Rameez Raja.. A real embarrassment for all in the commentary box!

[Gurjot95]

"Oh my God that's a six and it is outside the boundary and hit with a bat"

I think Harsha have said this line"Oh my God that's a six and it is outside the boundary" not other words which you have said.

 

[King Cricket]

^ But in which match did he say this? That's the big Q.

 

[Precambrian]

Standalone or as part of a touring Pakistan side? What I'm saying is Rameez is just very rough around the edges and that there are plenty of subcontinent commentators around who're miles better than him. Even Farookh Engineer, who's a part-time commentator at best, stepped in during India's tour of England and he was a pretty smooth talker.

Farokh was a Brylcreem model when he was young and played a lot of cricket in England. He was a ladykiller before he ballooned into what he is now. But the charm is still there.

 

[smssia0112]

I respectfully disagree. Harsha is miles better than Rameez Raja, in my opinion.

I agree too, when India tour Australia it is always pleasure to listen to Harsha on ABC radio. He is a fantastic commentator.

 

[Insomniac]

Man, you are a fantastic comedian. Why don't you join a comedy reality show? You will get the first prize for sure.

Exactly what experience does Harsha bring into the commentary box? I don't mind him being on Indian sports shows, and all that, but in a real cricket game, I expect professionals who have played the game at the highest level to give their opinions.

Not a man who barely played first-class cricket, who has virtually not much more experience than me or you. It is difficult to establish credibility because he, unlike the other commentators, have not played the game at the highest level (or even close).

I would rather listen to a Waqar Younis, broken English and all, and his views on say for example, why fast bowlers are struggling in world cricket today, rather than Harsha. Why? He is a fast bowler. He has played the game successfully at the highest level. He has much more knowledge than any of us do as far as fast bowling is considered.

What does Harsha bring to the table? Absolutely nothing. Again, I have seen and heard him on Indian TV sport shows (He was on sportscenter a few times?) and I respect his opinions as far as talking on sportscenter and on ESPN is concerned.

But I would rather not hear him during an actual game, because he has no credibility established. And while he may be a passionate man, and all that, that does not make him a more credible person than Waqar, or even Rameez. Hell, I would even rather listen to the Sri Lankan (his name escapes me) who played 3 ODIs for SL in 1971 (or 81) and commentates in SL games.

He, unlike Harsha, has the experience of playing 3 ODIs for his country, something Harsha doesn't.

 

[Cricketman]

Playing cricket isn't automatic qualification for being a commentator. Harsha's extremely intelligent - he's an IIM Ahmedabad Grad afterall - and has been commentating in big-time platforms since he was 19 (All India Radio)

What credibility does someone like Arun Lal (since you don't like it when we pick on Pakistani commentators, even though it has nothing to do with the country) bring to the box? He's stupid, can't talk, has an annoying voice, and points out the obvious. Harsha loves the game, can find the deep intricacies of a situation and weave words on the spot to explain it all to you.

He was rated the world wide favorite commentator by a Cricinfo poll. So, he wins.

 

[Skater]

You can't really take that poll as proof because a gazillion Indians will have voted in it.

 

[Insomniac]

Playing cricket isn't automatic qualification for being a commentator. Harsha's extremely intelligent - he's an IIM Ahmedabad Grad afterall - and has been commentating in big-time platforms since he was 19 (All India Radio)

What credibility does someone like Arun Lal (since you don't like it when we pick on Pakistani commentators, even though it has nothing to do with the country) bring to the box? He's stupid, can't talk, has an annoying voice, and points out the obvious. Harsha loves the game, can find the deep intricacies of a situation and weave words on the spot to explain it all to you.

He was rated the world wide favorite commentator by a Cricinfo poll. So, he wins.

Uhm... exactly what skater said. You have got to be kidding me if that's your basis.

If Cricinfo was able to do a poll in which they were able to tally votes by country the user is from / the country they support, and weigh the votes, you would easily have a case.

Unfortunately, thats not the way it was done and it probably can't be done that way.

I don't for one moment doubt Harsha's love for the game, he is a very passionate person. It honestly sounds like this guy is more of a journalist trapped in a commentator's body.

Also, the difference between Arun Lal and Harsha is Arun Lal played I believe 16 tests and 13 ODIs for India. Harsha didn't.

zMario added 2 Minutes and 2 Seconds later...

And hilariously enough Cricketman, Ramiz Raja was named as one of the top 10 commentators in that very same poll

Cricinfo users have voted ESPN-Star's Harsha Bhogle their favourite TV cricket commentator. A poll run on the site over May and June drew votes from thousands of users - a significant percentage of them Indians - who also voted for their top commentators in three other categories: Most Unbiased, Most Entertaining and Most Insightful.

Bhogle and second-placed Ravi Shastri between them were the top choice for nearly a quarter of respondents. Channel Nine's Richie Benaud was third. Tony Greig and Geoff Boycott were the others in the top five.

