Yes, he only got fifty. Yes, the shot that he got out to was hot-headed and a bit reckless considering the team situation. Yes, he's only 19 and has barely started his Test career. But I'm jumping onto the Umar Akmal bandwagon. Perhaps jumping isn't the correct -ing verb - more of a tentative step. However, here I am.
What really impressed me about this kid was the way he played the short ball once he'd been hit. Other nebulaic players lacking in stature like JP Duminy and Phil Hughes have been shown to be vulnerable to short-pitched bowling. Not Umar. Once he'd been clonked on the helmet by a ball that stayed down, he decided that he'd show off a few shots. Out came the pull, out came the hook, out came the hoick, out came the leg-glance and the glide to third man. And before the audience could blink, up came the half-century. Sadly he couldn't go on with it today, but there's always the second innings, and many more innings to follow with such obvious talent as this.
There, Samrain, are you happy now? Have I worshipped your hero enough? Or would you like a few more adjective-laden paragraphs?
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Well
Well, well, well. Where can one start? As is well-known, there is a lot of cricket played these days. If an Ashes Test isn't on, it's a World Cup ODI final, a crucial IPL group match or a thrilling battle between Ireland and Bangladesh. There is always something on. Usually, the duty of a cricket fan is to watch the match that is currently the most entertaining, while keeping an eye on the scorecard of the other three or four.
However, over the past few days, we've been spoiled. Dreadfully spoiled. Like a gazelle who has just noticed three different lions on three different hills, my eyes have been rapidly dashing between the close fought tussles in Sri Lanka's ODI series in India, the intriguing spin battle in England's first Test in South Africa and the ferocious and often downright nasty stand-off between Australia and the West Indies. We'll all need a cricket holiday after this, although with the series just started in South Africa and a long summer ahead in Australia respite seems very far off.
Firstly, the Perth Test. We probably haven't seen so much bad blood in a Test match since the infamous SCG game versus India in 07/08. This hasn't quite got down to a public mud-slinging match, but it's had its fair share of controversial claimed catches (and run-outs), verbal send-offs and pushing and shoving. Needless to say, it hasn't been played in the correct spirit (especially in my perhaps not-quite-objective eyes by the Aussies), but I must ask a question - is this just what Test cricket needed? Is this just what West Indian cricket needed? The Windies have shown in the past two matches that they care desperately, firstly because of the barrage of bagging from the media after Brisbane, but even more so after the behaviour of Ponting, Watson and Haddin in this match. Nobody wants to throw away their wicket to the enemy, for enemy the opposition have become. No longer does it seem a rivals on, mates off relationship between the teams. Both want blood, and Kemar Roach nearly had it with his bowling to Ricky Ponting on the first day.
Now, as the match and series is on the eve of a finish, what a finish it could be. 51 runs to win for the West Indies after a brilliant bowling performance yesterday and a feisty showing from Deonarine, Nash and the tail in the final innings. Australia need just the one wicket. Even if the men from the Caribbean lose the final wicket without a run added tomorrow, they must be applauded for coming such a long way from conceding 520/7, from the three-day innings defeat in Brisbane, from the player strike and the series loss to Bangladesh. I think it's the appropriate Australian thing to do to commend them for standing up to their critics and showing the world that the West Indies is far from a side resigned to extinction. And for me, I'll be cheering every ball Roach and Tonge face tomorrow with even more passion as I cheered Anderson and Panesar's last wicket stand in Cardiff, and Duminy and Steyn's partnership in Melbourne. Go on, boys, get as many as you can and hold your heads high.
Phew, some passion was released in that last paragraph. Let me get my breath back. Where was I? Of course, on a mental plane to South Africa where Graeme Swann and Paul Harris are busy demonstrating that finger spin is most certainly not a lesser form of bowling. In a perfect world, either one will get the Man of the Match honours mattering on who wins this fascinating match, but in truth it will probably go to some batsman who scores a valuable 50 and gets out, or Jacques Kallis for his hundred on what was a pretty flat pitch first day. Batsmen always have the edge in this sort of game. Except maybe Bell, who might just have played his last Test innings yesterday and robbed England supporters of a good few more years of ranting at the selection panel.
