Had enough? Not going to take it anymore? Like me, are you tired of mindless cricket commentary and its hodge-podge of trivia, matey banter, and focus on the hosts’ antics? Cricket commentary, especially on TV, has lost its mind.

While Test cricket can be a hard game physically, its essential nature lies in its mental combat and what Greg Chappell calls the “inner game”. Cricketers have to be fit and strong but more importantly they have to be creative, confident thinkers. Five day Test cricket is the thinking person’s game. And what especially separates cricket from many other sports is that it is a captain’s game. As the on-field leader, a cricket captain devises strategy and tactics, inspires confidence and nerve in his team, and tries to outthink his opposing captain. Cricket, particularly in Test format, is a conceptual sport.

The key to improving cricket commentary, to make it more compelling, is for it to dramatically convey that mental side to the game, and the captains’ strategies and conflicts. One important way to do this is for commentators to use storytelling techniques that focus on the strategic and psychological aspects of play. The poor way to tell a story unravelling live before a viewer’s eyes is to spoon-feed them slap-dash descriptions of the action, reveal to them the consequences of these actions, and tell him what emotions to feel. Such commentary places the focus on the reporter and not on the game and the viewer’s heart and mind.

Isn’t that why we have commentators, to show and reveal a game for us? Commentators must add value to a broadcast

A good storyteller reveals events dramatically. A cricket commentator should first describe the key match events and then connect them to the strategy or mental conflict underlying them. That is, the commentator explicitly tells the audience what the captain, batsman, bowler or fielder’s purpose or problem is. Then the audience is prompted for what to look for in the upcoming play. For example, the expert briefly relates that Australia’s bowlers cannot dislodge batsman Vivian Richards (the problem), that the bowlers are becoming deflated and no-balling (consequent problem), but now the Australian captain has changed his field to add two extra slip fielders and have his bowler come around the wicket. The captain’s purpose, the expert reveals, is to make Richards nick the ball and give a catch in the slips (the hoped for solution).

The viewer now clearly understands the purposes and conflicts of the relevant “actors” but doesn’t know the hoped for or dreaded outcome of these purposes and so feels suspense. Will the bowlers get it right? Will Richards get out or keep smashing the ball? The viewer becomes riveted to the screen or radio because he has been intelligently given selective information that influences his thinking and emotions. That is, because the viewer makes conclusions of his own about the on-field actions he is more mentally and emotionally involved in the game. This method points to the following principle: the more an audience knows and understands, the more it will appreciate and enjoy something, whether it be a movie, an art work, or a sporting contest. And isn’t that why we have commentators, to show and reveal a game for us? Commentators must add value to a broadcast.

Giving a TV cricket audience selective information to induce a strong reaction is similar to inducing suspense in a movie audience, as the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, explains to director Peter Bogdanovich:

“We come to our old analogy of the bomb. You and I sit here talking. We’re having a very innocuous conversation about nothing. Boring. Doesn’t mean a thing. Suddenly, boom! A bomb goes off and the audience is shocked – for 15 seconds. Now you change it. Play the same scene, show that a bomb has been placed there, establish that it’s going to go off at 1pm – it’s now a quarter of one, 10 of one – show a clock on the wall, back to the same scene. Now our conversation becomes very vital, by its sheer nonsense. Look under the table! You fool! Now the audience is working for 10 minutes, instead of being surprised for 15 seconds.”

During game broadcasts, commentators create story angles intrinsic to that game. Physical action story angles, such as Michael Clarke limping on the field (will this force him into retirement?) or Dennis Lillee confronting Javed Miandad (will this personal conflict continue throughout the game?), are compelling stories. But so are conflicts focused on the mind challenges of a game: Alastair Cook is making strange field placements and bowling changes. Is he being clever or is he rattled? Why are the Australian bowlers not finding a good line and length to force the English batsmen to make errors? Will Virat Kohli, the new Indian captain, be pro-active and go for a win?

Commentators need to discuss the psychological issues relevant in a game. A perceptive commentator, Chappell for instance, can easily develop story angles from issues such as tiredness, concentration, patience, intimidation and frustration. For example, the Australians are bowling tight to Kevin Pietersen and lock him down from scoring. What could result from this tactic? How does locking down a batsman cause frustration? Can the bowlers keep their focus to apply this tactic consistently? Viewers will watch to learn the answers.

A conceptual commentator should especially focus on the one-on-one combat of cricket. For example, the expert describes English captain Douglas Jardine setting seven fielders on the leg side and ordering his bowler Harold Larwood to pepper Australian Stan McCabe with bouncers. After McCabe ducks a Larwood ball hurtling at his head, the expert explains that Larwood’s tactic is to intimidate McCabe and force him to give a catch when using his bat to protect his body. The commentator then asks rhetorically: how will McCabe get out of this trap? Will Larwood’s rockets hurt McCabe? Imagining the climax of this high stakes conflict draws the audience further into the game.

The highest form of one-on-one combat in cricket is the mental/psychological conflict between captains. A commentator needs to explain the big picture of each captain’s strategies and how during a game the captains are challenging and countering each other with new plans and tactics. This mental and physical chess match between captains is fundamental to Test cricket and mandatory for viewers to understand in order to properly enjoy a game.

These days, Test cricket is losing popularity. That is ironic, given that, of the three cricket formats, the longest version is the most exciting – it boasts the most taxing cerebral combat as well as the greatest physical struggle and danger. But for these virtues to be properly appreciated, commentators need to better convey the mental aspects of a Test match. Commentators need to recognise that this is the most conceptual sport and the best way to sell its greatest virtues is by telling well-told stories.

A good story is in essence the conflict of minds and ideas. Commentators who understand this focus on the deepest nature of cricket: that it is the great game of the mind.