Harsha Bhogle, Presenter & Commentator,
I am sure anyone who saw the final of Ranji Trophy could not watch for more than 20 minutes. I watched 15 minutes and I thought I was getting angry. It was the worst telecast in the history of India. It was shocking. And you get angry when you see your country showing a telecast like that
I am sure anyone who saw the final of Ranji Trophy could not watch for more than 20 minutes. I watched 15 minutes and I thought I was getting angry. It was the worst telecast in the history of India. It was shocking. And you get angry when you see your country showing a telecast like thatSince November 1993, Harsha has been acknowledged as a top television commentator and since 1995 has been the main presenter for most of the cricket on ESPN Star Sports. Since 1998, he has been presenting live cricket from all around the world for ESPN Star sports covering over 63 Tests and 320 ODIs.
He has been associated with TV shows like 'Inside Edge' (75 episodes), 'Stumped' (24 episodes), ESPN School Quiz (181 episodes) and 'Harsha Online' (84 episodes). Harsha was recently in town to promote his latest show ESPN called 'Harsh Unplugged'. Ashish Sinha of exchange4media caught up with Harsha to take his perspective on the phenomenon rise of Indian breed on TV sports commentator on world stage amongst host of issues related with TV sports commentating.
Q. On TV sports commentary It is means of entertaining people using sports as a medium. So when we are doing commentary on Sports, we are part of an entertainment process by which we are communicating the joy of the sports to the people who want to watch it. Really it is nothing more than that.
This entertainment can be communicated in a number of ways. Either it can be having lots of fun that the audience shares in or using education as a means to entertainment. By telling people more about the game-they tend to watch more. But that's a minor aspect of commentary. I think at the end, one watches sports to see the drama of human achievements, and we are just the voice that adds to the drama - no more, no less. We cannot take ourselves more seriously than that. We are a visual presence, which adds on to the drama that is being enacted anyway. And that's all we do. If we do more, we will take away from original drama that is already happening and that is not our job.
Q. On different styles and genre of TV sports commentating Its different with each individuals and each represents a different style. At the end, the broadcast is about adding, informing and entertaining. But it does differ from one sport to the other. Cricket is much longer drawn game but in tennis you only speak in the pauses. In cricket, after the ball has been bowled and a shot has been played...there is a significant amount of pause. In Tennis, that pause is for a very short time. So the commentators role is much smaller in Tennis, but more critical also. Because in that little period he has got to make an impact. In Tennis 70% of the time the match is being played...in Cricket, its 40%-so the spoken words are more in Cricket commentary. Then in sports like Athletics, where one has to talk over the picture - the job becomes more entertaining. So it differs from sports to sports.
Q. On commentating in other sports wont do another sports. I am very clear that I would do a sport where I believe I can add. All other sports, I watch like a fan. May be if I get to host a show on other sports I will, but I would rather not. I only do that work which excites me. But there is Alan (Wilkins) - who is at home with Cricket, Tennis, Rugby and Formula One. So it basically depends on each individual and his preference.
Q. On the ingredients required to a become good TV sports commentator There are two or three things. First, One should know enough about the game to know and add to what viewer's have seen. He must be able to be a viewer's friend and must have a sense of humor. It is critical in a long drawn game like cricket. He must also have certain presence and must love the language. Sometimes we disregard the value of language. The broadcaster must love the language in which the broadcast is going. Whether it is Hindi, English, Telugu, Marathi...or anything - one must love the language. Also, it is important to have a presence of mind. Because things are developing all the time and one should be able to react to it and yet keep your feet on the grounds.
Q. On ESPN's philosophy of mending Cricketers into commentators When a new Cricketer does come in, then the producers tend to work with him for a while. After the first couple of broadcasts would tell him as to what to be done. Like, tell him about the pauses, watch for certain things, and don't speak over a bowler whose running in to bowl the delivery. Try and play the pauses better. When a new Cricketer does come in (with loads of Cricket experience but relatively no experience in broadcasting) the head of production or the Producer keeps giving tips though the day. You learn on the job. We don't have a 10-day workshop or something like that. Take for example Navjot Singh Siddhu, when he started and where is he now - he has gained in confidence and that confidence comes when you understand the medium.
