I believe we have got fatigued with stating the severe shortcomings of the PCB which continue to be ignored. I thus felt one could usefully inform the readers about how television production of Pakistan’s ‘Home Series’ affects the value of television rights.
For some years the PCB’s television rights for international cricket is owned by Ten Sports. This company was started by Abdul Rahman Bukhatir of Sharjah, a great promoter and benefactor of cricket in general and Pakistan cricket in particular. It is fair to state that Ten Sports has contractually made handsome profits from the PCB. To my best information the majority share holding of this company was subsequently sold to an Indian entity who is its present operator. As a matter of record Ramiz Raja, now a commentator, was the CEO of the PCB when the contract was first awarded to Ten Sports.
The quality of a television production is judged by the number of cameras used, the quality and age of equipment used, the expertise of the camera men, the number and quality of the add ons and last but not least by the quality and standing of the commentators.
In some contracts 12 to 14 cameras are considered adequate to meet the letter of the law for an acceptable production. A top quality production requires some twenty cameras. By and large television companies do not themselves produce the signal but use specialised organisations for this task.
The larger of these carry the important staff on their books whilst smaller companies use free lancers who are hired for particular assignments. It stands to reason that the company with the largest number of permanent staff is usually the one that commands a premium for its consistent quality. When Pakistan was able to conduct its ‘home matches’ inside our country the companies often used local cameramen who had a reputation of being world class.
The add ons include, a speed gun, an lbw mat, a ‘slo mo’ facility, a ‘snickometer’ and so on have increased with the development of technology. A new development is ‘white spot’ which shows if the ball touched the bat, or pad or whatever whilst passing the batsman. This last facility is slightly more expensive than the others.
In any case each ad on has a price and thus the total cost increases with the quality of the effort. Most ‘rights holders’ obviously would like to maximise their profits and hence will produce the cheapest production that they can get away with.
This is especially the case where the television revenues are low like in a match between Zimbabwe and Kenya as opposed to one between England and India. It thus requires the cricket board to ensure that it spares no effort to ensure the highest contracted quality possible. Other important factors contributing to a quality production are the director and the commentators.
The fees commanded by them are commensurate with their ability and fame. The best directors in this business are well known and again the bigger companies have a quality person on its staff. In any case good free lance people are also available.
The commentators finally make or break a broadcast. In the yesteryear the best in the business were not necessarily top line cricketers. John Arlott, Omar Kureishi and Henry Blofeld come to mind. These days’ top level cricketers have made it a club and have pushed the others out of the game. In the case of Richie Benaud, Michael Holding, Sunil Gavaskar, to name just a few, it is understandable but on the other hand there are numerous others who do not make the mark.
We in Pakistan have few top level commentators because our top cricketers are not proficient in English. When I was associated with production of our cricket I made a considered effort to promote our lads. In the case of one who is presently commentating out of the UAE, I am some what apologetic. In that case I used my influence with other internationally acknowledged commentators to assist the individual during the learning curve. The result would be less galling if merit alone and not PR played a part in keeping other good people out of contention. The misuse of idiomatic cricket terms which raises many eyebrows and much quiet laughter from others in the ‘box’ is just one of his shortcomings.
The rather limited judgment of reading the game and the inconsistency of judging the technique of player’s which results in frequently changing the qualities attributed to our budding lads is the other glaring gaffe. No doubt it is done with the hope that the listener has a short memory. This standard of commentary does no favours to the quality of the broadcast.
The production of the recent series against South Africa was sadly under valued by its commentators. The South Africans were well represented, Pakistan was not. The company used a fine cricketer to be the second of the two Pakistanis in the series, but he is certainly not considered a front line commentator.
It is not as if we in Pakistan do not have another top-level player who is also a great commentator. Aamir Sohail has the respect of the big boys like Boycott and Ian Chappell.
Asif Iqbal and Wasim Akram are others who are amongst the more acceptable ones who could have been used if other channel commitments did not discount them.
In any case economy again is one of the contributory factors when the producer makes the selection. Sadly this economy reflects neither on the ‘rights holder’ nor on the producer but sadly upon the country that is hosting the series; Pakistan. When will we learn not to compromise on matters that are important and which decide how the cricket world looks at you? When will PCB fulfill its duties?
The writer is a prominent critic and cricket organiser