But Swann is the man for me - fifer and top scoring in England's second innings with an 81-ball 85? Digging them out of a deep, deep hole and giving them a sniff of a chance? Two switch-hits that made KP's version in previous instances look like something that Murali might do? Brilliant tweets to keep us all entertained in the few seconds that a cricket match isn't happening somewhere? What a guy, is all I can say. WAG! However, my other favourite cricketer (AB de Villiers) is currently doing a good job of digging South Africa out of a hole of their own. They were 4/48 at one stage, just over 100 runs ahead on an admittedly dodgy pitch, but he's batting at a strike rate of over 70 and is closing in on his half century, slowly but surely pushing this game out of England's grasp.
Finally, the series I've probably been following less closely than the other two, merely due to the fact that it's not my favourite format and it clashes rather horribly with my timezone - the series between India and Sri Lanka. South Africa would have been proud of the way Sri Lanka managed to choke in the first game, losing by four runs when they'd been cruising for most of the match. The game, as I understand, had the second highest number of runs scored in it in total since the epic 434 match at the Wanderers. That may not be true. I might have completely fabricated that piece of information; it wouldn't be the first time. Always thought I would have made it alongside the likes of Donald Rumsfeld in government.
Anyway, in the second match Sri Lanka narrowly avoided the choke with Matthews recovering their cause from a late collapse to make Dilshan's effort good. 1-1 and two of the best LOI openers in cricket of any form on display in Sehwag and Dilshan. If I find a way to live without sleeping, I'll be giving this series my full attention.
All I can say is, long live cricket.
However, over the past few days, we've been spoiled. Dreadfully spoiled. Like a gazelle who has just noticed three different lions on three different hills, my eyes have been rapidly dashing between the close fought tussles in Sri Lanka's ODI series in India, the intriguing spin battle in England's first Test in South Africa and the ferocious and often downright nasty stand-off between Australia and the West Indies. We'll all need a cricket holiday after this, although with the series just started in South Africa and a long summer ahead in Australia respite seems very far off.
Firstly, the Perth Test. We probably haven't seen so much bad blood in a Test match since the infamous SCG game versus India in 07/08. This hasn't quite got down to a public mud-slinging match, but it's had its fair share of controversial claimed catches (and run-outs), verbal send-offs and pushing and shoving. Needless to say, it hasn't been played in the correct spirit (especially in my perhaps not-quite-objective eyes by the Aussies), but I must ask a question - is this just what Test cricket needed? Is this just what West Indian cricket needed? The Windies have shown in the past two matches that they care desperately, firstly because of the barrage of bagging from the media after Brisbane, but even more so after the behaviour of Ponting, Watson and Haddin in this match. Nobody wants to throw away their wicket to the enemy, for enemy the opposition have become. No longer does it seem a rivals on, mates off relationship between the teams. Both want blood, and Kemar Roach nearly had it with his bowling to Ricky Ponting on the first day.
Now, as the match and series is on the eve of a finish, what a finish it could be. 51 runs to win for the West Indies after a brilliant bowling performance yesterday and a feisty showing from Deonarine, Nash and the tail in the final innings. Australia need just the one wicket. Even if the men from the Caribbean lose the final wicket without a run added tomorrow, they must be applauded for coming such a long way from conceding 520/7, from the three-day innings defeat in Brisbane, from the player strike and the series loss to Bangladesh. I think it's the appropriate Australian thing to do to commend them for standing up to their critics and showing the world that the West Indies is far from a side resigned to extinction. And for me, I'll be cheering every ball Roach and Tonge face tomorrow with even more passion as I cheered Anderson and Panesar's last wicket stand in Cardiff, and Duminy and Steyn's partnership in Melbourne. Go on, boys, get as many as you can and hold your heads high.
Phew, some passion was released in that last paragraph. Let me get my breath back. Where was I? Of course, on a mental plane to South Africa where Graeme Swann and Paul Harris are busy demonstrating that finger spin is most certainly not a lesser form of bowling. In a perfect world, either one will get the Man of the Match honours mattering on who wins this fascinating match, but in truth it will probably go to some batsman who scores a valuable 50 and gets out, or Jacques Kallis for his hundred on what was a pretty flat pitch first day. Batsmen always have the edge in this sort of game. Except maybe Bell, who might just have played his last Test innings yesterday and robbed England supporters of a good few more years of ranting at the selection panel.
