Cricket World Cup 2007 Highlight - Ranjit Fernando

There's been much said (a lot of it abusive) about Ranjit Fernando and his commentary skills. It got to the point where even if another commentator made a Ranjit Fernando-like observation, all would ignore it... all the while singing a hymn of hate for Ranjit Fernando.

Let's face it - Ranjit Fernando's commentary is poor, perhaps unbelievably so.

• He cannot analyze the game technically anywhere as well as a Richie Benaud, Ravi Shastri, Ian Chappell, Barry Richards, Sunil Gavaskar or prospectively, Kumar Sangakkara. He's not even an anchor (as it were) in the mould of Tony Cozier.
• He does not have the voice nor the presence to do the job he is doing, though I suspect he's a lot better than the rest of us at it.
• He repeats what others say, uses tired old cliches and gets the score wrong - a lot.
• He can't identify players correctly and in the England match, he got the result wrong.
• He can't even pronounce his countrymen's names (e.g. Tharangaa for Tharanga).
• He states the 'bleeding obvious' (as per Martin Johnson of the Telegraph, who states the bleeding obvious in pointing this out himself!), but for the open minded, he only does it more often than the other commentators. After all, any commentator who says a batsman hit a four, while the same is being displayed on the screen is guilty of this infringement - was Ranjit Fernando the only one? And yes, I'm equally guilty of stating the obvious in pointing out Martin Johnson - thank you, point taken, I'll try and stop doing that!

At least be thankful that Ranjit Fernando's got rid of his once trademark line of "oh, what glorious batsmanship!". And give him a break for the fact that Sri Lanka loses wickets when he is on commentary. If it is intentional on his part that probably makes him a better bowler than Muttiah Muralitharan.

But does the fact that he might be incompetent (and deaf and blind, maybe) make him eligible for accusations of 'sucking up to the white man'? Those who wrote the blog articles used English - does that make them suck ups to the white man? Can this ever be proved, should Ranjit Fernando decide to sue these individuals for libel? Oh, wait - they didn't leave their names and addresses, the bravos!

The folk accusing him of not taking up Sri Lanka's side during commentary seem to have forgotten that a commentator is supposed to be impartial; even if other commentators are not, that does not give Ranjit Fernando license to break that rule. Similarly, some folks think that he is representing Sri Lanka - which is scarcely true; instead he's doing a job (albeit poorly) with a team that includes members from other nations.

For those who want to vent - by all means do so, for theirs is the right to free speech. But doing it behind a screen name, pulling the target's family into it, accusing them of bribery to keep Ranjit Fernando on the commentary team? Must we stoop to conquer? Ethically, aren't those venting committing a much graver wrong than what Ranjit Fernando did? All those that way inclined, while also complaining about the way Australia plays cricket - aren't they guilty of double standards?

To how many of these people did it occur to criticize constructively? Suggesting that Ranjit Fernando take elocution classes to correct his pronunciation, study the techniques of better commentators, hold his opinion against others, be willing to venture an opinion from time to time in the minority (risky, but Sanath Jayasuriya takes risks all the time with his batting!)?

• Do I think Ranjit Fernando is a poor commentator? Definitely.
• Why? Incompetence, for the reasons listed above. That is the only argument the prosecution, in all good conscience, can bring.
• Is that the only charge? Yes - being human that's all I can identify, as I cannot know his intentions.
• Should he be replaced? Yes, most definitely, if a better commentator can be found in Sri Lanka.

If there is such a commentator, and I most certainly hope there is, the World Cup television rights owners should have selected him in the first place. But if a poor commentator should be removed (be it Ranjit Fernando or anyone else), make sure its done for the right reasons - that viewed objectively, he's a poor commentator. The removal of Dean Jones would be a case in point.

Why was Ranjit Fernando chosen in the first place? Viewed caustically, maybe the commentator selection panel sees something in him that we don't (much like Marvan Atapattu's retention in the side after continuous failure). Or maybe there just wasn't anyone available/willing at the time to take on the job, knowing that the sharks were circling, waiting to put up a blog if they weren't upto the sharks' oh-so-high standards.

We've all got faults - but wouldn't working to improve them (and helping others, even Ranjit Fernando, to improve) be the right thing to do? Shouldn't the fear of being in a glass house and the result of throwing stones come to mind at this point?

Until Sri Lankans learn to do these things, Sri Lankan culture has a much bigger problem than just Ranjit Fernando's commentary.

-EndOfRant-