Richie Benaud

[Arthur Crabtree]

Richie was born in Penrith, NSW in 1930, and died in Sydney, NSW 2015. Slightly ironic for someone who lived the nomadic life of a cricketer and then a journalist and commentator. He scored 2200 Test runs at 24.5, three centuries. He picked up 248 wickets at 27, with 16 five-fers, going at two runs an over. These are the facts he leaves behind, and what he will be known for once there is no longer living memory.

The stats mark him off as a player from another era. He only played first class cricket. He played a hell of a lot of state cricket for an Aussie, and he only played for NSW and Australia. He at least has a colour photo on his cricinfo page, putting him on our side of the divide, but that would have been a choice that was made.

Great figures for a leg spinner and a lower order bat. And rated one of Australia's best captains. He was a commentator from another era too. I wouldn't be surprised if his guide to the job (known evocatively as 'the caller' in Australia) wasn't his well remembered compatriot Alan McGilvray, who is the personification of that school: enthusiastic, informative, professional, fair and impartial. Whatever they may have been like in life, they were commentators foremost at work, and we also think of Tony Cozier, CMJ, Jim Laker, John Arlott in that regard.

There is no modern representative of that lineage, and there doesn't necessarily need to be. Modern listeners want different things. Benaud and Cozier carried on into this era, and we appreciated their old school style. When Shane Warne appropriated Richie's 'good morning everyone' it mainly served to remind us of the difference, and Richie's laconic reserve, his lack of agenda, his suppression of his self. But while Richie was still charming, things had changed. People wanted more information, more analysis. And whether they wanted it or not, they got more of the personality of the caller. While he was there, Benaud reminded us of what is being lost, as older people do.

Of the new commentators, looking at Rich1uk's list of Benaud's personal guide, maybe Atherton has something in common, while still being quite different.

A sad day to lose Richie Benaud, but also a day for remembering a single person who left a positive memory in the lives of so many. A person that is remembered with affection and respect, and possibly, someone who played a small part in Australia's changing sense of itself, and of its influence in the world.

[braveneutral]

RIP Richie. The voice that hooked the world on cricket.

[Arthur Crabtree]

In a world where there is so much bitterness from ex-players towards their current counterparts.... Rest up good Richie.... :no

A most fitting eulogy S.P.

Yes, fine post Sussex.

[Aidan11]

"Jim Laker 10-53....and I was one of them".

[sussexpob]

There is no modern representative of that lineage, and there doesn't necessarily need to be. Modern listeners want different things. Benaud and Cozier carried on into this era, and we appreciated their old school style. When Shane Warne appropriated Richie's 'good morning everyone' it mainly served to remind us of the difference, and Richie's laconic reserve, his lack of agenda, his suppression of his self. But while Richie was still charming, things had changed. People wanted more information, more analysis. And whether they wanted it or not, they got more of the personality of the caller. While he was there, Benaud reminded us of what is being lost, as older people do

Not sure as a younger guy I ever got that. If anything, my initial suspicions about him when first watching cricket was he was old, so he couldn't be in synch with me..... so I learnt through his wisdom and style that he was a man to be cherish.

Maybe the difference with age? Benaud did show me what we were missing, and that is something modern commentators had never given us....

Cozier is a fine example and comparison though. I miss the Caribbean tests when they were still a good team, listening to Tony.

[GarlicJam]

Along the lines of how your appreciation of him changed as you aged, Sussex, when I was a teenager, he was Fishface, then he became Benaud for a while and morphed into Richie. Which he remained.

[sussexpob]

I did read an amusing quote from Keith Miller in a article about him this morning. Apparently Benaud expressed disappointment to Miller that he made his debut in FC cricket the year the Don retired, and never got to bowl to him.... to which Miller replied to Benaud, "everyone gets one lucky break, and that's yours"

[Arthur Crabtree]

There is no modern representative of that lineage, and there doesn't necessarily need to be. Modern listeners want different things. Benaud and Cozier carried on into this era, and we appreciated their old school style. When Shane Warne appropriated Richie's 'good morning everyone' it mainly served to remind us of the difference, and Richie's laconic reserve, his lack of agenda, his suppression of his self. But while Richie was still charming, things had changed. People wanted more information, more analysis. And whether they wanted it or not, they got more of the personality of the caller. While he was there, Benaud reminded us of what is being lost, as older people do

Not sure as a younger guy I ever got that. If anything, my initial suspicions about him when first watching cricket was he was old, so he couldn't be in synch with me..... so I learnt through his wisdom and style that he was a man to be cherish.

Maybe the difference with age? Benaud did show me what we were missing, and that is something modern commentators had never given us....

Cozier is a fine example and comparison though. I miss the Caribbean tests when they were still a good team, listening to Tony.

I forgot, most importantly, people want more opinion.

