Harsha Bhogle - The non-striker

"If you have the Ten of Clubs, that is the Ten of Clubs, right? That is the card. So if you have the victim card, and if that is the only card in your hand, you have to take a call on if you have to play it." Harsha Bhogle seemed ruffled for the only time during the course of an hour-long conversation on the criticisms against him. This one being from a certain section that believed he played the victim card after being sacked from the IPL 2016 commentary team. Silence dawned in the room as I took time out to flip a few pages to go through the questions when he repeated to himself in a sulked tone, "Victim card? Wow, that's new!"

While admitting that this is a low phase in his career, he goes on to console himself by saying, "I've always believed that some good will come out of it. I remember saying that when Virat Kohli failed in England, that it will be the best thing to happen to his career. Maybe this is the best thing that will happen to me."

Only in a Utopian world will a celebrity walk in with only bouquets sans the bricks. So while there was an outpouring of empathy and love that came his way, a significantly lower number of observations too were made that were critical of his reaction.

"I thought I handled it with tremendous restraint. There are very few things I'm proud of, and I'm proud of the way I handled it," he defends himself. "I made one statement. I made one mistake, I shouldn't have retweeted a couple of tweets. But everybody in the world retweets. Mr (Amitabh) Bachchan, Barkha (Dutt), Rajdeep (Sardesai), everybody retweets and nobody says anything."

He wasn't wrong in the facts of his defense. There were three retweets and one post on Facebook by him. "I've not asked a single person to say anything for me".

He ignored what Andre Agassi kept harping to himself for long, 'Image is everything, everything is image', a tagline from Canon. Harsha had become a victim of his own image, of being the good guy, the 'non-striker'.

*****

The reason why his sacking created such a furore was because he is far from an average television presenter. In a field primarily dominated by former cricketers, he has walked in with a pair of spectacles, a receding hairline and not the most competent CV as a cricket player to carve a niche for himself as arguably the finest sports commentator/presenter in India and a following of close to four million on Twitter. For many in India, when the dream of becoming a Sachin Tendulkar fades away, the aspiration to become a Harsha Bhogle rises.

"And yet today, your chances of becoming a Tendulkar are better than becoming a Harsha Bhogle, because there is never going to be another one." There are shades of hurt and disappointment as he explains himself, "There will never ever be another, because you won't get a chance. You will never get an opportunity to do a game. I would like to believe that in India there are at least a thousand people more gifted than I am. Otherwise as a country, we are poor. I really hope they do get a chance, but they won't".

There is a board announcing him as 'Friend of Australia', gifted by Tourism Australia, nailed above his study table. "I'm far more respected as a broadcaster in Australia," he states for the third time in the course of the conversation.

A former Star Sports producer who has worked for nearly a decade with him, has an interesting incident that supports Bhogle's statement. "In one of the off days, we had gone to watch an Australian Open match. An Australian girl sitting near us turned towards Harsha and asked, 'Are you Harsha Bhogle?' The word spread around in no time and he was hounded for autographs. It was surprising because in Australia he was only a voice, not a face, by virtue of being a radio commentator with ABC. It showed just how popular and loved he was as a radio commentator."

The aspiration to step into Harsha Bhogle's shoes is upheld by many. From the outside it seems a glamorous job - jetting around the world to some of the most famous cricket venues, being at touching distance to cricket stars who are idolised and the fame that comes with it. And so Raymond Leslie Hume, ESPN's former Director of Cricket and Indian productions, in the year 2005 decided to market and monetise that aspiration. "It was 7AM when Ray called, all excited. 'I've got an idea for a show and I've been up since four writing notes'. From there came up the show 'Dream Job: Harsha ki Khoj'." The quest to unearth the next Harsha Bhogle began and the response was better than expected. "Even Sundar Raman had auditioned for it," Bhogle adds with a cheeky grin.

However, while the best from the show got a platform, similar fame remains elusive. Their struggle has also exposed the fact that there was more to being the master than the rosy picture Bhogle's profession always painted.

