Umpire Aleem Dar’s howler in dismissing Australian batsman Phil Hughes leg before yesterday in Mohali was a turning point in the third Test against India.
With no DRS to deny Dar’s major mistake, Hughes was on his way, sawn off for 69.
Had Hughes batted another 10 overs for 15-20 runs, India wouldn’t have had time to score the necessaries, and the Australians would have salvaged an honourable draw.
Which after two floggings by eight wickets, and an innings and 135 runs, would have felt like a win.
Why the ICC, cricket’s governing body, allows India to get away with denying use of the DRS is beyond comprehension.
The ICC should legislate to make the DRS mandatory for all three formats in all countries. And if India holds out, tell them to get stuffed, and ban them from all formats until they comply.
Then we wouldn’t have howlers like Dar yesterday.
So to the fourth and final Test at Delhi starting on Friday. India has never won four Tests in a series in its history, and they have the ammo to fire again at the Australians.
Mixed news from the baggy green camp with Shane Watson returning after his one-match suspension, the subsequent dummy spit, and the birth of his first child.
But a big question mark over skipper Michael Clarke whose dickey back is again causing strife. He was clearly not fit enough to bat yesterday, and Friday isn’t far enough away.
Given Clarke is out of Delhi, Watson assumes the captaincy.
Then the selections become interesting.
No reason to change David Warner and Ed Cowan at the top of the order, but I’d bat Watson at three, with Hughes at four, to split up three lefties in a row, and the higher Watson bats the better he plays.
Bring in Usman Khawaja at five, and retain Steve Smith at six after his gritty 92 at Mohali,
Retain keeper Brad Haddin at seven for two reasons – firstly he’s the better gloveman and better batsman than Matt Wade and secondly Watson will need all the help he can get to lead the side, and Haddin is an experienced first-class captain with NSW.
He was in charge when Clarke left the field for treatment yesterday.
Mitchell Starc is bowling a lot of rubbish, but he is a genuine batsman and deserves to be promoted up the order, as does James Pattinson.
That leaves Peter Siddle at 10, and offie Nathan Lyon, the best of the spinners, at 11.
The batting order if Clarke doesn’t play – Warner, Cowan, Watson, Hughes, Khawaja, Smith, Haddin, Starc, Pattinson, Siddle, and Lyon.
Missing out – Moises Henriques, Mitchell Johnson, Glenn Maxwell, and Xavier Doherty,
If Clarke plays, and it’s a big questionable if, the skipper bats at five and Khawaja misses out. The rest remain as mentioned.
The Australians want to leave India with some pride restored.
It’s Australia’s last chance to stop the rot. They almost did in Mohali which was a big improvement.
Because another loss in Delhi would be simply unacceptable.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
This whole discussion is going around in circles don't look to Mr Sutherland and CA to provide any courageous leadership on this issue CA have long proven they are cowards when it comes to standing up to the BCCI - the only way to effect change is if enough cricketing nations decide to SET UP THEIR OWN governing body and so 'blackball' the BCCI and force the issue otherwise we are all pissing in the wind
Matt
Guest
Just an idea, and I imagine it's been raised elsewhere, but the DRS just doesn't suit India's spinners, who are the front line of attack particularly at home. Watching some of the cricket in India, it's plain that the Indian spinners will appeal (in some cases hysterically) for anything remotely close to being LBW. If the DRS were in play, how ridiculous would the Indians look if a ferocious LBW appeal was turned down by the umpire (in a case where it's clearly not out) and then of course declining to review it?
Steve
Guest
Take out videos of Bradman, use DRS in all the LBW appeals or bat pad, and he would not have 99.96 average. Strive for excellence, not perfection. Relax mate, DRS = Damn Real S**t
Steve
Guest
The most common criticism for BCCI is that they stop the game from moving forward with changing times by not allowing the DRS. Well, times are changing for sure, and we are more busy. Get rid of test cricket, and just live on 50/50 and 20/20. How about that? Oh, and is that a ridiculous and uneducated comment also ?
Lindommer
Guest
AS far as I can work out EVERYONE'S better than Brandman.