Q. On how does ESPN select Cricketers in its commentary team I am not in that part of ESPN, which takes decisions on selecting cricketers for commentating. But there are essentially two or three things. We would look at person's stature. So what he says should be acceptable to the viewer's immediately. Then the ability to be articulate - because it is not much use being a great cricketer if you cannot articulate your thoughts. Essentially we look at these two things.
Q. On Current Cricketers who might become future commentators Well, it's not difficult to tell but I don't want to take names, as I am not aware of their future plans. But amongst the players I think some one like Anil Kumble can make it. He knows the game, fairly good-looking, has got lovely voice - if he can develop a personality that will work on TV may be he has got a chance. Personality plays a very crucial role on TV. You have to be up all the time, it is a high-energy medium. If you don't have the energy in you and you look flat, everyone looks flat. Rahul Dravid would be able to do it. Srinath is becoming outspoken - so not a bad things on television. I don't know what Jadeja's future plans are but he is articulate, he understands the medium as well...but these are early things. It's like watching some one perform at the nets. Cricketers look brilliant in nets, but in matches - it's a little different story. So we will have to wait and see.
Q. On the difference between Radio and TV commentating Radio is an easy medium compared to television. But you cannot go wrong on Radio. There are a million ways where you can go wrong on TV. Radio - you are just looking at what's happening and describing to your listeners. But as your audience does not get to see it - you should be a good storyteller. On Radio you needs to be very articulate and must have a fund of knowledge as you have to fill a lot of time. Because you never stop talking. Where as on TV one has to 'Stat'-'Stop', 'Start'-'Stop'. On television you have to be relevant at all time. On radio, it's like two friends talking as the game is going on, you can narrate a story, come back to the game. But on TV one has to be relevant at that point of time. So it requires a different kind of personality to be on TV. People who are very good in speaking two-three lines on TV may not do well on Radio. But people who do very well on Radio will have to learn to pause. Because "pause" is the most crucial element of TV broadcasting.
Q. On how Harsha prepares for commentating Not any more! Not specifically for a match, as I am reading the scorecard all the time and watching as much as I can. With start of a tour, one needs to update about the country and team, but with experience one doesn't really prepare. But I keep reading things around the sports, players etc. So we all read enormously. But we react to situation spontaneously. My role in the commentary team is of a moderator, commentator and host. So I have to bring out reactions and comments from others and also put in some comments myself from time to time. It's different.
I have to keep the show moving because we have a running order and I must keep that running order moving. I am actually looking down the lens. Nobody else hears the producer as the producer is talking to me all the time. So in that sense it's a pivotal role. But I have got used to it now.
It's tiring on some days, more than others. One doesn't get very comfortable studios to work in sometimes. Some days there is too much of noise at the work place. But when the studio is fine, the sound is working perfectly then its less tiring.
Q. On shows that Harsha Enjoys doing on ESPN ESPN wanted me to do all the shows that I have done so far. 'School Quiz' was the programme I wanted to do because that came out of an idea that Joy Bhattacharya had. We were sitting and talking about it and I wanted to do it. But for all the others I was asked to do. Live Television is the greatest thing any one can do. It's the most challenging thing but when someone gives a show to you, it's the greatest feeling.
We went through 84 episodes of "Harsha Online" and we were running out of people for it because we were concentrating on sports. We will restart it in Australia when India goes there for the series. In "Harsha Unplugged" we talk to different sports personalities who have got a story to tell and we out them at ease by going where they are. It's a new image for me.
