The BBC’s ICC World Twenty20 highlights: any good?

Purely by way of a public service to readers in the UK - and, possibly, clever techy readers elsewhere in the world, the answer is ‘Yes’: the BBC is showing an hour-long highlights package of the World Twenty20 every night on BBC2 - and that package is viewable on the web until 1pm the following day at the iPlayer link at www.bbc.co.uk.

No real reason why Spin should be promoting the BBC’s coverage - except the BBC itself seems weirdly shy about it.

The coverage is a weird mix of little filmed reports, to-camera introductions and the ESPN/Sky coverage that is seen on satellite TV in the UK with that panel of partying commentators hand-picked for the carefree delights of Twenty20: yep, Ian Chappell, Anil Kumble, Mike Atherton, all guys who make things go with a big old swing.

I’m joking of course. These fellas would be better off commentating on state funerals but at least they’re not plain hopeless like Harsha Bhogle, who appears to be being paid by the word.

When Sri Lanka were batting the other day, Bhogle actually said that 1) they didn’t have much batting below the top 4 but that 2) “I don’t actually know too much about the batsmen coming in from 5-7″ before 3) conceding that Jehan Mubarak, who has been playing for years, apparently unbeknown to Bhogle, might be a decent batter. But he didn’t actually know.

Just imagine Richie Benaud coming up with such a waste of 20 seconds’ air-time. It would be nice if commentators knew their stuff off the top of their heads - but you can always do research, fellas: 10 minutes on Google should give you a decent grounding in every player, at the very least. And if you can’t be bothered to research, then you could keep quiet, no? Or - better - not appear on TV.

Anyway, the games have been brilliant and the atmosphere at the grounds too, so no coverage on earth could really taint that. (And can I just say at this point that Nasser Hussain appears to be getting better and better to the point where I fear he may go through the roof: knowledgeable, passionate, involved.)

As for the BBC package that surrounds the match action, I find it baffling.

Rishi Persad is a game enough presenter. He seems so boyish you can’t help wondering whether his dad should be presenting it and there’s a certain feeling that all his interview questions may have been written by someone else. You know when you go abroad and you know one sentence of the language? And that works fine until the locals talk back to you and you don’t know what to say next because you only know one sentence? It’s a bit like that.

Still, he’s young and keen and I daresay the idea of having someone older and knowledgeable would be deemed sheer insanity on a show aimed so resolutely at a new, mainstream audience that it’s on at midnight on BBC2.

There’s an air of hey-kids-wow about the whole affair. The BBC had the same problem in the West Indies for the 2007 World Cup, using a production style that constantly draws unnecessary attention t0 itself.

To be fair, the BBC does this even on Panorama these days, shaking cameras at weapons inspectors and playing background music on interviews in an aim to make current affairs look like MTV.

Why do they do this?

Are they idiots?

Are they working from a 1980s broadcasting manual?

Hasn’t anybody told them?

Last night, the World Twenty20 highlights had a filmed interview with Mickey Arthur. Well, Arthur is the coach of the world’s No 1 ODI team, South Africa, who are favourites to take the title here. To cricket fans, that sells itself. But, no, the film kicked off with a frankly hopeless bit with reporter Joe Wilson outside a tube station, going: “The thing about taking public transport is that you’ve got to know where to change - and when to do it. Twenty20’s a bit like that.”

Is it, Joe?

Is it really?

Why don’t you just let the material do the talking?

The interview with Arthur was then preceded by all that quick-zoom shaky camera rubbish that BBC Sport does to ‘jazz’ things ‘up’.

I imagine this is intended to be shorthand for ‘modern’ and ‘funky’. To me, it looks distracting and desperate and about as 80s as you could get. So, if, 25 years later, you still regard the 1980s as being hyper-modern, then I suppose it is a very modern technique.

Nothing can really detract from the fizz and rush of what is turning out to be a cracking tournament, if I’m honest. But - what about this - possibly better coverage could even add to the excitement a bit, instead of making me feel a little bit weary.

Thoughts?