Complete objectivity is hogwash
Fawning over your favourite player as a commentator is universally frowned upon. As a speaker of the game, you are required to be not just thoroughly objective in your approach to the proceedings before you, but also see to it that you do not get bland while doing so.
But ask the commentators and you would know how superhuman it is to be what is required. Depending on which team you belong to, you get excited, depressed, angry, frustrated and everything else that happens to a fan.
Take any sport and hear what is being said, you would soon know that objectivity is as rare as a cool McEnroe on court.
Since the US Open is the flavour of the month, let’s start from the people commentating on it.
When 17-year-old Melanie Oudin took off on her dream run, which incidentally ended with the quarterfinals, there was never enough that was being said of her game. One commentator was rather quick to anoint the 17-year-old a better version of Justin Henin! The other one speculated on how Oudin would feel while lifting the trophy — that being the comment in just her third round!
Granted. The young girl downed many greats on her stride into greatness. Dementieva, a hard court favourite for the tournament, was her victim and so was Maria Sharapova, not to mention the hefty Nadia Petrova. However, even a layman mildly interested in tennis could see that she was not without niggles. Her first serves were weak and she was slim on aces.
Yes, she was the undisputed recovery girl, coming back from lost first sets all through; yes, she sported gallons of fighting spirit; and yes, she was playing her finest tennis ever, but her journey had its set of snags — snags which the all-American commentators refused to see.
Indeed, it was heartbreak to see her go 6-2, 6-2 in the quarters, that too to a player much lesser than the ones she had downed, but “objectively speaking” this was as good as it could get for her this season. She will be back, one is sure with more in her armour and, perhaps, then the commentary team could recreate their verbal applause for her.
Oudin, of course, is much, much better than Sania Mirza who is a classic example of how a nation’s best is not always good enough. But even the otherwise lovable tennis commentator Vijay Amritraj has, over Sania’s grand slam years, stubbornly refused to see her gaping shortcomings and, as a rule, praised her to high heavens.
Same was the case with the duo bringing to you the Federer-Soderling match which got over after a few stresspoints that Federer put his fans through.
With Federer sailing 6-0, 6-3 in the first two sets, the commentators settled in for a never-before eulogy. Of course, Federer was rarely addressed by his first name with the two speakers saying”King” this and “King” that but the gentle mocking of Soderling’s haplessness was a bit too jarring and uncalled for.
They laughed at him, they wondered about his clay feat and they also subtly questioned his brilliance with the racquet.
But that was in the first two sets. It must have taken all their might to have turned turtle on their dismissal of him when he started to rally around — and to such an extent that everyone sat up to a tense fourth set match before heaving a sigh of relief that finally Federer it was.
Cricket commentators are no different and have often been known to be co-habiting with undisguised bias. Sunil Gavaskar has very popularly put down many a white commentator for his views on subcontinental cricketers. That’s just one example. Football speakers, hockey voice-overs or even badminton commentators, nobody can keep their nation and its loyalties out of their system. Nothing wrong with that though.
But ask the commentators and you would know how superhuman it is to be what is required. Depending on which team you belong to, you get excited, depressed, angry, frustrated and everything else that happens to a fan.
Take any sport and hear what is being said, you would soon know that objectivity is as rare as a cool McEnroe on court.
Since the US Open is the flavour of the month, let’s start from the people commentating on it.
When 17-year-old Melanie Oudin took off on her dream run, which incidentally ended with the quarterfinals, there was never enough that was being said of her game. One commentator was rather quick to anoint the 17-year-old a better version of Justin Henin! The other one speculated on how Oudin would feel while lifting the trophy — that being the comment in just her third round!
Granted. The young girl downed many greats on her stride into greatness. Dementieva, a hard court favourite for the tournament, was her victim and so was Maria Sharapova, not to mention the hefty Nadia Petrova. However, even a layman mildly interested in tennis could see that she was not without niggles. Her first serves were weak and she was slim on aces.
Yes, she was the undisputed recovery girl, coming back from lost first sets all through; yes, she sported gallons of fighting spirit; and yes, she was playing her finest tennis ever, but her journey had its set of snags — snags which the all-American commentators refused to see.
Indeed, it was heartbreak to see her go 6-2, 6-2 in the quarters, that too to a player much lesser than the ones she had downed, but “objectively speaking” this was as good as it could get for her this season. She will be back, one is sure with more in her armour and, perhaps, then the commentary team could recreate their verbal applause for her.
Oudin, of course, is much, much better than Sania Mirza who is a classic example of how a nation’s best is not always good enough. But even the otherwise lovable tennis commentator Vijay Amritraj has, over Sania’s grand slam years, stubbornly refused to see her gaping shortcomings and, as a rule, praised her to high heavens.
Same was the case with the duo bringing to you the Federer-Soderling match which got over after a few stresspoints that Federer put his fans through.
With Federer sailing 6-0, 6-3 in the first two sets, the commentators settled in for a never-before eulogy. Of course, Federer was rarely addressed by his first name with the two speakers saying”King” this and “King” that but the gentle mocking of Soderling’s haplessness was a bit too jarring and uncalled for.
They laughed at him, they wondered about his clay feat and they also subtly questioned his brilliance with the racquet.
But that was in the first two sets. It must have taken all their might to have turned turtle on their dismissal of him when he started to rally around — and to such an extent that everyone sat up to a tense fourth set match before heaving a sigh of relief that finally Federer it was.
Cricket commentators are no different and have often been known to be co-habiting with undisguised bias. Sunil Gavaskar has very popularly put down many a white commentator for his views on subcontinental cricketers. That’s just one example. Football speakers, hockey voice-overs or even badminton commentators, nobody can keep their nation and its loyalties out of their system. Nothing wrong with that though.
Published September 13, 2009, Sunday Pioneer http://dailypioneer.com/202120/Complete-objectivity-is-hogwash.html
Comments
Post a Comment