- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
If all of Test cricket’s wrong umpiring decisions were compiled in a book, it would make JJR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy look like a disposable airport novel.
Bad calls are the way of the game, and will continue to be so, for as long as decisions are subjective and remain at the whim of human umpires.
For the most part fans and players cop whatever comes there way, knowing (or hoping) that over time, things even themselves out. But not all bad calls are born equal, and some, such as Nigel Llong’s inexplicable effort on Saturday, have a disproportionate impact on a match.
History will mark cricket’s first day-night Test match as a resounding success – partly because of a tense finish and partly because it was refreshing to see the bowlers from both sides enjoy favourable conditions, after bashing their heads against brick roads in Brisbane and Perth.
Daily crowds in excess of 40,000 suggest that Test cricket, when packaged correctly, on a nicely prepared surface, featuring two sides who play positively, and are evenly matched, is alive and well. Whatever the pre-match concerns, we will see more of this in the future and so it should be.
Australia finish the series 2-0 victors and on the balance of play, particularly the Brisbane hammering, they are worthy victors. It is hardly their fault New Zealand arrived in no fit condition for five-day Test cricket, and all credit to David Warner and Usman Khawaja for taking full advantage.
Importantly, despite being headed on the first innings in Perth, Australia never remotely came close to being in a losing position, and any fanciful notions of New Zealand blazing to an unlikely fifth day win were always dependent on a generous declaration from Steve Smith which was never a prospect.
The prospect of a tighter game in Adelaide always seemed likely, and so it proved. New Zealand’s bowling was improving, and the pink ball in Test match conditions was new territory for all concerned.
Two more things happened to swing the game in New Zealand’s favour – Brendon McCullum finally won a toss, and Mitchell Starc, Australia’s chief destroyer, pulled up lame with a foot fracture.
That the Black Caps weren’t good enough to take advantage, despite the intervention of Llong, will be a source of irritating frustration for them for years to come.
It isn’t hard to imagine all of their batsmen replaying their second innings, collectively finding another 50 runs or so, which would have, in all likelihood, won them the match.
But the elephant in the room is that those 50 runs, or perhaps even 84 runs, were already in their keeping, if not for the unfortunate Llong, and his unilateral decision to disregard hotspot technology.
Australian fans were quick to get onto the front foot yesterday, with Ronan O’Connell’s article making the point that the DRS controversy should not disguise inept tactics and execution by the Kiwis following the incident.
One could perhaps more accurately make the point that the Kiwis’ inept play should not disguise the failure of the umpire.
Undoubtedly the Kiwis dropped their bundle, but this conveniently sidesteps the key point – anything that happened after the incident was a ‘Sliding Doors’ moment. Yes New Zealand shouldn’t have allowed Nathan Lyon, Peter Nevill and Mitchell Starc to add another 106 runs, but why should they have had to get Lyon out twice?
There are suggestions that at the time of the incident that Starc was not in fact padded up. If so, there’s an 84-run lead to New Zealand right there.
Even if Starc had rushed to put a shirt and pads on, what would the outcome have been? A lead less than 84? Probably. Or perhaps a 24-run lead to Australia? With a tail-ender unable to run properly between the wickets? Only the most partisan of Australian fans would believe that.
Just like in Hobart in 2011 this was one of those Test matches where scores in the vicinity of 200 or so were the going rate. A low scoring affair where mistakes by players or umpires would be magnified in terms of their impact on the result. Context.
Naysayers will duly roll out their counter arguments. Dave Warner was out to a no-ball. McCullum deserves everything he gets because of naïve use of DRS, or for bowling Mark Craig at Starc, or for projecting himself as international cricket’s saint when he isn’t the messiah but merely just a naughty boy. Take your pick.
All of which are either 50/50 calls or matters which may influence a game, but which have no quantitative impact – like Llong’s call did.
Just in case anyone is in any doubt, this was not a marginal decision or a moment in time which unluckily intruded on the game. This was the game. All of the other arguments, while true in themselves, are frankly irrelevant.
One irony is that DRS, which has copped plenty of criticism since its inception, was not actually at fault here. The tools were available for Llong to make the correct call – he simply chose to ignore them.
Take your pick – the ball deviated and changed trajectory on the front-on slo-mo. Front-on hot-spot showed a mark on bat and the ball as well, and side-on hot spot completed the trifecta, with a clearly visible mark on the bat.
Yet all Llong could muster was a lame comment that, yes there was a mark on the bat, but it “could have come from anywhere”. Yes Nigel, like the bat.
Interestingly, Nathan Lyon’s role in all of this has snuck well below the radar. In the past there were two schools of batsmen, those who walked and those who didn’t.
To which we can now add a third category – those who walk, but very slowly, and only part of the way to the boundary, just in case the umpire loses his senses and decides to give him not out.
Technology has served to take the initiative away from the players. Even more so than in the past they are entitled to stand their ground and let the officials, aided by the technology, make decisions. That is their very purpose. But if the organ grinder turns out to be a monkey then, no matter what the process, it’s looney tunes time.
Australian fans should feel well satisfied securing a series win with a new side which still has obvious room for improvement. Josh Hazlewood in particular took on the task of senior strike bowler at short notice, and delivered in spades.
Peter Nevill is a winner, Khawaja is to come back in, and Mitchell Marsh will eventually score runs to match his bowling efforts.
But they should also take a few moments to consider how they would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. If Nathan Lyon was, for example, Chris Broad.
Perhaps more than any other game cricket, in all of its ebbs and flows, is about context. Batsmen who score triple centuries in one game struggle to get it off the square in the next.
Take the win by all means, but acknowledge the context. And the next time you see Nigel Llong in a bar, as you slap him on the back and buy him a drink, say “sorry, did I make a mark on your shirt Nigel?” And laugh as he says, “no, it could be anything.”