But Swann is the man for me - fifer and top scoring in England's second innings with an 81-ball 85? Digging them out of a deep, deep hole and giving them a sniff of a chance? Two switch-hits that made KP's version in previous instances look like something that Murali might do? Brilliant tweets to keep us all entertained in the few seconds that a cricket match isn't happening somewhere? What a guy, is all I can say. WAG! However, my other favourite cricketer (AB de Villiers) is currently doing a good job of digging South Africa out of a hole of their own. They were 4/48 at one stage, just over 100 runs ahead on an admittedly dodgy pitch, but he's batting at a strike rate of over 70 and is closing in on his half century, slowly but surely pushing this game out of England's grasp.
Finally, the series I've probably been following less closely than the other two, merely due to the fact that it's not my favourite format and it clashes rather horribly with my timezone - the series between India and Sri Lanka. South Africa would have been proud of the way Sri Lanka managed to choke in the first game, losing by four runs when they'd been cruising for most of the match. The game, as I understand, had the second highest number of runs scored in it in total since the epic 434 match at the Wanderers. That may not be true. I might have completely fabricated that piece of information; it wouldn't be the first time. Always thought I would have made it alongside the likes of Donald Rumsfeld in government.
Anyway, in the second match Sri Lanka narrowly avoided the choke with Matthews recovering their cause from a late collapse to make Dilshan's effort good. 1-1 and two of the best LOI openers in cricket of any form on display in Sehwag and Dilshan. If I find a way to live without sleeping, I'll be giving this series my full attention.
All I can say is, long live cricket.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
England win BBC Team of the year Award
A year which commenced topsy-turvily with the Moores-Pietersen rift has culminated with the English cricket team winning the BBC team of the year award following their Ashes' heroics. From the test series loss in the Caribbean to the ODI series win in the Rainbow Republic, it has been a roller-coaster ride for England and skipper Strauss confirmed as much : "Yes, it has been a roller-coaster ride", before adding : "much like Bopara's test performances this year".
While the BBC Sports Personality of the year ceremony was taking place amongst much glitz and glamour in Sheffield, the England team could only be part of it via the webcam on Strauss' laptop since they were in a remote village outside Johannesburg in preparation of the test series against South Africa. All of the players were seated in their chairs and were looking on intently at the laptop on the table in front, which then served as the podium for Strauss. The captain, amidst wild applause from Sheffield, stood on the podium and held the laptop aloft when the cameras at the ceremony focussed on the trophy. The players, meanwhile, gasped in amazement as they marvelled at the technology they saw before their eyes. The nearby villagers, however, remained distinctly unimpressed. In fact, one of the locals remarked to a bystander nearby : "Seems like they a tribe from the 18th century who have seen technology for the first time", to which the bystander replied : " Yaa, almost like they are from Durban. Maybe they are from Hillcrest like Sir Wernich", much to the amusement of all those who heard.
At the same time, Strauss got set to deliver his speech. His chest, filled with pride, was puffed out and his head was tilted skywards at a 45 degree angle as he wore a smug look. A stern looking Flower then got onto the table and wiped the look off Strauss' face with his handkerchief before cautioning him : "We have talked about this before, Straussy. The Ashes win is only a starting point and not the end. Lets not make the mistakes of 2005 when the team took their eyes of the ball amidst drunken celebrations". Strauss, realising the error of his ways, nodded twice in approval; while back in Sheffield, Freddie Flintoff was seen raising a bottle of Namaqua and drinking to that.
Strauss then proceeded with his speech. Initially he echoed Flowered sentiments after which he read out from a sheet of paper: "Our lofty goals include becoming the numero uno team in tests. We have started working towards this with a combination of predetermined amounts of hard work, rest, enjoying each others success and creating a relaxed atmosphere for the team so that everyone feels at ease whether we are playing home or away. We are also looking to improve in the limited-overs formats by playing a more positive brand of cricket and the results are starting to show already as our series win in South Africa shows. In fact, looking back at the 1-6 loss against Australia at home its safe to say we have come a long way already, 5617 miles actually for those who want to keep track of our progress".