Nishant Majithia, who had participated in that show as a 18-year old then, recounts, "I had sailed through the live commentary round in Dhaka but was exposed to uncharted territory of being a sports presenter. I had to edit a bulletin, write a script and present it as well. I was under tremendous pressure, and could barely smile. Harsha was the anchor of the quarter-finals and during the break he saw me pacing the corridor of the studio. He came up to me, flashed a smile and asked, 'Nishant! Are you going to a war?' I could barely manage a half-hearted nod when he spoke again, 'I know you can't be nervous. You're just over-excited. And trust me I've learnt in life that it is better to be over than under.' My smile was back and I felt a lot lighter."

To be Harsha Bhogle has for long been seen as an easier route for a boy-next-door to achieve the Great Indian Cricketing Dream. Like every protagonist in a dream narrative, struggle hasn't evaded him. It's a tale of a path less-travelled. And you begin to question how many people would be able to put themselves through what Harsha has done to get there.

*****

As a 19-year old, Harsha walked to the station director at All India Radio in Hyderabad with an audio recording of his commentary that he had done for his college match. "My father asked me to go and show it to the station director. I don't know whether he set it up, because in Hyderabad everyone knows everyone beyond a point," he says with a knowingly-notorious smile. Nonetheless, he got his first stint as a commentator in 1981 for a Ranji Trophy match, followed by his first One-Day International (ODI) in 1983 and his maiden Test a year after that.

After graduating as a chemical engineer from Osmania University, where he played alongside the likes of Mohammad Azharuddin, Arshad Ayub and Kiran Reddy, he did his management studies from Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad and went on to join Rediffusion, an advertisement agency. "My second love is advertising," Harsha quips.

While working there, due to reasons beyond his control, he lost the chance to do commentary for the 1987 World Cup. "That sort of hurt me somewhere, because I thought the '87 World Cup would have been good for me." After he quit the ad agency, he had a brief stint with Professional Management Group (a sports syndication company), before deciding to go on his own.

"Anita (Harsha's wife) had a job, she had a house. So our expenses were low, and it is always a good idea to live within your means. Slightly unfashionable, but still very relevant," Bhogle points out.

If someone else makes a mistake, they have scored 5000 Test runs, so it's okay. I don't have the option to not be good - Harsha Bhogle
If someone else makes a mistake, they have scored 5000 Test runs, so it's okay. I don't have the option to not be good - Harsha Bhogle

***

In hindsight, he believes that going to Australia in 1991 'was the biggest thing to have happened' to him. However, back then he had gone there as an overseas broadcaster, which meant he wasn't getting paid.

"To fund my trip, I was writing one article in the lunch break for the Afternoon Despatch and Courier, one article for Indian Express at the close of play, while doing commentary all day long. While everyone was having lunch at the Lunch break, I was quickly writing this article, running across, faxing it and coming back to do commentary. At the end of the day, I was writing the whole article again. I was writing for Sports World magazine in between Test matches, two articles a week. That would also go to a Marathi magazine. There used to be video magazines in those days. I would open Yellow Pages, hire a crew, go around, go shoot, take shots, do interviews, do features, do whatever and send it across via DHL or a courier service, then do a column for Azharuddin, do a column for Allan Border, do a column for Richie Richardson. I was doing all that on one tour."

The early struggle lasted a little longer. In 1993, along with Suresh Saraiya, he went to South Africa to do commentary for AIR. Since there were only two commentators for the tour, they had to manage by themselves all day long. In order to cover his costs there, he would deliver brief reports five to six times a day to BBC World Service. "The two of us would work out a roster. So whenever the BBC World Service would come up, Suresh Saraiya would do commentary and I would pop out, do my BBC World Service report and come, because they would be paying almost 50 percent of my entire cost.

"After the game got over, we still had six-seven minutes before we went off air, but the media centre in South Africa would shut 30-40 minutes after the game was over. So I had to, as soon as the game got over, write my match report and it has to go to six or seven places. It has to go on fax.

"The thing about fax machine was that the slower it was going, the more you were paying. If the line at the other end was not good, it was taking a longer time to go. There had to be a pink stamp on the paper. If it was not there, you had to send it again and pay for it. It had to go six or seven times before the media centre shut."

His wife Anita would then go to an office, that was kept open on request, to collect the fax, find a shop that was open to get photo copies with dark print, come back to the office and fax it again to the various newspaper offices across the country. She would return home with the kid at 11 in the night.

