March 13, 2011

Australia need a workout

It's been all too smooth sailing for Ponting's men so far. They need a tough match against Pakistan
  shares 38

Michael Hussey's arrival at the World Cup couldn't have been better timed for an Australian team that remains undefeated whilst enacting a group impersonation of the Invisible Man. In addition to the undoubted boost his versatility provides to the batting order, Hussey's unbridled enthusiasm will be just the right tonic for a team that has endured long waits in between matches and then experienced very little challenging cricket.

Hussey's enthusiasm is infectious. If he's not playing a match, he loves to bat and bowl in the nets and then practise fielding. Then, when the daylight disappears he's happy talking cricket. Even if he doesn't enjoy it, he's earned the nickname "Mr Cricket". His brand of enthusiasm, complemented by a couple of serial pests in the team (taking the mickey and playing practical jokes), is the right mixture to help endure long, mind-numbing breaks between matches.

The washout against Sri Lanka, when the match was so evenly poised, must have been a major disappointment to the Australians. They were relying on that game as a tough workout to tune up for the knockout stage, especially after New Zealand provided such meek opposition. To then have a week off, followed by two gentle affairs against the seriously weak Kenyans and the only slightly stronger Canadians, is not ideal for Ricky Ponting's men. Those two games will be centre-wicket sessions with the added excitement of an anthem.

This is why the officials are right to query the wisdom of the minnows' presence at the World Cup. It's like asking a CEO to prepare for a crucial board presentation by speaking to a kindergarten class.

Apart from Ireland, who have displayed a commendable competitive mentality, the performances of the rest of the minnows reads like a struggling student's report card: "Tried hard but need to do better."

The Australians must now hope the consistency-challenged Pakistan team has one of its good days when the two sides meet. Australia desperately needs a tough encounter before they play their quarter-final.

Another frustrating aspect of the tournament for all players is the Decision Review System (DRS). In some circles it's now referred to as the dubious review system.

The DRS has become entwined with the tactics of the game and is constantly being used to challenge 50-50 decisions - two things it wasn't designed to do. The DRS reads as such a complicated playing condition that the Australians could easily fill in their numerous off days scouring the document, including the quaintly named "clarification communication" from the ICC.

The DRS has become entwined with the tactics of the game and is constantly being used to challenge fifty-fifty decisions - things it wasn't designed to do

This arrived as a result of the controversy over the notorious "2.5 metre ruling" that reprieved Ian Bell against India. If anyone unravels the metric mystery, I'd be delighted to hear the explanation.

What I'm eagerly awaiting is the official communiqué that confirms technology is now officially ruining - sorry, a slip of the finger: running the game. The sooner the DRS is placed firmly in the hands of the off-field umpire, purely to rid the game of howlers, the better off cricket will be.

The DRS reared its ugly head again in contentious circumstances in the Ireland-West Indies contest, to snuff out any chance of another fighting Irish victory. The system is fast establishing a consistency rate that compares with the England team.

England has produced two mammoth efforts to defeat South Africa and tie with India, only to stumble like a drunken sailor when confronted by the lesser teams. Their monumental struggle to overcome Netherlands was only surpassed by their gifts to Ireland and Bangladesh.

For now, it's their confidence that needs rebuilding after they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against Bangladesh. England have to beat West Indies to have any chance of reaching the knockout stage. The one thing in their favour is, they've played their best cricket against the stronger sides.

Should England beat West Indies and reach the quarter-finals, beware. In 1992, Pakistan were playing like drones early in the World Cup and were extremely fortunate to reach the semi-finals. They then went on to play brilliant cricket in winning the final against, you guessed it, England. Could be an omen.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on March 15, 2011, 16:15 GMT

    australia beating test would be against the bowling attack of pakistan if saeed ajmal plays against australia it would not be easy for the middle order to face the music of afridi gul and ajmal who are the match winner in their own , they have put a good show against the men in men green . pakistan team should be focus when they face heat of tait lee and johnson.