I did a series called "Stumped" - it was a quiz show. In "Boycs & Sunny" my role was intended to be very small. It was directed on Gavaskar and Boycott - I was just doing the 'Ins' and 'Outs' because they are not trained to do that in a specific time frame. That was all the role I had in the programme but it tended to get a little bigger along the way. I love my current portfolio on ESPN - Live cricket, Harsha Online, Harsha Unplugged - so I am very excited about it.
Q. On how ESPN changed Cricket in India ESPN changed the whole thing. Through TWI earlier and through ESPN brought quality into Indian television. We are not used to quality - don't forget. On Doordarshan we still aren't used to quality. DD is still not particularly concerned on quality. And that always happens in monopoly and they seem to get away with it. For example, India that is one of the biggest sports market didn't get to see 'Wimbledon' live. It's a joke. Anywhere in the world a network would get sacked for that. Did you get to see the Final of Ranji Trophy? Anyone who did could not watch for more than 20 minutes. I watched 15 minutes and I thought I was getting angry. It was the worst telecast in the history of India. It was shocking. And you get angry when you see your country showing a telecast like that. Those were used to when TWI brought quality broadcast to India in 1993. Earlier Star Sports did the 1992 world Cup out of Hong Kong. Then TWI brought the India-England series in 1993 followed by the 'Hero Cup'. And suddenly people said we could see high quality television.
And I think the last two three years have brought in huge change. Earlier we were all learning through 1995, 96, 97. And we were very lucky to have very good producers, international producers who had worked with high quality broadcasters, who then taught us about high quality television. Now we are world class. It also coincided with ESPN-Star producing very India centric programmes. We never had so many Indian commentators as we do today. We have four plus Boycott, who is almost Indian (smiles). So as a result the Indian public for the first time started getting an India focus perspective. Before, we always heard about an Englishmen or an Australian talking about Indian cricketers.
Q. On what changed the Indian perspective on world platform It was the tour of South Africa and the whole Mike Denness affair. Suddenly India got an Indian point of view and the whole world got to see what we were saying. That was a huge difference. As a result now Set MAX did the world cup where they had to tailor it to Indian market again which they wouldn't have done had ESPN-Star sports not started India centric programming. Earlier we had Australian commentators giving the Australian public the Australian point of view. And England had English commentators giving an English point of view. Now we are there. That's been a big development.
Q. On commentating in Hindi No I wont. It will not be fair to the Hindi listeners. There is big difference between speaking 'pretty well' and speaking 'very well'. Hindi when spoken well is such a beautiful language to listen to. Similarly, English when spoken well, comes across as a very nice language too. I think in English and I speak in English. I think we don't have world-class Hindi commentators because we have very poor producers. If we had world-class Hindi producers then those world-class producers would have made the Hindi commentators world class too. But its not happening and that's tragic.
This entertainment can be communicated in a number of ways. Either it can be having lots of fun that the audience shares in or using education as a means to entertainment. By telling people more about the game-they tend to watch more. But that's a minor aspect of commentary. I think at the end, one watches sports to see the drama of human achievements, and we are just the voice that adds to the drama - no more, no less. We cannot take ourselves more seriously than that. We are a visual presence, which adds on to the drama that is being enacted anyway. And that's all we do. If we do more, we will take away from original drama that is already happening and that is not our job.
Q. On different styles and genre of TV sports commentating Its different with each individuals and each represents a different style. At the end, the broadcast is about adding, informing and entertaining. But it does differ from one sport to the other. Cricket is much longer drawn game but in tennis you only speak in the pauses. In cricket, after the ball has been bowled and a shot has been played...there is a significant amount of pause. In Tennis, that pause is for a very short time. So the commentators role is much smaller in Tennis, but more critical also. Because in that little period he has got to make an impact. In Tennis 70% of the time the match is being played...in Cricket, its 40%-so the spoken words are more in Cricket commentary. Then in sports like Athletics, where one has to talk over the picture - the job becomes more entertaining. So it differs from sports to sports.