Merrier days, nonetheless, came within a few years. With his work getting instant recognition, more profitable opportunities kept coming his way. The first big transition happened from radio to television. But with TV, a field that was the fiefdom of ex-cricketers, also came the first barbs.

As much as Bhogle has stayed relevant as a radio commentator, a writer and a public speaker, the fact that TV got him closer to spellbound masses cannot be denied. In a field that was largely dominated by cricketers, barring Tony Cozier, his lack of credentials as a cricketer often overshadowed his work as a broadcaster.

"I wasn't playing cricket with them, I didn't have to worry how fast they bowl," he says, while answering whether he was intimidated by the presence of cricketers around him during his initial days. "I knew my role from day one. I knew my role as a broadcaster, I knew my role as a ball-by-ball commentator. I knew I had played enough cricket to understand the emotions of the sport.

"I have played for Combined Colleges and Combined Universities in the Rohintan Baria tournament, but I guess that (qualification) is not required for those who are..." It's a fact that Harsha Bhogle keeps reminding every time the question of his cricketing credentials comes up. Despite all the accolades that have come his way over the last three decades for his work as a broadcaster, his lack of achievements as a cricketer is a fact that he is constantly reminded of.

"A lot of people think cricket commentary is about technique, and they are partly correct. A lot of people think cricket commentary is about stats, and they are partly correct. Very few people think that cricket is about emotions. Eventually, all sport is about emotions of winning and losing, of joys and disappointments, about the aspirations that are dashed. It's about unexpected things that happen to you, and it happens through the process of scoring runs and taking wickets.

"I know what it is to lose a big inter-college final because my teammates weren't as committed as I was. I know what it is to weep in a dressing room because I thought we should've won that game, and my teammates weren't sure. I know what it is to go for a catch that I had no business catching. I knew the emotions of the sport, and since I was the best fielder in every side that I played, I knew enough to create the narrative. I did not know enough where the left elbow should be. And when I did know, I got someone else to say it, I didn't say it. So I made people comfortable."

And it's not an opinion of just Bhogle on himself. A former Star Sports producer testifies: "Based on the context of the game, Harsha will ask the most relevant questions. His knowledge of cricket is second to none. But, while he understands everything, he will ask a question to someone else and make that person give an answer to it. In doing so, he makes his co-commentators shine. It's a special skill to have."

As per the demands of his job, he was supposed to facilitate conversations, allowing the cricket experts to give their opinion. He did that well, peppered with his sense of humour and one-liners that had wit, class and creativity. But in doing what he was supposed to do, he has also gone on to overshadow the people he had pushed to the forefront.

*****

In an age when there are close to 20 sports channels in the country, and a platter of young anchors to choose from, Bhogle has held his own. The reasons for the same aren't quite as surprising - perfect practice makes a man perfect.

Another source from Star Sports, who currently works with him, claims that Bhogle is 'far ahead of his peers' in terms of the preparation that he does before a match. "He is constantly studying, sitting with the analytics team, getting data and their inputs. He is constantly updating himself, unlike some of the former cricketers. There are times when he will wake you up from middle of the sleep and ask for help."

I've no sense of colour and fashion. Who knows all these things? We are middle-class people with three t-shirts and two pairs of trousers - Harsha Bhogle
I've no sense of colour and fashion. Who knows all these things? We are middle-class people with three t-shirts and two pairs of trousers - Harsha Bhogle

***

His pre-match preparation, in fact, has gone a long way in aiding the process of live shows and commentary. Mohandas Menon marks out what makes Bhogle 'special': "A lot of stats that we give out are like fill in the blanks. Harsha has the knack to understand the numbers better than most. He challenges us to push ourselves more in what we do, which helps the overall content. While he is talking to the viewers, he also has the producers talking to him on the talk back, apart from statisticians coming to him with numbers. He manages everything effortlessly in a live environment. He is a rare kind."

With the pace at which new technology is making inroads in broadcast, it has only made the functioning more dynamic; or for those who take time to adjust to change, more complicated. In many ways, technology has also undone a lot of opinions of experts. Harsha, nonetheless, doesn't seem too bothered by it. "The role of stats in broadcast has changed unimaginably in the last five years. It has gone from stats to analytics, which is wonderful," he expresses, with a sense of joy, indicating how well he has embraced change. "The young people in the profession doing analytics are absolutely top class and that is what I have enjoyed most at Star Sports in the last couple of years.