As I looked on, I began to ponder if there was any truth to what Strauss was talking about so I decided to randomly observe two of the players and ended up with Pietersen and Trott. Good choices, I believed, given the former is a senior pro in the team while the latter is the newest member. Watching them go about their business, I could see where Strauss was coming from. Despite being in the backyard of tough opponents and in an unfamilar environment, both Pietersen and Trott looked very comfortable. It was as if they were right at home. In fact had I not known any better, I would have been convinced they were born and bred South Africans! Preposterous thought, I know. Although if you let your mind wander for a bit and consider the possiblity, just how wonderfully ironic would it be if a couple of South Africans were to play against South Africa!
Meanwhile, Strauss concluded his speech by thanking everyone, the Aussies in particular for being rubbish enough to lose to England. It was a wonderful speech that promised much and gave hope of a brighter the future for the team. The players then considered playing snakes on their phones but were rebuffed by Flower. The coach told the team to hit the sack as it dawned on him that it was past their bed time, bringing an end to an eventful evening.
While the BBC Sports Personality of the year ceremony was taking place amongst much glitz and glamour in Sheffield, the England team could only be part of it via the webcam on Strauss' laptop since they were in a remote village outside Johannesburg in preparation of the test series against South Africa. All of the players were seated in their chairs and were looking on intently at the laptop on the table in front, which then served as the podium for Strauss. The captain, amidst wild applause from Sheffield, stood on the podium and held the laptop aloft when the cameras at the ceremony focussed on the trophy. The players, meanwhile, gasped in amazement as they marvelled at the technology they saw before their eyes. The nearby villagers, however, remained distinctly unimpressed. In fact, one of the locals remarked to a bystander nearby : "Seems like they a tribe from the 18th century who have seen technology for the first time", to which the bystander replied : " Yaa, almost like they are from Durban. Maybe they are from Hillcrest like Sir Wernich", much to the amusement of all those who heard.
At the same time, Strauss got set to deliver his speech. His chest, filled with pride, was puffed out and his head was tilted skywards at a 45 degree angle as he wore a smug look. A stern looking Flower then got onto the table and wiped the look off Strauss' face with his handkerchief before cautioning him : "We have talked about this before, Straussy. The Ashes win is only a starting point and not the end. Lets not make the mistakes of 2005 when the team took their eyes of the ball amidst drunken celebrations". Strauss, realising the error of his ways, nodded twice in approval; while back in Sheffield, Freddie Flintoff was seen raising a bottle of Namaqua and drinking to that.
Strauss then proceeded with his speech. Initially he echoed Flowered sentiments after which he read out from a sheet of paper: "Our lofty goals include becoming the numero uno team in tests. We have started working towards this with a combination of predetermined amounts of hard work, rest, enjoying each others success and creating a relaxed atmosphere for the team so that everyone feels at ease whether we are playing home or away. We are also looking to improve in the limited-overs formats by playing a more positive brand of cricket and the results are starting to show already as our series win in South Africa shows. In fact, looking back at the 1-6 loss against Australia at home its safe to say we have come a long way already, 5617 miles actually for those who want to keep track of our progress".
As I looked on, I began to ponder if there was any truth to what Strauss was talking about so I decided to randomly observe two of the players and ended up with Pietersen and Trott. Good choices, I believed, given the former is a senior pro in the team while the latter is the newest member. Watching them go about their business, I could see where Strauss was coming from. Despite being in the backyard of tough opponents and in an unfamilar environment, both Pietersen and Trott looked very comfortable. It was as if they were right at home. In fact had I not known any better, I would have been convinced they were born and bred South Africans! Preposterous thought, I know. Although if you let your mind wander for a bit and consider the possiblity, just how wonderfully ironic would it be if a couple of South Africans were to play against South Africa!
Meanwhile, Strauss concluded his speech by thanking everyone, the Aussies in particular for being rubbish enough to lose to England. It was a wonderful speech that promised much and gave hope of a brighter the future for the team. The players then considered playing snakes on their phones but were rebuffed by Flower. The coach told the team to hit the sack as it dawned on him that it was past their bed time, bringing an end to an eventful evening.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Christopher Gayle - The King of Cool
We all know what Chris Gayle thinks about test cricket. Apparently he doesn't think too highly of his adversaries either.