  • JavedButt on March 15, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    Hi,

    I have been hearing the coments of chapal on different channels he is pretendimg as australians are un beatable side well i think he is living in fools paradise if u look at there match against SL they were really lucky that the match aws washed out other wise SL would easily have won the match. secondly i dont know why he thinks that ausrailia has best bowling attack well icant see how its best with one normal bowler in Lee 2 half bowlers in Tait & Johnson who at most of times are wavered and some club level spinners in Korejza, Smith & Hussey. They were saying the same in WC T20 about this bowling line up and every one knows that what thrasing this so called attack got at the hands of Pak in WC T20 Semi Final they were luck to win as Hussey palyed an innings of his life and some stupid decision by afridi also help them to win. Well i cant see austrails go beyond QF with Bits & pieces Bowlers & out of form batting. For me there are 2 teams to beat in this WC SL & Pak. Watch out

  • on March 15, 2011, 6:19 GMT

    Yes Australia could do with some competition and definitely before the knock out stage.They have had good games barring the Kenya game which was arguably their most tepid game yet. I think the good thing is that Hussey had a good hit and Clarke and Haddin are batting well. Ponting is still searching for that magic touch but the spinners are a cause of worry. I do believe that Smith will get wickets if persisted with, though I believe Kreja bleeds as he bowls too many loose balls. Australia are not in the peak of their form but thankfully for them India, South Africa and England are all playing patchily with touches of brilliance. It would be interesting to watch the quarters. As far as the UDRs is concerned, it is not perfect, but it certainly prevents howlers from happening.India is just being difficult as it can be on occasion . Interesting days ahead and I do hope the world cup picks up momentum and action. sridhar

  • jay57870 on March 15, 2011, 0:58 GMT

    The Giant Strides of Technology: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," Neil Armstrong famously declared upon becoming the first man to walk on the moon. We now see cricket take a "big stride forward" too with DRS: It's a useful technology that helps to make better informed decisions, especially (jokes aside) in "big stride forward" LBW situations. The ever-so-opinionated Chappell, in his usual half-baked way, calls it "dubious" because of inconsistent 2.5m rulings. But then, in the same breath, he offers a plausible solution: Place DRS "firmly in the hands of the off-field umpire." Aha! Why let the on-field umpire make the final decision, when his initial call is being challenged in the first place? Case in point: Billy Bowden in the Ian Bell review. The problem? No, not his crooked finger, but his crooked ego! Catch Billy reversing his own call! Only the off-field umpire, given all relevant information, is best placed to make an objective/final ruling. Period.

  • NewYorkCricket on March 14, 2011, 19:55 GMT

    The DRS is a brilliant system. In the worst case the number mistakes do not increase but remain the same. In most cases it gives the correct decision. I am all for it.

  • jay57870 on March 14, 2011, 15:50 GMT

    As for Ian Chappell's discomfort with the "metric mystery," the only obvious and relevant question I have is why does the ICC have to throw 2.5m/40cm measured curveballs into a legendary game full of historic milestones that are forever yardsticked by wickets 66 feet apart? It's a game of inches, isn't it?

  • NALINWIJ on March 14, 2011, 13:16 GMT

    Unlike rediculously marginal decisions made in tennis the UDRS is incorporating a benefit of doubt system that is appropriate for cricket where an umpires decision is reversed if the decision is incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt. I liked the system in Australia where the 3 aspects of LBW was given a green [not out], yellow[marginal] or red[out] and a bat pad was excluded. If the umpire said not out you need 3 reds to reverse or if given out there has to be a green to exonerate the batsman worked well.The 2.5 meter rule should be worked into the hawkeyes strikezone and a determination of red, orange or green should be stated automatically rather than 2 umpires trying to grapple with the 2.5 meter rule.

  • Meety on March 14, 2011, 10:59 GMT

    @Duncan Munro McLeod - Ponting has actually been the only player to argue BOTH sides of the debate - but you'll believe whatever you want to believe. @JesseG - I can quite confidantly say that NO side has cruised through the games as comfortably as Oz. EVERY other side has showed vulnerability - EXCEPT Oz. All due respect to Kenya - but that was a training match!

  • BudhaWillSmile on March 14, 2011, 10:24 GMT

    Ian chappel sounds too arrogant.. But I cant wish pakistan good luck against them..I wish the game is a wash out as SL one. The best thing will be both not getting match fit before the crucial QF

  • JesseG on March 14, 2011, 8:23 GMT

    I would love to backhand Ian Chapell, Australia will not win this world cup...their team isn't strong enough...that was shown against Kenya...