That's an interestingly different perspective to mine, myself coming from an era Benaud's style was more the norm. There is still some quiet in Sky's commentary, but Aussie and NZ coverage has almost none. It's like the cricket is just something that's on while we listen to some men talk. As if, they don't have confidence in what we are sitting down to watch, and they have to keep engaging us so we won't turn away. But even so, there has been an explosion of opinion. Observing an lbw from five angles and a computer simulation, wasn't what Richie was about, but it seems to be how we respond to the game now, and then, maybe we tweet our view. Richie felt incongruous in he C9 box in later years. The other commentators hardly talked to him. He did his laconic thing alone, as if no one else was with him.

[sussexpob]

There is no modern representative of that lineage, and there doesn't necessarily need to be. Modern listeners want different things. Benaud and Cozier carried on into this era, and we appreciated their old school style. When Shane Warne appropriated Richie's 'good morning everyone' it mainly served to remind us of the difference, and Richie's laconic reserve, his lack of agenda, his suppression of his self. But while Richie was still charming, things had changed. People wanted more information, more analysis. And whether they wanted it or not, they got more of the personality of the caller. While he was there, Benaud reminded us of what is being lost, as older people do

Not sure as a younger guy I ever got that. If anything, my initial suspicions about him when first watching cricket was he was old, so he couldn't be in synch with me..... so I learnt through his wisdom and style that he was a man to be cherish.

Maybe the difference with age? Benaud did show me what we were missing, and that is something modern commentators had never given us....

Cozier is a fine example and comparison though. I miss the Caribbean tests when they were still a good team, listening to Tony.

I forgot, most importantly, people want more opinion.

That's an interestingly different perspective to mine, myself coming from an era Benaud's style was more the norm. There is still some quiet in Sky's commentary, but Aussie and NZ coverage has almost none. It's like the cricket is just something that's on while we listen to some men talk. As if, they don't have confidence in what we are sitting down to watch, and they have to keep engaging us so we won't turn away. But even so, there has been an explosion of opinion. Observing an lbw from five angles and a computer simulation, wasn't what Richie was about, but it seems to be how we respond to the game now, and then, maybe we tweet our view. Richie felt incongruous in he C9 box in later years. The other commentators hardly talked to him. He did his laconic thing alone, as if no one else was with him.

Do we want more opinion, or are we just given it? Opinions are pretty empty, you could have any regular joe to spout opinions to people while they listen, I like some chemistry or some knowledge on the game. That's the problem with modern commentary, opinions are subjective and I am not sure I tend to agree with many of the experts, after all playing the game 20 years before hardly sets you up to have a good opinion on the game or players. I think I trust my own judgement more as I tend to find new commentators have a high opinion of themselves, or don't actually pay attention to the game.

Tell me what is happening, entertain me, inform me, don't annoy me....

[Arthur Crabtree]

There's also the possibility that we engage less because we are told everything.

It's possible that the change comes from the visual technology, which has to be explained. You can't just say 'bowled him' when there are graphics to analyse, measuring relative bounce, relative pace, swing/seam, a montage of batter errors and hawk/eagle-eye.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It's less certain that there's any appetite for Botham, etcs reflections on last night's wine drinking. This came from the radio, where blokish tale telling proved popular even with a non-cricket audience. Personally, I'd like none of it on tv, and that certainly wasn't Richie's style. But people love the radio commentary, and its personalities, so, what is tv to think?

[Arthur Crabtree]

The key thing was to learn the value of economy with words and to never insult the viewer by telling them what they can already see

An apt Benaudism.

[westoelad]

Benaud's family have been offered a state funeral. Has an English sportsman ever been offered a similar honour?

[Aidan11]

Benaud's family have been offered a state funeral. Has an English sportsman ever been offered a similar honour?

I don't think anyone outside of politics or royalty have had one in the UK.

[GarlicJam]

Benaud's family have been offered a state funeral. Has an English sportsman ever been offered a similar honour?

I don't think anyone outside of politics or royalty have had one in the UK.

Generally state funerals in Aus are for the ruling classes - long serving and/or high ranking politicians/military/judiciary - but ocasionally people who have been deemed to have made a significant contribution to the nation will be offered a state funeral. I am sure Bradman would have been given one - or at least his family offered one - and a few other sportspeople of note spring to mind (but possibly charity or community work helped to get them to this position) in Peter Brock and the Irishman Jim Stynes.

A great Aussie hero(imo), a "nobody" who was the archetypical Aussie Battler, thoroughly deserved the SF he was given. Bernie Banton spent the last 10 years or so of his (until then, quite unremarkable) life, dying, and in extreme pain and illness sufferering mesothelioma, but still kept pushing and driving and striving and agitating for justice for his fellow workers/sufferers and the arsehole of a company that did everything to avoid paying compensation. James Hardie may have become several different companies when they fled to the Netherlands and then Ireland - where company laws may be more lax. I think it behoves us to know the current incarnation of Hardie Industries and do our best to avoid doing business with them. Bernie Banton may not have been a nice bloke, but he was a f___ing hero to many Australians - far more so than any politician or member of the royal family I can think of.




*Sorry Richie, for hijacking your thread, but I am sure that you would agree (except fo the bad language).