"But it leaves a lot of people uncomfortable, because hypothesis don't work anymore. If you say this is how it is, the guy with the numbers is saying, 'Hang on a minute, the numbers are saying something else'. So a lot of people are not liking the numbers that you have because it is proving their hypothesis wrong. Stats and analytics are making life uncomfortable for commentators, which is something that I like. If I'm not getting uncomfortable, then I'm not growing."

In the words of one of his long-time colleagues, "There are days when he is not keeping well, but not once has he given that as an excuse or given less than 100 percent to his work. Over the last 25 years, never has the fact that he is not keeping well come across on camera. That's his brilliance".

The praises for him, bizarrely, miss out on pointing that while he is doing all that, he also pulls out the odd out-of-the-world one-liners time and again. "I don't know that line till I say it. Not one of those lines are prepared. I remember a phase where I thought that 'Oh this is a good line, I'll use it.' Then I started waiting for that moment to come to use that line. Then I realised that is not what broadcast is, right? So I've never prepared for that."

Having not fussed for so long, today he thinks he is a good bet to do commentary in the last five overs. Given his body of work and years of service, he makes a strong case for himself. Speaking about Tendulkar's lap of honour at the Wankhede Stadium in his farewell Test, Bhogle says, "That is what you do commentary for." While many were too engrossed in watching Tendulkar in his final act, the commentary had become a side show that was pleasantly ignored. But Bhogle was presenting an apt narration for an apt moment. Something that he himself professes, he played around excellently with the emotion of choked-up throats and welled-up eyes, without taking over it.

Even today, as he juggles between numerous corporate talks across the country, shows for Star Sports and writing, he still seems disturbed at not being able to do commentary. The commentary box has been his kingdom for long, a place he ruled with smile, banter and words.

However, for all his excellence as a commentator and a colleague, he isn't always the easy-going co-worker. He has certain drawbacks, and that often put a few people off.

Not everybody is pleased with his 'finicky' nature when it comes to dressing up and doing make-up. Bhogle accepts this criticism without reservations and admits that he is awe at the way some of the younger anchors dress. "I think my on-air look is far better than it ever was. I didn't understand fashion, I didn't understand colour. I still don't. (Navjot Singh) Sidhu would tell me, 'Ispe yeh nahi jaata (It doesn't go with this)'. Who knows all these things? We are middle-class people with three t-shirts and two pairs of trousers. So I used to carry two ties to a cricket match and ask the cameraman. I've no sense of colour and fashion. I don't have it, so what? But people help me get it. I'm happy being the Average Joe. I always say this to female anchors, 'I have one advantage that you will never have. I'm under no pressure to look good. You have to look good. But if looking good is all that you can do, two years later there is another girl coming along to take your place'."

"I believe that the younger anchors look really sharp. I look at them and I'm like 'Wow! that is how I must look on television, right?' But I still can't. So I ask Jatin (Sapru) 'Does that go, man?' I'm not afraid of asking a young kid what works, a thing that he knows better than I do. What I wonder is whether they focus more on their looks rather than what they are going to say and how they are going to say it."

And having been an expert broadcaster for twenty years, this is one area where he doesn't shy away from making critical comments. "You will find that the worst anchors in the history of television are models, because they want to know where the light is coming from, what the camera angle is. If you're only worried about that (and not the content), how are you going to carry a conversation for two hours? That's the only complaint I have with the younger anchors who are much sharper and talented than we ever were."

He raises his objections without hesitation while saying that if the new generation works as hard as him, he would be proud. However, for all the effort that he takes, there is also a section of people who work with him and don't enjoy his over-involvement in the process. "Too bad for them. Eventually, it makes me comfortable," he defends himself.

"Eventually, I'm in front and for all the work that they do, I'm responsible for that. If I have a bad day, I drag all of them down. So I have a great responsibility as an anchor to make sure that everyone else's work looks good. If I fail as an anchor, then all of us are looking bad. That's not fair on them. So I have to know what's happening."