  • on March 15, 2011, 16:15 GMT

    australia beating test would be against the bowling attack of pakistan if saeed ajmal plays against australia it would not be easy for the middle order to face the music of afridi gul and ajmal who are the match winner in their own , they have put a good show against the men in men green . pakistan team should be focus when they face heat of tait lee and johnson.

  • JavedButt on March 15, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    Hi,

    I have been hearing the coments of chapal on different channels he is pretendimg as australians are un beatable side well i think he is living in fools paradise if u look at there match against SL they were really lucky that the match aws washed out other wise SL would easily have won the match. secondly i dont know why he thinks that ausrailia has best bowling attack well icant see how its best with one normal bowler in Lee 2 half bowlers in Tait & Johnson who at most of times are wavered and some club level spinners in Korejza, Smith & Hussey. They were saying the same in WC T20 about this bowling line up and every one knows that what thrasing this so called attack got at the hands of Pak in WC T20 Semi Final they were luck to win as Hussey palyed an innings of his life and some stupid decision by afridi also help them to win. Well i cant see austrails go beyond QF with Bits & pieces Bowlers & out of form batting. For me there are 2 teams to beat in this WC SL & Pak. Watch out

  • on March 15, 2011, 6:19 GMT

    Yes Australia could do with some competition and definitely before the knock out stage.They have had good games barring the Kenya game which was arguably their most tepid game yet. I think the good thing is that Hussey had a good hit and Clarke and Haddin are batting well. Ponting is still searching for that magic touch but the spinners are a cause of worry. I do believe that Smith will get wickets if persisted with, though I believe Kreja bleeds as he bowls too many loose balls. Australia are not in the peak of their form but thankfully for them India, South Africa and England are all playing patchily with touches of brilliance. It would be interesting to watch the quarters. As far as the UDRs is concerned, it is not perfect, but it certainly prevents howlers from happening.India is just being difficult as it can be on occasion . Interesting days ahead and I do hope the world cup picks up momentum and action. sridhar

  • jay57870 on March 15, 2011, 0:58 GMT

    The Giant Strides of Technology: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," Neil Armstrong famously declared upon becoming the first man to walk on the moon. We now see cricket take a "big stride forward" too with DRS: It's a useful technology that helps to make better informed decisions, especially (jokes aside) in "big stride forward" LBW situations. The ever-so-opinionated Chappell, in his usual half-baked way, calls it "dubious" because of inconsistent 2.5m rulings. But then, in the same breath, he offers a plausible solution: Place DRS "firmly in the hands of the off-field umpire." Aha! Why let the on-field umpire make the final decision, when his initial call is being challenged in the first place? Case in point: Billy Bowden in the Ian Bell review. The problem? No, not his crooked finger, but his crooked ego! Catch Billy reversing his own call! Only the off-field umpire, given all relevant information, is best placed to make an objective/final ruling. Period.

  • NewYorkCricket on March 14, 2011, 19:55 GMT

    The DRS is a brilliant system. In the worst case the number mistakes do not increase but remain the same. In most cases it gives the correct decision. I am all for it.

  • jay57870 on March 14, 2011, 15:50 GMT

    As for Ian Chappell's discomfort with the "metric mystery," the only obvious and relevant question I have is why does the ICC have to throw 2.5m/40cm measured curveballs into a legendary game full of historic milestones that are forever yardsticked by wickets 66 feet apart? It's a game of inches, isn't it?

  • NALINWIJ on March 14, 2011, 13:16 GMT

    Unlike rediculously marginal decisions made in tennis the UDRS is incorporating a benefit of doubt system that is appropriate for cricket where an umpires decision is reversed if the decision is incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt. I liked the system in Australia where the 3 aspects of LBW was given a green [not out], yellow[marginal] or red[out] and a bat pad was excluded. If the umpire said not out you need 3 reds to reverse or if given out there has to be a green to exonerate the batsman worked well.The 2.5 meter rule should be worked into the hawkeyes strikezone and a determination of red, orange or green should be stated automatically rather than 2 umpires trying to grapple with the 2.5 meter rule.

  • Meety on March 14, 2011, 10:59 GMT

    @Duncan Munro McLeod - Ponting has actually been the only player to argue BOTH sides of the debate - but you'll believe whatever you want to believe. @JesseG - I can quite confidantly say that NO side has cruised through the games as comfortably as Oz. EVERY other side has showed vulnerability - EXCEPT Oz. All due respect to Kenya - but that was a training match!