The "Most Entertaining" category saw the closest finish: Greig pipped Boycott by just three votes. David Lloyd - who is with Sky - came in third, Bhogle fourth, and Channel Nine's Bill Lawry at No. 5.

Benaud was the clear winner in the "Most Unbiased" category, with Bhogle following and Shastri narrowly taking third place from Michael Holding.

As may have been expected, the "Most Insightful" title was a race between Ian Chappell and Benaud. Chappell won - though not by a large margin. Bhogle was a distant third.

You've got to be absolutely kidding me man.

 

[sifter132]

You've got to be absolutely kidding me man.

Richie used to be much better, now he is skating by on his reputation. In fact, now you rarely ever hear Richie because of the 3 man box at Channel Nine. And that box is now filled with guys who talk a lot - Ian Healy, Michael Slater, Bill Lawry and sometimes Adam Gilchrist. To a lesser extent, Mark Taylor, Tony Greig and Ian Chappell too. Poor Richie probably has to muscle his way to the mic to even get a word in.

Exactly what experience does Harsha bring into the commentary box? I don't mind him being on Indian sports shows, and all that, but in a real cricket game, I expect professionals who have played the game at the highest level to give their opinions.

Not a man who barely played first-class cricket, who has virtually not much more experience than me or you. It is difficult to establish credibility because he, unlike the other commentators, have not played the game at the highest level (or even close).

Well I personally don't think it matters too much. Sure he won't have stories of great Test matches he's played in, but that's about it. And sometimes we could do without ex-players banging on about how much harder it was in their day blah blah. In fact it has gotten so bad now, that every ex-player thinks he can commentate, which is obviously not true.

The other thing to think about is: why didn't Harsha make it to the top? If it was because he had a poor cricket brain, then sure, he shouldn't be commentating. But if he didn't make it because he was physically inferior, then it should have nothing to do with his ability to read games or comment on them.

 

[Insomniac]

Richie used to be much better, now he is skating by on his reputation. In fact, now you rarely ever hear Richie because of the 3 man box at Channel Nine. And that box is now filled with guys who talk a lot - Ian Healy, Michael Slater, Bill Lawry and sometimes Adam Gilchrist. To a lesser extent, Mark Taylor, Tony Greig and Ian Chappell too. Poor Richie probably has to muscle his way to the mic to even get a word in.




Well I personally don't think it matters too much. Sure he won't have stories of great Test matches he's played in, but that's about it. And sometimes we could do without ex-players banging on about how much harder it was in their day blah blah. In fact it has gotten so bad now, that every ex-player thinks he can commentate, which is obviously not true.

The other thing to think about is: why didn't Harsha make it to the top? If it was because he had a poor cricket brain, then sure, he shouldn't be commentating. But if he didn't make it because he was physically inferior, then it should have nothing to do with his ability to read games or comment on them.

Physically inferior? Unless he has a physical disability I am not aware of, then I doubt thats an excuse.

Being a cricketer involves keeping yourself fit, and working in the gym. Even "physically inferior" players such as Inzamam were able to make themselves match-fit by working hard. I am not very aware of Harsha's background, but if he put in the hard yards, then he could have atleast played more cricket than he did.

And believe me, I have seen some very weak people play first-class cricket, and they made it that far (and beyond) through determination and hard work. Being physically inferior has nothing to do with it unless he has a disability.

And sifter, players like Waqar will have credibility when they say that the bowlers need to put this player on the backfoot, etc because they have the real experience of doing it. I don't know how Harsha can say that to get player A out, they need to bowl a few short pitched deliveries and then prehaps slip in a fuller one (or some other plan).

Waqar possibly bowled to that player, and has definitely bowled to many players like him. Harsha never did.

 

[sifter132]

Physically inferior? Unless he has a physical disability I am not aware of, then I doubt thats an excuse.

Being a cricketer involves keeping yourself fit, and working in the gym. Even "physically inferior" players such as Inzamam were able to make themselves match-fit by working hard. I am not very aware of Harsha's background, but if he put in the hard yards, then he could have atleast played more cricket than he did.

And believe me, I have seen some very weak people play first-class cricket, and they made it that far (and beyond) through determination and hard work. Being physically inferior has nothing to do with it unless he has a disability.

And sifter, players like Waqar will have credibility when they say that the bowlers need to put this player on the backfoot, etc because they have the real experience of doing it. I don't know how Harsha can say that to get player A out, they need to bowl a few short pitched deliveries and then prehaps slip in a fuller one (or some other plan).

Waqar possibly bowled to that player, and has definitely bowled to many players like him. Harsha never did.

Of course Harsha never did it, but even I could recognise a players strengths and weaknesses - it shouldn't matter how I can recognise them. I didn't stand 20 feet away from international players like Waqar did, but I would wager I've watched almost as much cricket as Waqar has and I've stood 20 feet away from some very good cricket players, just not international players. Waqar might say, oh don't bowl short at Ricky Ponting - I could tell you that. He might say oh you need to slip in a yorker every now and then - I could tell you that. His experience certainly makes him very knowledgable, but it's not the only way to gain knowledge - and it certainly isn't the only way to communicate knowledge with other people, which is what commentary is all about.