First he had a nice little mini-contest going with Evil Doug during the second test between Australia and the West Indies. When asked about the loud and obnoxious New South Welshman, Gayle had this to say: "What's the other guy's name? Bollinger? Bollinger. This will be the first time I am going up against him. It's a challenge. I haven't seen much of him to be honest with you. I'm sure we'll get some clippings and take a look at him and see what we can make of him." Sure enough, Evil Doug got him in the first innings and danced around like a teenage tramp to the beats of "Say my name". But cool Chris got back at him in the second essay by batting through the Windies innings and Dougie B had to confess in front of Reverend Broad.
Not being satisfied with traumatising the Australian seamers, Christopher decided to take another page out of the Shane Warne book of sledging. "I hear the Aussies look like they are going to play Nathan Hauritz here in Perth," Gayle said in the Herald Sun. "At the moment when Hauritz is bowling to me, it's like I'm bowling to myself. He really doesn't turn the ball too much that is for sure. Occasionally he might get the odd one to spin."
We, here at Straight Drive Past the 'Keeper think he can do better. With Peter "Axeman" Siddle struggling to be fit for the final test, Australia have scraped the bottom of their pace bowling barrel by calling up Brett Geeves. I can already see how the pre-match press conference is going to pan out. Malcolm Conn is going to be in there wearing the Baggy Green cap that Cricket Australia gives to their mediapersons, ready to intimidate King Christopher with some really tough questions.
MC: Right, how would you rate your team's chances at Perth?
CG: The West Indies here to play good cricket maan, the rest upto Bob Marley.
MC: So Chris, are you happy about Peter Siddle missing tomorrow's game?
CG: Chris don't care who bowls, Chris only cares about his bling.
MC: What do you know about Siddle's replacement?
CG: Why don't you ask Geeves? Chris needs to hit the pool now.
First he had a nice little mini-contest going with Evil Doug during the second test between Australia and the West Indies. When asked about the loud and obnoxious New South Welshman, Gayle had this to say: "What's the other guy's name? Bollinger? Bollinger. This will be the first time I am going up against him. It's a challenge. I haven't seen much of him to be honest with you. I'm sure we'll get some clippings and take a look at him and see what we can make of him." Sure enough, Evil Doug got him in the first innings and danced around like a teenage tramp to the beats of "Say my name". But cool Chris got back at him in the second essay by batting through the Windies innings and Dougie B had to confess in front of Reverend Broad.
Not being satisfied with traumatising the Australian seamers, Christopher decided to take another page out of the Shane Warne book of sledging. "I hear the Aussies look like they are going to play Nathan Hauritz here in Perth," Gayle said in the Herald Sun. "At the moment when Hauritz is bowling to me, it's like I'm bowling to myself. He really doesn't turn the ball too much that is for sure. Occasionally he might get the odd one to spin."
We, here at Straight Drive Past the 'Keeper think he can do better. With Peter "Axeman" Siddle struggling to be fit for the final test, Australia have scraped the bottom of their pace bowling barrel by calling up Brett Geeves. I can already see how the pre-match press conference is going to pan out. Malcolm Conn is going to be in there wearing the Baggy Green cap that Cricket Australia gives to their mediapersons, ready to intimidate King Christopher with some really tough questions.
MC: Right, how would you rate your team's chances at Perth?
CG: The West Indies here to play good cricket maan, the rest upto Bob Marley.
MC: So Chris, are you happy about Peter Siddle missing tomorrow's game?
CG: Chris don't care who bowls, Chris only cares about his bling.
MC: What do you know about Siddle's replacement?
CG: Why don't you ask Geeves? Chris needs to hit the pool now.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Farmers seek ban on the term "couch potato"
Alright so this may not exactly be headline news but that is only because its old now. For those whose memory is a tad rusty, the story was that the British Potato Council wanted the term 'couch potato' out of the Oxford Dictionary. Apparently, the epithet has a detrimental affect on the vegetable's healthy image. That really is a shame because potato is the healthiest of the non-green vegetables. Or maybe a close second to carrots, unless I am forgetting a few others. Nonetheless, the point is it is more likely to be closer to the top than the bottom.
Now in case you are wondering of the connection this has with cricket, the answer lies with the butterfly effect. The small change of removing an expression from the dictionary could trigger a chain of events which could ultimately lead to the destruction of our glorious game! However, that is not where the coherence ends. Following my years of extensive research on the matter, I have (almost) managed to prove that the farmers started their protest because of their utter dislike for test cricket. Lets face it, test cricket fans are the worst offenders, i.e. they are couch potatoes who through sun and rain sit in front of their television sets for 7 1/2 hours a day for 5 successive days to watch a sport that most people in the world don't even know about! They are, therefore, directly responsible for giving potatoes a bad name.