  • BudhaWillSmile on March 14, 2011, 10:24 GMT

    Ian chappel sounds too arrogant.. But I cant wish pakistan good luck against them..I wish the game is a wash out as SL one. The best thing will be both not getting match fit before the crucial QF

  • JesseG on March 14, 2011, 8:23 GMT

    I would love to backhand Ian Chapell, Australia will not win this world cup...their team isn't strong enough...that was shown against Kenya...

  • Wisecrack on March 14, 2011, 7:44 GMT

    Why do we have to bear with Ordinary umpires like Bowden, Desilva, Harper, Tucker and Saheba? Aren't there better umpires in 2 billion of the cricketing world? - Rohit

  • boooonnie on March 14, 2011, 2:56 GMT

    There is no doubt that being in Group A is a disadvantage at this stage of the competition for NZ, SL, AUST and PAK. The reason being that there is no pressure coming from a Bangladeh or Ireland. The big four in Group A are in cruise control. The answer is not to EXLUDE the minnows but to IMPROVE the minnows. We cant just throw these countries into the deep end every four years and let them sink or swim. We must expose these teams to a high standard cricket over a prolonged period of time. I dont think this can happen at the international level because schdules are busy enough as is, but cant the ICC encourage domestic teams to support emerging talent from the minnow countries? What about including them into some of 20/20 of limited over competitions? The minnows have talent we can all see that, but are we going to give them a chance to shine!

  • on March 14, 2011, 2:04 GMT

    I'm glad that the Associates are playing as there is no doubt that the experience is great for their teams and for increasing cricket's very limited global popularity.

    Ponting should be told to pull his head in. His anti Association participation views are damaging for the game - he just can't see the big picture. Having to play meaningless games (test nation point of view) is a very small sacrifice for the good of the game and test nations should do it in good grace.

    As for Associations making the world cup dull and protracted, there is a simple solution for viewers. Those watching on TV, do something else when those games are on. Those wanting to go to the World Cup, turn up at the Quarter final knockout stages. Easy.

    Final point. Football has what may be described as a dull and protracted world cup. But look at their vision - the 32 teams involved are not even the best 32 in the world, geography plays its part. Cricket has a lot to learn if it is to become a truly global sport.

  • maddy20 on March 14, 2011, 1:38 GMT

    Instead of slamming the associates, Mr.Chappel should read the article in which Tikolo describes the problems associate sides are facing. If possible give a helping hand or else mind your own business. A minnow Canada team has bowled out Pakistan for 185 and Kenya has scored over 260 against the Aussies. Netherlands gave India and England a scare. Ireland has been fiercely competitive. Only Zim was disappointing. If these guys have proper training facilities and big money like the test playing nations, then I am positive all of them would have sprung a few upsets.

  • NomiJ on March 14, 2011, 1:32 GMT

    Sure Pakistan will help Australia with this whole workout thingy, by hitting ball down the boundary and Australian players running behind it trying to catch it. I say that'd be hella workout IMHO.

  • Meety on March 14, 2011, 1:16 GMT

    I think UDRS is important addition to cricket, technology neeeds to play a role. My only gripe is with this 2.5m addition. I think the 2.5m is really just nominal. The issue to me is WHERE on the body does the ball strike? If its a full toss hitting the batsmen on the foot - what happens next? If WARNE bowls a flipper the ball would head on straight but a ball could hit the batters foot on the full in the same position on a wrong un or a leg break & produce different results. (Iknow the flipper tends to be more of a half track ball. Also how does 2.5m have any uniformity between say Indian pitches & the WACA??? If you can be not out because you are 2.5m out of your crease in India. I think you should be not out if you are on your crease (almost), at the WACA!!! It appears that human error will NEVER be fully removed because it is required to review the technology.

  • on March 14, 2011, 1:16 GMT

    Mr. Ian chappell is absolutely spot on. The top cricket administration in ICC dosen't understand the game properly.It makes the game complicated,boring and makes the world cup long with no effect.9 out of ten times the minnows game seems like watching a backyard game.It's totally hogwash in any world cup event.