Q. On commentating in other sports wont do another sports. I am very clear that I would do a sport where I believe I can add. All other sports, I watch like a fan. May be if I get to host a show on other sports I will, but I would rather not. I only do that work which excites me. But there is Alan (Wilkins) - who is at home with Cricket, Tennis, Rugby and Formula One. So it basically depends on each individual and his preference.
Q. On the ingredients required to a become good TV sports commentator There are two or three things. First, One should know enough about the game to know and add to what viewer's have seen. He must be able to be a viewer's friend and must have a sense of humor. It is critical in a long drawn game like cricket. He must also have certain presence and must love the language. Sometimes we disregard the value of language. The broadcaster must love the language in which the broadcast is going. Whether it is Hindi, English, Telugu, Marathi...or anything - one must love the language. Also, it is important to have a presence of mind. Because things are developing all the time and one should be able to react to it and yet keep your feet on the grounds.
Q. On ESPN's philosophy of mending Cricketers into commentators When a new Cricketer does come in, then the producers tend to work with him for a while. After the first couple of broadcasts would tell him as to what to be done. Like, tell him about the pauses, watch for certain things, and don't speak over a bowler whose running in to bowl the delivery. Try and play the pauses better. When a new Cricketer does come in (with loads of Cricket experience but relatively no experience in broadcasting) the head of production or the Producer keeps giving tips though the day. You learn on the job. We don't have a 10-day workshop or something like that. Take for example Navjot Singh Siddhu, when he started and where is he now - he has gained in confidence and that confidence comes when you understand the medium.
Q. On how does ESPN select Cricketers in its commentary team I am not in that part of ESPN, which takes decisions on selecting cricketers for commentating. But there are essentially two or three things. We would look at person's stature. So what he says should be acceptable to the viewer's immediately. Then the ability to be articulate - because it is not much use being a great cricketer if you cannot articulate your thoughts. Essentially we look at these two things.
Q. On Current Cricketers who might become future commentators Well, it's not difficult to tell but I don't want to take names, as I am not aware of their future plans. But amongst the players I think some one like Anil Kumble can make it. He knows the game, fairly good-looking, has got lovely voice - if he can develop a personality that will work on TV may be he has got a chance. Personality plays a very crucial role on TV. You have to be up all the time, it is a high-energy medium. If you don't have the energy in you and you look flat, everyone looks flat. Rahul Dravid would be able to do it. Srinath is becoming outspoken - so not a bad things on television. I don't know what Jadeja's future plans are but he is articulate, he understands the medium as well...but these are early things. It's like watching some one perform at the nets. Cricketers look brilliant in nets, but in matches - it's a little different story. So we will have to wait and see.
Q. On the difference between Radio and TV commentating Radio is an easy medium compared to television. But you cannot go wrong on Radio. There are a million ways where you can go wrong on TV. Radio - you are just looking at what's happening and describing to your listeners. But as your audience does not get to see it - you should be a good storyteller. On Radio you needs to be very articulate and must have a fund of knowledge as you have to fill a lot of time. Because you never stop talking. Where as on TV one has to 'Stat'-'Stop', 'Start'-'Stop'. On television you have to be relevant at all time. On radio, it's like two friends talking as the game is going on, you can narrate a story, come back to the game. But on TV one has to be relevant at that point of time. So it requires a different kind of personality to be on TV. People who are very good in speaking two-three lines on TV may not do well on Radio. But people who do very well on Radio will have to learn to pause. Because "pause" is the most crucial element of TV broadcasting.
Q. On how Harsha prepares for commentating Not any more! Not specifically for a match, as I am reading the scorecard all the time and watching as much as I can. With start of a tour, one needs to update about the country and team, but with experience one doesn't really prepare. But I keep reading things around the sports, players etc. So we all read enormously. But we react to situation spontaneously. My role in the commentary team is of a moderator, commentator and host. So I have to bring out reactions and comments from others and also put in some comments myself from time to time. It's different.
