The scene is Boxing Day, 1981. The crowd is overflowing at the old MCG, and the atmosphere is at fever pitch.
Earlier, the crowd saw Kim Hughes play one of the all-time great innings – a lone hand against the fearsome pace quartet of Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and Joel Garner.
Somehow he survived a succession of short-pitched balls aimed at wounding both his body and confidence. A magnificent hundred has been his reward, carved out on a dodgy pitch, damp and laden with uneven bounce.
Hughes scored 102 out of 191 runs before Australia was dismissed, and he left the field undefeated.
Now it is Australia’s turn to bowl. And they, too, have fast bowlers. One of them, Terry Alderman, has already removed opener Faoud Bacchus, before his partner, Dennis Lillee, brought the crowd alive with two quick wickets, having Desmond Haynes caught at slip courtesy of a fine catch by Allan Border, and then accounting for nightwatchman Croft, leg before wicket.
The crowd roars “Lillee, Lillee, Lillee,” as the great man steams in to bowl the last ball of the day to Viv Richards, undoubtedly the pre-eminent batsman in the world on this day of 1981.
The waiting spectators can sense something special. Surely a day like this, which has already delivered one of the all-time emotional experiences of Test cricket, cannot depart the scene without one last twist.
We all know what happens next.
Lillee bowls, the bat of Richards flashes and the crowd erupts. Richards has inside-edged it onto the stumps and he is bowled! Pandemonium!
Lillee explodes, as do his teammates, and they make to run off the MCG, arms pumping the air. The crowd are in frenzied delight! What theatre! What a moment!
But the umpire asks Richards to wait. He sees Lillee’s foot has landed awfully close to the line. He may well have bowled a no-ball. And so the players wait in a circle off the pitch, and Richards chews his gum some more, halfway on and halfway off the field.
The replay flashes up and it is indeed very close. So the MCG pauses for another minute, while the umpire investigates some more footage. A slow-mo angle is called for, focusing on the foot. It seems as though Lillee is safe, a fraction of the boot has landed behind the line.
Finally, the red ‘Out’ sign flashes up, the crowd give an ironic cheer to commemorate what has already been confirmed, Richards finishes his disappointed walk off the field, and the Australians, now thoroughly tired and the adrenalin having dissipated, amble off as a group.
A seminal moment from cricket’s past, where a great deed was done on the field, and we shove the intrusive, surgical scalpel of technology into a situation where it never existed before and show how it might have panned out.
One of the great joys of cricket has been the spontaneous joy it offers – from a game which can meander at times, you suddenly find yourself gripped with the realisation of the careful plan a bowler has been silently plotting, as it is revealed in a sudden dismissal.
I don’t think this is ever more sudden, more catastrophic than when a batsman finds himself bowled – it is wholly unexpected, save when Chris Martin took guard, and the noise itself is the stuff of nightmares for the man on strike. Like nothing else, the fall of a wicket when a batsman is bowled sparks the crowd into insane life.
But so often these days, the sense of occasion is sullied by that awful wait as the umpire goes upstairs to check the front foot. So many of Mitchell Johnson’s wickets in Adelaide recently were subject to this cruel process of quarantine – the fielders hanging in a huddle, sipping drinks, eyes up at the screen, waiting patiently for the replays to come up. Eventually the right decision was made, and the crowd got to cheer, but so much of the momentum and the atmosphere ebbed away in the meantime.
Witness also Peter Siddle’s epic hat-trick at the Gabba in 2010 – not for him the spontaneous joy of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath in 1994 or 2000. No, he had to wait while Stuart Broad reviewed the lbw shout before he could finally celebrate.
Whether it be front-foot checks or player-initiated reviews, technology has irredeemably changed our game. But I’m not arguing to put the genie back in the bottle. Far from it.
Technology is here to stay. It is an inevitability. Once viewers at home found themselves better equipped than the umpires to make the decisions, technology had to find itself inserted into the decision-making process.
But it’s important not to lose sight of what made cricket a great game to begin with. It is a game, as I said earlier, that can meander. In order to survive, it needs its moments of rare theatre, those moments that people remember. The game needs to flow, from one stirring chapter to the next.