  • abbe on March 14, 2011, 0:43 GMT

    australia will beat pakistan

  • Zahidsaltin on March 14, 2011, 0:00 GMT

    What's the substitute then Mr. Chappel. Should we leave it all to Ashoka & harper. Hell not. they had more than 50% of their decision wrong when reffered to DRS. Can you give me Aleem Dar in every cricket match the yes, we wait untill a better system is developed. It might be so easy for you to mention Ireland loosing aplayer to some unclear DRS based decision by Ashoka but do you remember 100s of cricket matches in history where umpires could change a match up-side-down. Do you know why Pakistan only had drawn series´against the great WI team, because umpire didn,t let Pakistan win. I just remember Harper was wrong in 4 reviews which were sent up in match between Pak and SL. I hope DRS stays and gets better in the future. I hope ICC had spent a fraction of money they make in this event on hotspot too.

  • _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on March 13, 2011, 23:18 GMT

    @anurag23bhide. I agree fully with your post. Well put.

  • bobagorof on March 13, 2011, 22:49 GMT

    Finally someone mentions the crux of the problem with the Decision Review System - once called upon, it is still left kowtowing to the on-field umpire. Once the decision is reviewed, the initial decision should become irrelevant and a new decision based on the evidence as viewed by the technology. How can one ask for a decision to be made using advanced ball-tracking technology, and have that decision go one way or the other based on the opinion of someone who is being questioned? In Tennis, the players accept the review because it is independent of the original call. In Cricket, the same evidence can lead to out or not out depending on the original call? Let the 3rd Umpire review the evidence and come up with an independent decision!!

  • yohanp on March 13, 2011, 22:36 GMT

    some very good points made in this article... apart from the lankan game that was washed out other games for the Aussie has been a piece of cake.. it hasnt really brought out any challenge.. hopefully the game between Pakistan will be a tough one.. i mean so far apart from da few games between da test playing nations and the Irish vs England game others hav been a waste of time.. playing minnows is great but watching them for 6 games is too long n boring... same trend follows opposition gets 300+ runs n bowl dem out for less than 200,, anyhow i think they should have made this WC as a 4 group one n had super sixes since after the group level its a knock out.. i wish to see more top teams fighting it hard rather than seeing a small team jus getting humiliated.. but all in all hope for the best in this WC and hope the quterfinals wont be about pitches that decide the match by its toss... please if Dew is a problem please play the matches early so its not one sided...

  • ibti on March 13, 2011, 21:22 GMT

    taking the associates out is just stupid. why the hell is it called the world cup then if half the teams around the world arent playing. plus this is the only time they get to play the 'top 8' teams so let them play. and anyway, after todays performance, if associates r so cr@p then australian, indian or english bowlers shouldn't be allowed in this tournament for letting them make a reasonable score. get real chappel and ponting, after the quarters or semis, you'll wish they were all associate teams.

  • Herath-UK on March 13, 2011, 20:58 GMT

    Any system cannot be hundred percent correct but better than howlers coming regularly from Umpire Harper. If there are defecencies in the DRS system they should be rectified as and when necessary rather than trying to do away with. Ranil Herath Kent.

  • on March 13, 2011, 19:39 GMT

    Dont you worry Ian. Pakistan will provide you the "JUICE" (in the game) you won't be able to digest.

  • on March 13, 2011, 19:21 GMT

    Basically the DRS system gives the teams an opportunity to get another umpire's perspective on the decisions. But too many cooks spoil the broth. There are just too many people being involved in the system and in the case of Indian matches it's actually several thousand who are being involved.

    Bottom line - good system as long as the control is with either the on field umpire or 3rd umpire

  • on March 13, 2011, 19:01 GMT

    @vemachine: you hit right nail on it's head!! I couldn't agree with you more.

  • on March 13, 2011, 17:30 GMT

    Chappell's arrogance is extraordinarily annoying! This has been a hallmark of all Australian players turned commentators and I do not know how people fail to see this.

    That Australia have not lost until now is completely incidental. We will see what happens in the quarter finals.

  • on March 13, 2011, 17:18 GMT

    uhh If Pakistan has one of its good days, there's no way Australia's winning.

  • Aussasinator on March 13, 2011, 14:56 GMT

    Australia will lose to Pakistan!