The only thing Waqar could tell me that I can't see is what might be said in the dressing room, or what a captain might say in a huddle. Other than that, I can analyse a batting/bowling technique from the screen just as well as he can. Sounds arrogant I know, but after listening to years and years of these guys rabbiting on about stuff that I already know or stuff that isn't even accurate, I start thinking - hey these guys aren't the knowledge gods of cricket, they just played a higher level of cricket than me.

I guess my point is that many people are as smart/knowledgable as the current crop of ex-players commentating. Mickey Arthur for example is a very smart dude and I enjoy reading/listening to his interviews, but is he less smart that Waqar because he only played first class cricket - never Test cricket? I don't think so. It's just that these ex-Test players SOUND more convincing to the average viewer because the viewer knows who they are.

As for Harsha: to me there are 4 reasons a player doesn't make it. He's immature/lazy, or he's got poor technique, or he's not smart enough (cricket brain), or he's not strong enough/tall enough/fast enough/supple enough (the physically inferior part I mentioned). I don't know which one(s) apply to Harsha, but which one would make the best commentator? I would argue it's the guy who isn't strong/tall/fast/supple. If you don't have a good cricket brain, how can you be a good commentator? If you had poor technique, how can you point out the technique in others? And if you are immature/lazy - you won't have the drive to research your facts or try to improve as a commentator.

You also have to remember that only a very small percentage of people have played Test cricket. To criticise a guy because he hasn't played Test cricket is harsh. There are thousands of journalists who report on the game who have never played Test cricket - do you read their articles, or are they not experienced enough to write about cricket?

If you don't like Harsha, what about substituting Tony Cosier's name instead? Does that change your opinions in the argument? Or is Waqar/Arun Lal/Danny Morrison etc. always going to be better than any non-Test cricket playing commentator?

 

[sohum]

Completely agree with sifter132. I'm glad you brought up Tony Cozier. What do you think of Tony Cozier, zMario? The bloke's never played cricket professionally but he's been covering and commentating cricket for more than 50 years and knows the history of West Indies cricket inside out. In short, he probably knows as much, if not more, about the game as any West Indian cricketer in the last few decades. Would you still rather take a failed athlete who can hardly speak just on the basis of having played one ODI match for his country when a freakishly high number of people were injured?

Having played cricket has nothing to do with how good a commentator you are. If you've played three stray ODI's for Sri Lanka, you probably don't know the strengths and weaknesses of a player that comes from watching him and his teammates for many years. Harsha has been following the Indian team since I've been watching cricket (between 1-2 decades) and probably knows a lot more about the Indian team than the likes of Arun Lal and Laxman Sivaramakrishnan.

Sure he doesn't have the empirical knowledge of how to play the short ball on a dead slow track in India, but that does not mean that watching it over and over again has not added any knowledge. Commentators are there for analysis of the game, not to regurgitate their sweet memories of how the game was when they were players.

 

[Insomniac]

My views on Tony Cozier remain the same.

Look, I have no problems of an analysis, I read many articles on various newspapers regarding Cricket (and other world topics).

But I do not expect that analysis to come during a game, which is why I feel that Harsha is a journalist trapped in a commentator's position. I have no problems with his views, I have no problems with him doing innings breaks shows and after-match shows and pre-game shows because he has a passionate mind and love for the game.

But during a game I expect to hear from the people who have played the game at the highest level, because I feel they are more adapt (on average) of analyzing a situation. There are limits to what Harsha (and since you brought it up, Tony Cozier) can do. However, other than a language barrier, Waqar's views are of one where he thinks like a bowler, something Harsha won't be able to do.

Let me put it this way, there are many people in the world who can do Harsha's job, because they are passionate cricket fans who have followed all of their country's (and all other international teams') games and are articulate enough in the English language.

But in comparison, there are fewer successful international cricketers who are articulate in the English language. If all the commentator were like / similar to Harsha, we would never see an analysis of what the bowler is thinking, or what the star bowler (Waqar in this case) would do in a situation. Harsha can't say what he would do; I mean he can, but how much credibility is there to that, when compared to Waqar or Wasim.

I see Harsha as an analyst (sp?), not as a commentator. Just my few cents.

 

[tech.007]

What Rameez raza has done to morale of Pakistan Cricket can not be done by Harsha.Rameez stood commentating when there was no matches played by his team.Harsha even though Indian will not support India in overseas tour..he talks rubbish to impress ESPN/Star people.Look at Gavaskar he speaks openly and does not talks rubbish.

 

[Insomniac]

I think what tech.007 is saying is that Rameez continued to commentate in other countrys' games (and IPL) while his team had very little cricket, and the only time you see Harsha is during Indian games.

I don't even think he commentated in the 2007 T20 WC which was broadcasted by ESPN-Star Sports who are Harsha's employers.