With the dust now settled from the incredible drama in Pune, much has been made of the performance of both sides.
Australia chalked up a remarkable win, bowling India out for some of their lowest totals ever seen on home soil. Steve Smith, Steve O’Keefe and Mitchell Starc in particular were excellent for the visitors.
Credit, where it is due, to the supposedly ‘worst Australian side to arrive on Indian shores’ for their dominant 333-run win. While the whole Test was compelling viewing, the Indian team’s use of DRS bordered on comical.
I used to think the BCCI’s refusal to use DRS was just them using their financial power to show the ICC who was boss, but now I think the truth is out there.
They haven’t wanted DRS to be used, not because they doubted how accurate the technology was or because of different technologies used in different countries, although they were the usual official reasons given.
The real reason has been revealed for all the cricketing world to see. They are flaming hopeless with using the DRS.
It’s like they have a whole team of Shane Watsons.
Both reviews were wasted in both innings in the field by the 40th over was bad enough, but their second innings must have set a record. Six overs completed and they were two openers down with both reviews done and wasted.
We move to the second Test and I expect there will be plenty of fight in this champion Indian team. They are rarely defeated twice in a row on home soil and they currently have one of the strongest sides in their history.
What is in doubt though is whether Virat Kohli and co. have time to read the DRS manual for tips and clues before the first ball is bowled.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
In more than one occasion in Australia, one could suggest that the Little Master's reputation may have led to decisions going against him. If any Indian batsman suffered from poor umpiring decisions on our soil, it was Sachin. I can certainly agree that Tendulkar's bowling in India was aided by the lack of a review system, especially prior to 2002, when neutral umpires were introduced from both ends. From 1994 til 2002, you had to bowl from the right end :)
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
India's recent series at home to England also saw the use of the DRS system and there was the initial DRS series in 2008 between India and Sri Lanka, where India fared very poorly compared to Sri Lanka regarding use of the system. This series seems to have set the BCCI firmly against the use of DRS. I believe Anil Kumble had considerable influence in getting the BCCI to approve DRS use. One thing the DRS system has achieved is highlight how often the umpires get decisions correct. If anything, umpires are now more likely to give an LBW call out as the DRS system has replaced the old, unwritten "benefit of doubt goes to the batsman" theory. There is still some accuracy issues with ball-tracking when the ball is full-pitched and doesn't travel far between pitching and striking the batsman, which the "half a ball" measure is meant to counter. Some may prefer the umpires call to be less of a factor and find it weird that the same impact can be either out or not out depending what the umpire's original decision was. Others claim the same delivery was always either out or not out due to the umpire's decision, long before reviews were ever thought of.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Good point. The DRS is often used to attempt to change a close call, which is not really the purpose . It was brought in to remove the "howler" from the game. All sides have struggled at some time to get their head around this. India are simply a few years behind the game due to their refusal to use the system.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Interesting point and I am reminded of our outrage in 2013 Ashes when Broad nicked it to first slip and was given not out. If we hadn't wasted our two reviews...
Bakkies
Guest
India are stitching themselves up here as their only experience of DRS has been in ICC one day tournaments which is not really a guide in how to manage it in Tests. The DRS laws have also changed a lot and again there was another change recently with LBWs.
Bakkies
Guest
It was their bowlers being awarded charity LBW decisions in the NZ series. NZ were totally screwed as they had started well with the bat. There was no DRS in that series. Majority of those LBW decisions awarded to the Indian bowlers weren't out and they had at least 7 in one innings.
Matth
Guest
I think it's more that India's cricket culture has been geared more towards batting over the past generation or so,and the DRS system helps bowlers.
AlanC
Guest
A lot of long bows being drawn in just two points jwm. Might be more realistic to assume a lack of familiarity with the system much like Australia had when review after review was burned.
Linphoma
Guest
There is some truth in all of your statements on why Tendulkar objected to the DRS but it is ultimately a case of what the personality wants, the personality gets in India where the cult of personality and celebrity plays out big time. Could you imagine another country or another personality dictating terms like that apart from WG Grace? And that was 120 years ago.
AdrianK
Guest
Actually I remember Tendulkar getting given out to some woeful decisions in Australia, and I was so impressed with the grace with which he accepted the clearly wrong decisions. Might be a tough assessment of his character James. I also remember Shane Watson making some tragic DRS reviews in England. It's definitely something teams get better at with experience.
Warren
Guest
DRS too often is being used by teams to "question the umpires". I am under the impression that it was meant to be used for the "clanger" ie the nick into the pads and being given out LBW / not nicking and being given out caught. It was not meant for the "maybe ump got it wrong on height / pitching outside leg etc". to correct this it should revert to 1 chance which will remove the unnecessary reviews currently taking place.
I hate pies
Guest
Spot on James, particularly on point two. Their excessive appealing for anything that hits the pads confirms it.
Jameswm
Guest
There are two things: 1. It's more a question of why they are hopeless. The Indian openers just thought surely I can't be out, how dare you give me out. They get over-excited about it - but they will learn. They were childish, over-excited and arrogant with how they used the DRS that test - but I guess mainly inexperienced. 2. I think we now know why Tendulkar didn't want it. he could use his reputation, and the other players (even now) can use the unrelenting pressure they and their crowd put on the umpire, to get the decisions their way. But that doesn't work on a machine. The machine takes the emotion out of it. Tendulkar perhaps felt he would get decisions to go his way on reputation. Maybe he did. There is still a benefit for all teams to persuade the umpire to give the original decision their way - how often do we see "umpire's call" on LBW reviews?
AdrianK
Guest
All countries took a while to work out how to use DRS effectively.