  • vemachine on March 13, 2011, 14:46 GMT

    Ian Chappell is just as culpable as Ricky Ponting and a host of commentators who slam the Associate teams for making the World Cup a boring and predictable affair by simply not being good enough. This perspective is not only blinkered but arrogant. Who needs another match between Australia and Sri Lanka or India? How many times do these teams play each other year in, year out. There is no God-given right to be part of a WC. That is, every team should qualify for it on equal terms. It is only the greed of the organisers who would give teams free-passes because they are afraid to lose the tv-viewers and hence advertising revenue. Cricket is in decline because it is entirely money-driven as witnessed by player-burn out, bat-over-ball imbalance and hence a dearth of fast bowlers. The playing schedule is a disgrace, everyone knows it, no-one does anything about it. It is hypocritical lip-service when people ask Associate teams to improve when they do not offer them a road for doing it.

  • IMObserver on March 13, 2011, 12:16 GMT

    Well there should be two trajectories estimated. One trajectory gives most probable striking point at the stumps. Another trajectory should give 75 percentile- just my pick but ICC can pick their number- confidence trajectory. If the 75% confidence trajectory misses the stumpt review should go in favor of batsmen. Inspite of being further than 2.5 meter away if the ball hits the middle of the middle stump the 75% trajectory may also show that it is out. While if the distance is less than 2.5 meter and the ball just clips the top of the off stump then 95% confidence trajectory is likely to miss the stumps. 75% trajectory give 3 to 1 odds in favour of batsmen.

    And I agree, Chappelli, Australia needs a good practice game against Pakistan. Even losing to Pakistan may be good for Australia during the knock out phase. The game should go to the wire to test Australian mind set.

  • on March 13, 2011, 11:27 GMT

    But then 2.5m rule should be ignored if the ball is going to hit lower half of the middle-stump, since how great the difference is between the 'actual path ball might have taken' and the 'hawkeye predictive pathway', A BALL COULDNT POSSIBLY MISS EVERY PART OF THE 3 STUMPS after it was suppose to hit lower half of the middle stump.

  • NikhilDXB on March 13, 2011, 10:15 GMT

    Both DRS incidents quoted by Mr. Chappell here have occurred because the umpires (Messrs Bowden and De Silva) have compounded their initial howlers with even greater ineptitude on review...the number of decisions the DRS have overturned to save games in this World Cup should be enough to clear all doubts, but seems there will always be doubters! The whole 'umpires make mistakes, but it evens out' is great in theory, but when you're robbed of a place in the World Cup by one stupid decision from an umpire, you don't care if it evens out.

  • on March 13, 2011, 7:08 GMT

    I agree with anurag23bhide. The 2.5m rule does seem to give the batsmen the benefit of the doubt. Now matter how advanced technology becomes, taking the human factor out of things is plain absurd. Cricket is about luck at times, the traditional tactics such as the "giant stride forward" to avoid an lbw decision, are an integral part of the game.

  • on March 13, 2011, 7:05 GMT

    Ian Chappel I think decision review system has been more advantageous for nations who have been complaining in the past about the fairness of the umpire decisions and according to them the umpires decisions were biased into one team and at some instances that was actually the case.So now that the DRS is in effect the umpires wont be blamed and that the biased decisions will be a thing of the past.

  • anurag23bhide on March 13, 2011, 5:56 GMT

    @Chappeli-The exact reason for the 2.5 metre rule isn't clear it seems, but what I have deduced seems entirely plausible and moreover most logical as well. Here it is..

    Traditionally umpires turn down lbw appeals when the batsman has a "big stride forward". This is true even when it appears fairly plumb because its difficult to judge how much the ball will rise when the pad is so far out. Young cricketers are also taught to take that big stride with the front foot to take the lbw out of the equation.

    Now we have technology, HawkEye, that can predict how much the ball will bounce and whether it will clear the stumps or hit them. But does that mean we change one of the basics of the game and give those decisions out?

    When technology is put to use, everything must be quantified. 2.5 metres is essentially only a translation of "big stride forward" into something that technology understands. It is the same thing as giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt when he comes down the crease

  • AidanFX on March 13, 2011, 4:44 GMT

    The one thing that annoys about the video review system is that it can be exploited and used strategically. Depending on the siutation of the match - if a side can afford to waste the review system, a player could be struck plum LBW on the pads or even worse nic a ball to the keeper and pretend its contentious - and decide to review on the basis "I will just check - perhaps it was a no-ball." In my opinion if the umpire misses the no-ball - leave it be. It is unlikely the umpire will miss major no balls where the player is 1 cm or more over the line. You would only expect mariginal no balls (ie on the line) or slightly over to be missed by an umpire. Players have been getting out for marginal no balls forever - who cares. I also hate it as in the Smith's recent brilliant catch; the umpires checked to confrim legal delivery after batsman already walking - seriously reversing a decision under those circumstance ruins the game. Leave review for howlers not marginal no-balls.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • AidanFX on March 13, 2011, 4:44 GMT