Does he realise that a lot of people are getting bothered by his over-involvement?

"Of course they are," he admits right away. "If you're putting out something, you have to be rigorous. The producer has to be the best producer in the world.The stats person has to be the best stats person in the world. Otherwise, why are you paying us? If you are going on air, you must know everything about it. If I bring that intensity to the telecast, then everybody has to bring that intensity. Because without that intensity, you have no business being there.

"I know I get distracted sometimes, I switch on five seconds before going on air. It happens. I get very worked up before going on air. If I'm wrong, there are a lot of people unhappy that I'm wrong. I've come from a background where I know I have to be the best, because anything apart from the best, I know a lot of people are not going to be happy with that. So I don't want to give them that chance. If someone else makes a mistake, they have scored 5000 Test runs, so it's okay. I don't have the option to not be good."

The way people reacted when Harsha was dropped from the list of commentators for the IPL, I don't think people would have reacted like that even if a cricketer was dropped. That is a fair indicator of what makes him so special - Vikram Sathye
The way people reacted when Harsha was dropped from the list of commentators for the IPL, I don't think people would have reacted like that even if a cricketer was dropped. That is a fair indicator of what makes him so special - Vikram Sathye

***

There were days when the harshest of sun rays were falling straight on his face. He has got light-burnt, and had his skin peeling off due to the intensity of the light. There were days when 60,000 people were screaming in front of the speakers, and he couldn't hear what the producers were saying on the talk back or even the person standing three feet next to him. There were times when his legs were hurting; his upper body looked relaxed, but his legs were stiff. Yet he has had to look into the camera and smile, like he was enjoying the discussion, and not let the viewers know any of that was going on.

The inspiration to push through comes from the likes of Riaan Myburgh and Johnny de Villiers, whom he observed during his initial days in television.

"When I started off, the group of people I worked with in proper television, not Doordarshan, were rockstars, absolute rockstars. With those cameras, they didn't miss a ball. And I, as a broadcaster, was supposed to be the voice, till then not a face. Meaning, I will be a ribbon on the cake that they baked. I've never lost sight of that fact. A commentator is not the star, a commentator is a ribbon on the cake that the engineers, sound, cameras and the technology bake."

A good 20-minutes of the conversation revolves around how the technicians worked behind the scenes in 1990s, with a lot of complicated technological processes and set-up in place. With memories of past came the critical analysis of some modern-day practices. Speaking about some of the current producers, he says, "They are in awe of the commentators, which is always wrong. Suddenly, if Kevin Pietersen is doing commentary with me, as a producer, can you say, 'Kevin, just pull back a bit'? Or as a producer are you going to say, 'Well done KP'? As a producer, you got to be able to do that. Sometimes they seem scared to say it."

But even in criticism, there was some empathy. "There is a shift from what producers are asking from commentators, and they are asking that because that is what people are increasingly asking for from the telecast. You hear a lot of people say, 'Oh! Richie Benaud! He played the pause perfectly.' Of course he played the pause perfectly. If I paused, who would want to fill? Because today, more is the reincarnation of less.

"I watched a Test match played in England last week. It was (David) Gower and probably Michael Atherton. There was nothing. For two deliveries, not a word was spoken, and I said 'Oh, that's easy.' But England is the only place in the world that still follows the minimalist style of television. All over the world, it has changed completely. And that is why our maximum criticism comes from England, because they think that is how it should be. But the world is changing. In India, we cannot do that. In India, we have to do more. Australia is doing that, South Africa is doing that, everyone's doing that. We have to do more if we have to be up."

Much like commentary, production and broadcast, even the approach of cricketers has changed over the years.

"This new generation is very different," says Bhogle. "But it's also different because you have gone to a different generation. So maybe the generation before me thought that the Dravid-Tendulkar generation was wrong.

"We always look at the next generation and think what they are doing is wrong. They might just turn around and think, 'We're just normal. Why are they thinking that we are not right?' This generation is different. They are more confident, they've seen the world, they've become rich much faster. They carry themselves in a certain way, they are happy to carry themselves in a certain way, which is not what we were doing."