Luckily, though, the guardians of the Oxford English Dictionary have a strong affinity towards test cricket. The fact that no phrase has ever been removed from the dictionary proves this. Thus, even in the face of gruelling attack of protests from the farmers, they held on by being positive in defence showing both solid technique and excellent temperament. And so test cricket has dodged another bullet aimed at its existence. Only just!
Now in case you are wondering of the connection this has with cricket, the answer lies with the butterfly effect. The small change of removing an expression from the dictionary could trigger a chain of events which could ultimately lead to the destruction of our glorious game! However, that is not where the coherence ends. Following my years of extensive research on the matter, I have (almost) managed to prove that the farmers started their protest because of their utter dislike for test cricket. Lets face it, test cricket fans are the worst offenders, i.e. they are couch potatoes who through sun and rain sit in front of their television sets for 7 1/2 hours a day for 5 successive days to watch a sport that most people in the world don't even know about! They are, therefore, directly responsible for giving potatoes a bad name.
Luckily, though, the guardians of the Oxford English Dictionary have a strong affinity towards test cricket. The fact that no phrase has ever been removed from the dictionary proves this. Thus, even in the face of gruelling attack of protests from the farmers, they held on by being positive in defence showing both solid technique and excellent temperament. And so test cricket has dodged another bullet aimed at its existence. Only just!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
MG's early thoughts on the UDRS (guaranteed chock-full of bias)
Thank you, Sir Wernich, for the excellent introduction.
Well, I've been a bit wishy-washy on the topic of the UDRS, previously known as the Referral System. I was a quiet advocate at first, mainly because of the notorious Sydney Test match, but was very much for it being used only on marginal decisions. Before it was first implemented in South Africa and the West Indies in early 2009, I wrote a list of considerations, published on this blog for the very first time *drumroll, wild applause*:
The position the system was at during the aforementioned series was not satisfactory. Camera angles were causing issues, umpires were very shaky on the rules and marginal decisions were being overturned. I felt that the game had in no way been improved, but further delays had been introduced and at times incidents were becoming farcical. Especially when Daryl Harper was involved.
The new system (with the brand new acronym that could easily be one of the Sri Lankan players' initials or at least some of them) is far from perfect, but it is a move in the right direction. Hawkeye technology has been implemented remarkably intelligently (considering we're talking about the ICC) and I do like the leeway given to marginal decisions. In fact, I think the improvement to LBW decisions has been fantastic and something I didn't think really possible. I also agree with the reduction of three referrals per innings to two, as the time it takes with all the technology involved (especially when waiting for Hawkeye and Hotspot) is quite lengthy.
Hotspot is an issue though. It seems that currently the third umpire is not taking it as the final word on things, even when the portion of the bat under scrutiny is visible (which is not always and will become less as batsmen learn to hide their edges). Either it should be used as the definitive or it should not be used at all. I believe that better investment could be made into more super-slow-motion cameras which, while having issues with depth of field do show impact most of the time. Hotspot, if it doesn't work well enough, should not be used because cost would then far outweigh any benefits it brings.
Where my major rankle comes, however, is in the player behaviour toward the umpires. Despite the reviews, there seems to be increased disappointment when a decision is made against a team (whether referred or not). This was highlighted by Ponting and Bollinger's rather appalling, childish behaviour in the recent Adelaide Test against the West Indies, but has been evident elsewhere as well. It seems that the umpiring is under even more scrutiny and that players have now been granted license to visibly show disappointment and even obviously complain about a decision. Frustration is also created by the fact that none of the process is shown on-field and thus no-one is really sure why the secondary decision has been made. Even if this is shown after the fact, it should be shown. I believe the umpires in the middle, at least, deserve to see the factors behind the decision for themselves.
To this point (under the UDRS), I haven't seen much change in the decision-making of umpires (whether they're giving more or less wickets before review) but I am hoping to statistically track it at least by sample and provide initial results and findings sometime next year.