Technology, with its focused, robotic eye, zeroing in on every flaw, every discrepancy, is an emotionless, soulless beast, seeking only certainty, and not accepting any sign of human emotion or excitement.
One hopes that those in charge of cricket manage to strike a balancing act. Currently, in some instances, cricket exists to show off the technology – broadcasters love to impress their viewers with multiple slow-mo camera angles, accompanied by heat signatures and a graph showing sound registers as a ball whizzes past the bat. Now, all of that has become part of the decision-making process.
Cricket, at least at the highest level, has been reduced to a game of forensic science, where every appeal sees the cameras lay out the virtual yellow crime-scene tape around the pitch and conduct a slow painful process of deduction.
Eventually a verdict is reached and there are cheers, but for most, the interest has moved on. The occasion has passed. The celebrations from the crowd and viewers are no longer spontaneous and heartfelt, but forced and obligated.
Something atmospheric, something theatrical and joyful, has been lost forever from our game.
It is a great pity.
70s Mo
Guest
For no balls they should just go with the umpires on-field call - no technology at all. I think most people are happy with referring tight run outs/stumpings to technology - I think that adds to the theatre. For the rest. I think the system they used in the Ashes series in England worked pretty well. With only a few challenges per innings you had to use it wisely. It added this whole extra dimension to the role of the captain. Charley played it poorly, England played it well - Broad only survived because we messed up our referrals
AlanKC
Guest
A wee bit of envy is what I'm feeling Col - like Sheek I nearly destroyed the lounge room, what a moment to have been at the ground for. Is it my failing memory or did Lillee get the crowd going by pretending to start his run up by pushing off the sight screen as Viv walked out? Imo the intrusion of technology into cricket became inevitable once the commentators (I'll point the finger at Ch9 given that's all I saw) started endlessly replaying every umpiring "mistake" and bagging them for each one. So in an attempt to soothe the savage breast of the unhappy punter we now have the DRS system which still doesn't avoid inflaming one side or the other.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Best theatre from the past few years was Johnson at the top of his mark with the crowd behind him, then running in and bowling at the batsmen's throats. That isn't dependent on technology.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Erm, that's what I was saying too Jason. It's here to stay, but we need to improve the usage of it. Generally old farts are grouchy and curmudgeonly, so I'll let you run with that routine, you seem to have it down to a fine art.
jason8
Guest
Old folk reminiscing.... the technology is an enhancement to the game - not saying the use of it couldn't be improved but its here to stay so drop the old fart routine. BTW i am forty years old so not exactly a whipper snapper. In my view sport today is better than it was back then in every way.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
I actually disagree that technology is robbing the game of theatre. In the immediate moment of a wicket being taken, not one person is thinking about a possible replay. The batsman's heart has just stopped, the bowler is delirious, his team-mates not far behind and the crowd is either ecstatic or downcast (depending on who's batting/bowling). Technology hasn't impacted on this in the slightest. The question is what happens once the hullabaloo has died down. I agree that the review system needs to be taken out of the players' hands. I would go further and take it out of the on-field umpires hands too. Force them to make a decision. And in the time it takes a batsman to walk off, the third umpire has an opportunity to review that decision. If there's doubt he sends a message down to the 'dismissed' batsman to not leave the field of play. Once this happens the sense of theatre actually returns - 'oh hang on, maybe he hasn't been given out' - everyone holds their breath waiting the result of the third umpire's decision. A red or green light flashes and everyone gets to either celebrate or commiserate according to their allegiances.
Paul D
Roar Guru
There’s a moment on the footage when I think it’s Haynes is out, caught by Border, and the camera cuts to the crowd cheering, and there’s a mad bloke with his shirt off dancing around on the edge of the field, who’d jumped the fence and was conducting the crowd in front of him with the sort of mad arm waving you only get after consuming a decent chunk of a carton of VB. The atmosphere in those 80’s games, particularly at the ODI’s must have been epic.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Col, It was awesome watching on TV. I remember thinking it would have been even better at the ground.
