, why is gavaskar obliged to display "sportsmanship" while commentating?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good Observation dude. I completely agree.

    -PJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not sportmanship. Objectivity.

    When Aussie fielders are on the fielding, their fielding is a 'must have'; applause is a 'nice to have'.

    When a commentator takes up the mic, you want clean entertainment, or expert analysis based on insight. What I referred to with Gavaskar doesn't fall in either of those categories. It's just subtle propoganda with a garnish of salesmanship.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My issue with Gavaskar is more his anti-Laxman bias. So blatant its not funny!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah aandthirtyeights, am sure people with an eye on certain biases, will keep catching him out from time to time. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you want objectivity just look up the scoreboard and put the telly on mute. Better still quit watching cricket and start looking for a Chess channel...and stop writing till you find one cause you too lack objectvity when you do that to Gavaskar.
    Laxman is great bat and does not need Gavaskar's certificate and technical comments. You and I know it and so do a whole string of sorry bunch of Aussies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey anonymous. Thanks for your scathing comment, but honestly, I don't want scoreboardnumeric objectivity, I want objective commentary.

    Don't think I'm gonna stop writing, in any case! Hope you find something else on Daily Humor that you enjoy. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sunil Gavaskar is only the master batsmen who knows how to get the skin of white supported commentators/officals/racist ICC/ racist tim may ( who worried so much for symonds with typical bullshit even as CEO).Good job SUNNY ( shines like SUN). Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey anonymous, I don't know if Sunny is the only one who can get under the skins of the ICC. What about our very own BCCI, with the Harbhajan appeal, and threatening to pull out of the one-dayers? That was really embarassing as well. If we do bad things that are biased towards, do those acts become justifiable?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good Observation dude. I completely agree.

    -PJ

    ReplyDelete