"But I'm lucky that throughout my years, there were six-seven icons of Indian cricket who were outstanding people, and so we benefited by having that group around Indian cricket - Ganguly, Laxman, Tendulkar, Dravid, Kumble, Srinath were outstanding people."

While happily playing the 'non-striker', as he likes to term it, he has gone on to create an identity for himself. In doing so, it has also overshadowed one of his other rich skill-set - writing. The intensity that many who have worked closely with him believe he brings to broadcast isn't missing in his writing either. Conceding that he prefers himself as a broadcaster, he talks about his writing with great pride. Over the years, his writings for Wisden, Sports World and Indian Express have been of the highest standard, but he has remained underrated. "Not one article for Indian Express has been written without a skeleton made out of it, not one. Not once have I sat on my laptop and written something for the heck of it and sent it across.

Crediting his background in advertising, he draws a parallel with sub-editors to explain why he brought a fresher approach to writing and stood out in a clutter of cricket writers. "I remember my father telling this to me - 'Your first line has to get the reader to read the rest.' Otherwise, the onus of reading your article is on the reader. It is on you to get the reader to read. If you can't get the reader to read, you've failed. So I believe a lot of my very good writing was done on the tour to England in 1990, because I had come straight out of advertising at that time.

"I used to write for Mid-Day (back then, an afternoon newspaper). The game would get over at 10PM the previous night and the morning papers had carried everything. So I would think 'what do I write in Mid-Day that is different from the ones that have appeared in the morning papers, even though I'm writing the article at the very same time that the Times of India guy is writing?' That is when the advertising experience came in. In the first Test, for example, at Lord's when Azharuddin won the toss and put England in to bat, I started my article with, 'Azharuddin won the toss and in typical tehzeeb said, "pehle aap"'."

But besides being a good writer, it is also a space for him to express his opinion on the game, a part he doesn't get to play as a commentator. "On air, I went through a phase when I said that I won't have an opinion. In my writing, I will. There are lot of people around the world who say that I don't have an opinion. Read 'Out of the Box' and I'd love some of these modern firebrand writers to take up some of the issues mentioned in 'Out of the Box'. I don't think anybody has been as critical about Indian cricket as I've been in 'Out of the Box'.

"I'm always in my role as a facilitator and not an opinion maker. If I get criticism on the fact that I'm not an opinion maker, I'm only happy to accept that. I'm not an opinion maker on television, because that is my job."

His habit of sugarcoating criticism has often left his opinion ambiguous and created misunderstandings. Be it about the issue of participation of associate nations in major ICC events or the parallel revenue stream idea. "Prem Panicker put it best. He said, when I'm criticising someone, it seems as if I'm coming up with a marriage proposal. It comes from my background where I'm aware of what I don't know. If I've to come hard at some people I'm aware of the fact that I may not know everything. So it is disrespectful and rude to come at people without knowing everything."

His silence on the match-fixing saga only multiplied the angst. "I didn't know enough about match fixing, I still don't know enough about match fixing. So I can't have a hard stance on it.

"I agree with the BCCI on the DRS, but then that hurts a lot of arm-chair warriors around the world. But I strongly believe that the DRS in its present form is flawed. So when I say that, people will get upset. After 2014 IPL, I had a very strong piece on IPL.

"It's also because I'm not by nature a confrontational person, I'm a romantic. I just love to watch the game, enjoy the match, tell the people what fun we had and come back. It's almost flawed.

"Maybe I was born 40 years too late."

Harsha has played the good boy for a long time, not wanting to disturb the egos of people with cricketing credentials around him. However, in doing so, he has also earned the ire of a section of cricket fans for not voicing his opinion, and he isn't too pleased with it. "People don't appreciate the tight rope I have walked over the last 25 years. So I get bashed and they don't realise that I'm walking the tight rope that nobody else in the cricket world today has to walk.

"So you're constantly aware of the fact that you cannot afford to upset these cricketers with your views?" I ask.

"I've been told that I haven't played cricket," is his simple reply.

Some of the people who have worked closely with him for over a decade claim that his knowledge of the game and technique is as good as anyone in the commentary box. Bhogle brushes aside their views and says, "Maybe they are being too kind. I hope that's not true, because that will show other people in poor light."