I have to keep the show moving because we have a running order and I must keep that running order moving. I am actually looking down the lens. Nobody else hears the producer as the producer is talking to me all the time. So in that sense it's a pivotal role. But I have got used to it now.
It's tiring on some days, more than others. One doesn't get very comfortable studios to work in sometimes. Some days there is too much of noise at the work place. But when the studio is fine, the sound is working perfectly then its less tiring.
Q. On shows that Harsha Enjoys doing on ESPN ESPN wanted me to do all the shows that I have done so far. 'School Quiz' was the programme I wanted to do because that came out of an idea that Joy Bhattacharya had. We were sitting and talking about it and I wanted to do it. But for all the others I was asked to do. Live Television is the greatest thing any one can do. It's the most challenging thing but when someone gives a show to you, it's the greatest feeling.
We went through 84 episodes of "Harsha Online" and we were running out of people for it because we were concentrating on sports. We will restart it in Australia when India goes there for the series. In "Harsha Unplugged" we talk to different sports personalities who have got a story to tell and we out them at ease by going where they are. It's a new image for me.
I did a series called "Stumped" - it was a quiz show. In "Boycs & Sunny" my role was intended to be very small. It was directed on Gavaskar and Boycott - I was just doing the 'Ins' and 'Outs' because they are not trained to do that in a specific time frame. That was all the role I had in the programme but it tended to get a little bigger along the way. I love my current portfolio on ESPN - Live cricket, Harsha Online, Harsha Unplugged - so I am very excited about it.
Q. On how ESPN changed Cricket in India ESPN changed the whole thing. Through TWI earlier and through ESPN brought quality into Indian television. We are not used to quality - don't forget. On Doordarshan we still aren't used to quality. DD is still not particularly concerned on quality. And that always happens in monopoly and they seem to get away with it. For example, India that is one of the biggest sports market didn't get to see 'Wimbledon' live. It's a joke. Anywhere in the world a network would get sacked for that. Did you get to see the Final of Ranji Trophy? Anyone who did could not watch for more than 20 minutes. I watched 15 minutes and I thought I was getting angry. It was the worst telecast in the history of India. It was shocking. And you get angry when you see your country showing a telecast like that. Those were used to when TWI brought quality broadcast to India in 1993. Earlier Star Sports did the 1992 world Cup out of Hong Kong. Then TWI brought the India-England series in 1993 followed by the 'Hero Cup'. And suddenly people said we could see high quality television.
And I think the last two three years have brought in huge change. Earlier we were all learning through 1995, 96, 97. And we were very lucky to have very good producers, international producers who had worked with high quality broadcasters, who then taught us about high quality television. Now we are world class. It also coincided with ESPN-Star producing very India centric programmes. We never had so many Indian commentators as we do today. We have four plus Boycott, who is almost Indian (smiles). So as a result the Indian public for the first time started getting an India focus perspective. Before, we always heard about an Englishmen or an Australian talking about Indian cricketers.
Q. On what changed the Indian perspective on world platform It was the tour of South Africa and the whole Mike Denness affair. Suddenly India got an Indian point of view and the whole world got to see what we were saying. That was a huge difference. As a result now Set MAX did the world cup where they had to tailor it to Indian market again which they wouldn't have done had ESPN-Star sports not started India centric programming. Earlier we had Australian commentators giving the Australian public the Australian point of view. And England had English commentators giving an English point of view. Now we are there. That's been a big development.
Q. On commentating in Hindi No I wont. It will not be fair to the Hindi listeners. There is big difference between speaking 'pretty well' and speaking 'very well'. Hindi when spoken well is such a beautiful language to listen to. Similarly, English when spoken well, comes across as a very nice language too. I think in English and I speak in English. I think we don't have world-class Hindi commentators because we have very poor producers. If we had world-class Hindi producers then those world-class producers would have made the Hindi commentators world class too. But its not happening and that's tragic.
Tags
contentisking