Well, I've been a bit wishy-washy on the topic of the UDRS, previously known as the Referral System. I was a quiet advocate at first, mainly because of the notorious Sydney Test match, but was very much for it being used only on marginal decisions. Before it was first implemented in South Africa and the West Indies in early 2009, I wrote a list of considerations, published on this blog for the very first time *drumroll, wild applause*:
- How it will affect umpires' decision-making
- How it will affect the role of umpires
- What improvements to technology use could there be
- The use of Hawkeye
- How it will affect umpire-player relations
- How it will affect the nature of appealing
- Whether it will improve (or not) the decision-making in the game
- The time it takes to make a decision
- The number of referrals a team can make
- Any anomalies that may surface
My thoughts are, so far, generally negative. The camera technology currently in use is too crude to base decisions on. One just has to look at the (non-referral) catch made by Andrew McDonald in the SCG Test - from one angle it looked out, the other not out. As I have stated elsewhere, I think it may encourage excessive appealing, lazy umpiring and a lack of accountability for on-field umpires, while at the same time undermining their authority (and getting under their skin). And while extra technology could improve it, it will also add more time to an already lengthy process.So far, it's been an interesting thing to follow. A good deal too much is made of it, admittedly - in other sports such as rugby league, rule changes and technology implementations happen with barely a blink of an eye. People just accept the new terms and move on. However, cricket has always been a game of tradition, and the followers are firmly divided between the camps of preservers and innovators.
The position the system was at during the aforementioned series was not satisfactory. Camera angles were causing issues, umpires were very shaky on the rules and marginal decisions were being overturned. I felt that the game had in no way been improved, but further delays had been introduced and at times incidents were becoming farcical. Especially when Daryl Harper was involved.
The new system (with the brand new acronym that could easily be one of the Sri Lankan players' initials or at least some of them) is far from perfect, but it is a move in the right direction. Hawkeye technology has been implemented remarkably intelligently (considering we're talking about the ICC) and I do like the leeway given to marginal decisions. In fact, I think the improvement to LBW decisions has been fantastic and something I didn't think really possible. I also agree with the reduction of three referrals per innings to two, as the time it takes with all the technology involved (especially when waiting for Hawkeye and Hotspot) is quite lengthy.
Hotspot is an issue though. It seems that currently the third umpire is not taking it as the final word on things, even when the portion of the bat under scrutiny is visible (which is not always and will become less as batsmen learn to hide their edges). Either it should be used as the definitive or it should not be used at all. I believe that better investment could be made into more super-slow-motion cameras which, while having issues with depth of field do show impact most of the time. Hotspot, if it doesn't work well enough, should not be used because cost would then far outweigh any benefits it brings.
Where my major rankle comes, however, is in the player behaviour toward the umpires. Despite the reviews, there seems to be increased disappointment when a decision is made against a team (whether referred or not). This was highlighted by Ponting and Bollinger's rather appalling, childish behaviour in the recent Adelaide Test against the West Indies, but has been evident elsewhere as well. It seems that the umpiring is under even more scrutiny and that players have now been granted license to visibly show disappointment and even obviously complain about a decision. Frustration is also created by the fact that none of the process is shown on-field and thus no-one is really sure why the secondary decision has been made. Even if this is shown after the fact, it should be shown. I believe the umpires in the middle, at least, deserve to see the factors behind the decision for themselves.
To this point (under the UDRS), I haven't seen much change in the decision-making of umpires (whether they're giving more or less wickets before review) but I am hoping to statistically track it at least by sample and provide initial results and findings sometime next year.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Introduction
I must have tossed and turned for at least two or three minutes last night, thinking of what I would write as my first post on this blog. This morning I logged in and saw that there are no posts yet, so mine would be the first, and against my will, the Introduction.
So first of I would like to tell you that much like the ICC, my opinions can be bought, however, I draw the line at T20. Not even a gold-plated Katrina Kaif will get you a good comment about T20, Lalit Modi or the ICC.
Secondly, Barry The Pom (Baseer) is an Englishman, so none of his opinions matter.
Thirdly and more important that the second point, but not the first, welcome to the blog. I really hope you enjoy your stay and contribute to the posts here with your valued comments, but don't get on my wrong side, otherwise you will feel my wrath. In many places my anger has been compared to a slightly upset chiuaua tearing your ankles appart.
But don't worry, I don't get upset too easily. Best you agree with my opinions, you know, just in case.
So go out, tell your friends about this blog and lets get this blog buzzing with advertising revenue... I mean comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
