The IPL, AI and the Difference Between Innovation and Noise

Cricket already has experts in the room. So why are broadcasts asking AI to speak for them?

18.05.2026

Google India and BCCI Partner to Transform the IPL Fan Experience with the AI Mode in Google Search

I love commentary.

Not in the passive, background-noise way people sometimes consume sport now, but properly love it. Good commentary can completely change the way you watch a game. The best commentators can slow moments down and take you beyond descriptive boredom. They spot tiny technical details most viewers would never notice. They tell you why a batter suddenly looks uncomfortable against short balls, why a bowler has changed angles on the crease, why a captain has moved square leg five metres finer because they are setting a trap three deliveries in advance.

That is skill. That is experience. That is instinct developed over decades around the game.

When I first heard 'Google AI Mode' come out of the commentary box, followed by some of cricket's most seasoned experts dutifully reading out the kind of generic answer you'd get from a five-second search, I had a right laugh.

Because when you actually understand what AI can do, watching it being used badly is somehow more frustrating than watching it be rejected entirely.

I say all of this as someone who genuinely believes in AI. I use it. I write about it. I think the people dismissing it entirely are making a mistake. AI is a tool that, used well, makes people sharper, faster and more effective at what they already do. I have seen it work. I am an advocate.

The IPL has always had a slightly strange relationship with sponsorships. Every competition does sponsorships, obviously, but the IPL turns them into part of the language of cricket itself. Super Sixes. Strategic Timeouts. Replays brought to you by this company. Moments of brilliance presented by that company. Commentators squeezing brand names into sentences with varying levels of enthusiasm while trying to keep the flow of the game alive.

At this point, most viewers barely notice it anymore.

But AI feels different.

Because AI is no longer just sponsoring the broadcast. It is participating in it. Every now and then, the commentators pause and ask Google AI a cricket question, before reading out whatever answer appears on screen. And every single time it happens, it feels awkward. Not because the technology is wrong, not because cricket should reject AI, but because this particular use of it completely misunderstands what commentary is actually for.

And more than that, it misunderstands what AI is actually for.

One of the core principles of using AI well is that there needs to be a human in the loop. AI should support expertise, not replace it. It should give the expert something to work with, a sharper lens, a faster route to insight and then get out of the way while the human does what only humans can do.

The strange thing is that the IPL already has some of the smartest cricketing minds in the world sitting in the commentary box.

People like Ian Bishop, Sunil Gavaskar and Katey Martin do not need AI-generated explanations about batting mechanics or tactical adjustments. These are people who spend hours researching before broadcasts. Former players and analysts who have faced world-class bowling attacks, studied trends across formats and spent years learning how to explain cricket clearly to audiences. When Gavaskar talks about a batter's intent, or Ian Bishop breaks down a fast bowler's release point, they are translating decades of lived experience into something the viewer can feel.

And then suddenly the broadcast cuts to an AI-generated answer that sounds like the first paragraph of a school essay.

You can almost hear the energy drop.

The commentators read it out because they have to, then immediately move on without adding anything, because there is nothing meaningful to add. The answers are generic, surface-level, and painfully obvious compared to the level of insight these people produce naturally. And here is the thing, it would be one thing if they were then building on the points generated by AI in real time but not once have I seen any of them expand on what Google AI said. They just read it and move on, the same way they read out every other sponsorship line. That tells you everything.

That is not AI supporting expertise. That is AI interrupting it for no reason.

To be fair, some of what Google AI Mode offers makes sense as a second-screen experience. A fan at home asking conversational questions about a player's record or a tactical situation through Search. That is AI filling a genuine gap, giving fans who want to go deeper somewhere to go. That is not the problem. The problem is when it moves from the viewer's phone into the commentary box, and the experts are the ones being asked to read it out.

The frustrating part, as someone who genuinely wants to see AI used well, is that there are so many places it could genuinely add value in a cricket broadcast.

Translating commentary into multiple languages in real time. Helping producers identify the most significant tactical moment of an innings within seconds for replay packages. Tracking bowling workloads and flagging fatigue risk in real time. These are things AI does that humans cannot do as quickly or as consistently and that is where it belongs. Solving problems. Filling gaps. Enhancing what the experts are already doing.

Asking AI to explain why Jasprit Bumrah is difficult to face at the death while Ian Bishop is literally sitting three feet away wearing a headset is not enhancing expertise. It is replacing it with a worse version of itself, then presenting that as innovation.

That is the bit that bothers me most. Not AI in cricket. AI used where it adds nothing, dressed up as progress.

And honestly, the commentary segments are not even the strangest example of this.

The AI-generated player graphics might somehow be worse.

The IPL already has dedicated media days. Players film interviews, promotional content and social media material constantly throughout the season. There are photographers and broadcast crews everywhere. Entire production teams dedicated to making the tournament look polished and exciting. The access is extraordinary.

So why are we replacing actual footage and photography with AI-generated animations that look like they escaped from a half-finished video game? They are unsettling more than impressive. Not realistic enough to feel human, but realistic enough to feel wrong. And again, the same question applies: what problem is this solving? What is the AI doing here that the camera crew, the media day, the photographers could not do better?

When AI is used well, you should not have to ask that question. The answer should be obvious.

Cricket actually has a brilliant track record of using AI properly, and it is worth saying so, because this is not a sport that is hostile to technology.

Hawk-Eye changed the game. Ball-tracking, edge detection, LBW projection; all of that is AI solving a real problem that human eyes and umpires genuinely could not solve as consistently. DRS made the game fairer. Nobody questions whether that was a good idea. The IPL this season expanded Hawk-Eye to automatically adjudicate off-side and head-high wides, removing a genuinely subjective call from the game. That is technology doing what technology should do.

Behind the scenes, teams use machine learning to track player workloads, model fatigue risk and process tactical datasets faster than any analyst could manually. CricViz's analytical suite is embedded inside the backrooms of multiple franchises. Catapult wearables measure bowling forces in real time. This is serious, substantive work that has probably extended careers and improved decision-making in ways fans never see.

That AI is invisible. It works. Nobody is putting it on screen between overs and asking a commentator to read it aloud.

The contrast could not be more stark. One type of AI quietly makes the game better. The other interrupts it to announce that it exists.

I think what is really happening here is bigger than just cricket.

Right now, there is enormous pressure across every industry to appear AI-forward. To demonstrate that you are embracing the technology. To look modern, to look innovative, to show investors and audiences that you are not being left behind. And sometimes (often) that pressure produces technology for the sake of technology.

The IPL is cricket's greatest innovator. It has transformed the sport's economics, its tactics, its global reach, its production values. It experiments faster than anyone else and it gets more things right than it gets wrong. But it also has a habit of importing ideas because they feel exciting in the moment rather than because they genuinely improve cricket.

Cricket should absolutely use AI. More of it, not less. But the question has to be where, and why, and what problem it is actually solving.

Technology should strengthen expertise, not sideline it. It should make the experts sharper, the decisions fairer, the analysis richer. The best technology in sport should make broadcasts feel more human, not less.

The irony of "Google AI mode" is that it often interrupts the most intelligent people in the room.