Col in paradise
Guest
I ws at the game to,,Shriek..and yes only half an hour at the ground the chants of Lillee Lillee Lillee..about four hours at the Pub as well after that !!!!!...was pretty hang over for the next day...got there late and sore!!!!!
Col in paradise
Guest
Agree ..sucks the life out of the game..the same idiots who want replays for decisons the same woosers who have wanted rules, laws and regulations making life dull and boring for the rest of us - all in the name of catching the 1% of society who have no common sense or place themsleves and others at risk....or because they themselves have a differnt view or dont like something...
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think you totally missed the point Brendon. My article is saying that as it stands, technology is robbing some of the game of its theatre. I don't think this is deniable. I guess I'm trying to provoke debate about whether or not that loss of atmosphere and charm is worth the price of more accurate decision making. Clearly you believe it is, and that's fine. But I personally believe we can use technology better, to eliminate the incompetent decisions, without inserting its electronic eye to adjudicate on all the 50/50 calls. Btw, I'm only 31, Lillee's ball to Richards happened two years before I was even born.
dynamitedave
Guest
I was expecting a reference to the "Slow Mo" replay and seeing pictures of Lillee's moustache, encroaching the no ball line....or interfering with the sightscreen.
Brendon
Guest
But Bilbo that part of the "magic" of having no technology.
Brendon
Guest
What nostalgic twaddle. Just another case of "in my day things were better". Of course this article glosses over the hundreds of bad decisions and incompetent umpiring decisions that made the game so frustrating.
bilbo
Guest
I remember the next day when west indies resumed at 4-10 and Larry Gomes should of been given out run out in the first over but there was no video replays.
Chaos
Guest
With the no-ball check on a wicket Shane Warne would have a test century... #justsaying
Bearfax
Guest
Seems the choice is the delay in determining the correct decision, or ignoring what's clear in front of you, that an umpire has erred. The problem now of not using technology, is that not only it will cause frustration amongst those watching it on TV and seeing mistakes being allowed, but also that old fear and accusation that somehow the umpire is cheating. The days of the immediate umpire only decision are gone. But I think technology will also adapt to address the delay issue by the increased use of computerisation. It will come a time soon when the on field umpires are there only to maintain order and make provisional decisions. With advanced technology that acts far quicker than the third umpire, decisions may be made in seconds after the umpires call, and be far more accurate than even today's off field technology. Replays given to us will not be to make a decision, but rather to explain why the decision was made and that could be mere seconds later. Technology is here to stay and this temporary delay in decision making is only an interim problem soon to be addressed
Shadow
Roar Rookie
Great article, I wasn't born back then but it would have been great to witness it -cricket's glory days. I think the current review system is fine just make it only a single incorrect review as opposed to two. It's there to get rid of obvious umpire error not the 50-50 decisions. So two chances are unnecessary. What really annoys me is batsmen reviewing lbw decisions. Historically and in grass roots cricket, lbw decisions are made based on what the umpire sees. There's not a clear line separating lbw outs and not outs and situations can arise where it could be judged out or not out. These decisions should be left to the umpire and his decision respected. Instead we have the ridiculous situation where batsmen review lbws out of hope that the hawk eye simulation works in their favour
Paul D
Roar Guru
I thought about inserting a paragraph about the way we use it, but again – I thought it would interrupt the overall flow of the piece. All about the theatre! So I figured I’d wait until someone brought up that point and discuss it in the comments. For what it’s worth, I agree. The front foot no-ball rule is a terrible piece of legislation in our game, it’s difficult to police and distracts the umpires attention from the real business of officiating. Any change that can rework this component would be welcome. Moreover, I’d like to see technology returned solely to the hands of the umpires, rather than this current ‘challenge’ system that sees a great deal of spurious or optimistic referrals, frequently based more on hope than any genuine reason to suspect the umpire has made a grave mistake. An alternative to this though was mentioned in a good piece by Martin Crowe on cricinfo recently. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/730311.html
fadida
Guest
Agree. Excellent article. A great cricket memory brought back too. I'm all for human error as the controversy created adds so much. This is why I dont want goal line technology in football. Sport needs to have its natural rythms uninterrupted. Stuart Broad was third umpire in a previous Ashes Series? He really is a cheat :D