SRB
Guest
Actually as Mr Homer pointed out on another article, the entire basis for this article is incorrect. Hughes was definitely out, DRS or not. For proof, look at the Hawkeye posted by ESPN cricinfo http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/engine/match/598814.html?view=hawkeye Select: Australia 2nd Innings, Ravi Ashwin, 48th over, 3rd ball and enjoy. This would have gone with the umpire's call with DRS. So I really think the reporter should reconsider this entire piece. The Hughes call was correct, and Mr Dar deserves an apology from a lot of commentators.
sahas
Guest
you have got to admit every one in the world is bias, so there is no point in discussing about DRS. Asian countries will obviously oppose it and the non asian countries will be for it. DRS which involves hotspot and hawkeye both of which supposedly invented by non asian countries, so it will take a herculean effort to convince Asia (which are probably the super power in cricket). Similarly Duckworth And Lewis method is flawed and it has been exposed on a number of occasions, Nothing has been done to have a review on it .Jayadevan method an alternative to D&L was not even looked at by the ICC when BCCI and Mr Jayadevan presented it to them at last year ICC meeting because it was by an Indian and not an Englishman or Australian who are used to calling shots with innovations. So all of this involves being bias whether right (other countries on DRS issue and India on Jayadevan method) or wrong. I am an indian I dont agree with many of BCCI arguements but that doesnt mean Australia and England are saints. BCCI has the money and controls world cricket so it is calling the shots, England and Australia were the superpowers in 80 and 90 and even early 2000 none of us complained about you guys having too much power then.We never complain when you guys talk as if Eng Aus and Ashes are the only topics to talk about cricket, doesnt it demean India and NewZealand when you guys start talking about ashes midway through the current tours
DeanP
Guest
that sounds a little old fashioned, or pompous, if you don't mind me saying. There can be no more disgraceful display of dissent than was witnessed durng the 'monkey-gate' tour, when the Indians threatened to quit the tour and demanded a certain umpire be dropped. Of course with DRS the fielding side can also ask for a review. It must be humiliationg for an umpire to make a decision, only for it to then be proven wrong in front of a tv audience of millions. I bet the umpires are happy to have DRS in place, perhaps it needs to be taken out of the players hands, but the present use of DRS is better than no DRS.
Trev
Roar Rookie
It's a disgrace that the BCCI is allowed so much influence. The whole idea off technology for the DRS being inaccurate is paranoid bulldust at best. The way the media has also been held too ransom for the right too cover the series has also been a disgrace, it;s crap like this that will lead too the death of Test cricket.
Yakuza
Guest
so maybe its time to end this "DRS" debate.....
M-Rod
Guest
I agree Rellum, the game is much better without this DRS. Don't miss it at all.
Oracle
Guest
"The game isn’t about the umpires in my opinion." Anyone bothered to tell Billy Bowden about that David has a short memory, Clarke getting a big score after getting away with one in an earlier test, Let's hope Clarke does a Kallis, and plays on one leg, and keeps Watson out of the side( and rightly so)
Brendon
Guest
That must of taken ages to research and type, are you gunning for RK's stats crown?
Prateek Sharma
Guest
Where is the sacredness and holiness in removing a system/institution attatched with the game for last 200 years. Your comment rules out and ignores the contribution of Umpires to the game. They are as important as the curator, the physio or the gaurd standing at the gate.
Prateek Sharma
Guest
lolz.... Joke of the century
dasilva
Roar Guru
Yes it can exist without all those things However the point is none of those things are "sacred" to the game as entertaining to watch Whether we involve those things should be determine whether the game is improved by them or not. IMO the game would be improve with less umpiring mistakes. If that means that 100 years in the future on field umpires will be redundant than so be it. What's important to the spectacle is the players not the umpire. No one cares how good the umpire is until they make a mistakes Yet the players making mistake is part of the spectacle of the game
Prateek Sharma
Guest
I wonder why West Indies never complain anything?
Prateek Sharma
Guest
You got it all wrong, its not Board of Control for Cricket in India. Its the Board Controlling Cricket Internationally.
Prateek Sharma
Guest
Well, it can even exist without boards, nations, ground, pitch and crowd. It can exist with the technology. I guess you've played EA Cricket. My Favourite.
Brendon
Guest
I'm with you the series result would be the same, but, at least the decisions would have been right