He goes on to justify his point: "Suppose I'm sitting and chatting with Laxman and he says something, I would go like, 'that didn't strike me'. That happens, but there are times when certain former players with their knowledge of technique lull themselves into believing that there is only that much to a telecast. I do understand technique, I know which shot looks good, which shot doesn't. I understand the flaw, but I don't have the CV to say it. So I don't, as far as possible. If I'm getting into that territory, I know that I'm getting into a bad habit.

"The funniest part is that I didn't go down that path till Sourav Ganguly once told me that I should. We were doing commentary once and he asked me 'What do you think about this?'. I told him 'You tell me. You're the one who has played for 20 years'. He said, 'No, I want to hear from you'. So I said 'People don't want to hear me'. So he said, 'But I want to. What do you think about this?'. So I gave my opinion and he said "Oh, I think so, too."

A source from Star Sports states that some of the ex-cricketers, who are active on Twitter, get worked up when there are more people siding by Harsha's views than theirs. And on other days, Bhogle takes the criticism on himself. In one of the tweets by Amitabh Bachchan where he expressed his desire, to no one in specific but backed by MS Dhoni, to see Indian commentators speak in favour of their country, Bhogle took the accusation on himself and went on to defend it.

He explains his views again: "Deep down inside, you want a team to win, but if that feeling surfaces up to you, you might appear biased. While people are increasingly accepting that it is okay to be biased, I can never accept that it is okay to be biased. Because the broadcast that you do is going to Bangladesh, Pakistan, Australia; it is going everywhere. Your job is to tell the story of the game, not what you would like it to be. Though that's changing. Even though some very famous people don't understand that, it is changing.

"But if you're doing a Hindi telecast, then it is going only to India. Even then, I cannot be biased, I can be India-centric. I can focus all my stats, all my analysis, all my anecdotes on the side, which is still okay. On a world feed, I still cannot do that."

With changing times, came new challenges.

One of the finest achievements of Bhogle has been his ability to adapt smoothly to the demands of radio, broadcast, newspaper, magazine and social media, and garner fame in each of the mediums. Even in the cricketing world, people far more renowned for their cricketing skills, haven't been able to adapt to the virtual world with as much ease. "Social media is a young platform. If this generation has accepted you, what more do you want?" he says with a sense of comfort.

However, social media is also an easy space for anonymous people to get into confrontations and have their egos massaged at the cost of someone else's misery. Often at the receiving end of their trolls are celebrities. Bhogle, too, isn't unfamiliar to the troubles of it, having gone through frustrating times in the virtual world.

"I'm active on Twitter, not as much on Facebook, because I wasn't sure about my privacy on Facebook. I didn't want someone to come and make some snide remark on my posts that is being read by all. On Twitter as well there is a lot of crap. I used to get disturbed by a lot of comments, I used to struggle a lot with the abuse.

"In the last one year, I've learnt how to handle it, now I'm alright. It is good when you've got grown-up children. A stage has come where they are advising me rather than the other way round. My son would tell me 'these people have no stake in your life. People who have stake in your life, if they criticise you, you get worked up. But these people have no stake in your life, then why are you getting worked up? You get upset by some guy with 200 followers who thinks he is something'."

The fact that he is 54 already is only realised when you stop to think that the man and his voice have been omnipresent in cricket for nearly 25 years. Even today, he looks fit and as zestful. "I love cricket without reservations. Cricket has given me everything in the world."

While he continues to harp on the importance of 'being the best as you can be', he feels that not everyone knows their peak. "Each time I got a peak, it was Ray who showed me a peak. That is why people like John Buchanan were important for Australia. Shane Warne didn't need to be shown a peak, because Shane Warne knew his peak. But everyone is not as good as Shane Warne. A lot of other people were hardworking, but didn't know how good they were. It was his job to show that. You don't know how good you are, you just do your best every day and see how good are you at it.

"'To be the best that you can be' is a fantastic line. You don't know it yourself. It is very tough to know how good you are. My entire life has been defined by who I am not. All my life I've been told who I'm not, not who I am. So it is difficult to know how good you are. That is a call that somebody else has to take. Did Anil Kumble become the best that he could? He doesn't know that, Shane Warne thinks so. If someone told me that when I retired that I became the best that I could, that would be the ultimate honour for me."