    The one thing that annoys about the video review system is that it can be exploited and used strategically. Depending on the siutation of the match - if a side can afford to waste the review system, a player could be struck plum LBW on the pads or even worse nic a ball to the keeper and pretend its contentious - and decide to review on the basis "I will just check - perhaps it was a no-ball." In my opinion if the umpire misses the no-ball - leave it be. It is unlikely the umpire will miss major no balls where the player is 1 cm or more over the line. You would only expect mariginal no balls (ie on the line) or slightly over to be missed by an umpire. Players have been getting out for marginal no balls forever - who cares. I also hate it as in the Smith's recent brilliant catch; the umpires checked to confrim legal delivery after batsman already walking - seriously reversing a decision under those circumstance ruins the game. Leave review for howlers not marginal no-balls.

  • anurag23bhide on March 13, 2011, 5:56 GMT

    @Chappeli-The exact reason for the 2.5 metre rule isn't clear it seems, but what I have deduced seems entirely plausible and moreover most logical as well. Here it is..

    Traditionally umpires turn down lbw appeals when the batsman has a "big stride forward". This is true even when it appears fairly plumb because its difficult to judge how much the ball will rise when the pad is so far out. Young cricketers are also taught to take that big stride with the front foot to take the lbw out of the equation.

    Now we have technology, HawkEye, that can predict how much the ball will bounce and whether it will clear the stumps or hit them. But does that mean we change one of the basics of the game and give those decisions out?

    When technology is put to use, everything must be quantified. 2.5 metres is essentially only a translation of "big stride forward" into something that technology understands. It is the same thing as giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt when he comes down the crease

  • on March 13, 2011, 7:05 GMT

    Ian Chappel I think decision review system has been more advantageous for nations who have been complaining in the past about the fairness of the umpire decisions and according to them the umpires decisions were biased into one team and at some instances that was actually the case.So now that the DRS is in effect the umpires wont be blamed and that the biased decisions will be a thing of the past.

  • on March 13, 2011, 7:08 GMT

    I agree with anurag23bhide. The 2.5m rule does seem to give the batsmen the benefit of the doubt. Now matter how advanced technology becomes, taking the human factor out of things is plain absurd. Cricket is about luck at times, the traditional tactics such as the "giant stride forward" to avoid an lbw decision, are an integral part of the game.

  • NikhilDXB on March 13, 2011, 10:15 GMT

    Both DRS incidents quoted by Mr. Chappell here have occurred because the umpires (Messrs Bowden and De Silva) have compounded their initial howlers with even greater ineptitude on review...the number of decisions the DRS have overturned to save games in this World Cup should be enough to clear all doubts, but seems there will always be doubters! The whole 'umpires make mistakes, but it evens out' is great in theory, but when you're robbed of a place in the World Cup by one stupid decision from an umpire, you don't care if it evens out.

  • on March 13, 2011, 11:27 GMT

    But then 2.5m rule should be ignored if the ball is going to hit lower half of the middle-stump, since how great the difference is between the 'actual path ball might have taken' and the 'hawkeye predictive pathway', A BALL COULDNT POSSIBLY MISS EVERY PART OF THE 3 STUMPS after it was suppose to hit lower half of the middle stump.

  • IMObserver on March 13, 2011, 12:16 GMT

    Well there should be two trajectories estimated. One trajectory gives most probable striking point at the stumps. Another trajectory should give 75 percentile- just my pick but ICC can pick their number- confidence trajectory. If the 75% confidence trajectory misses the stumpt review should go in favor of batsmen. Inspite of being further than 2.5 meter away if the ball hits the middle of the middle stump the 75% trajectory may also show that it is out. While if the distance is less than 2.5 meter and the ball just clips the top of the off stump then 95% confidence trajectory is likely to miss the stumps. 75% trajectory give 3 to 1 odds in favour of batsmen.

    And I agree, Chappelli, Australia needs a good practice game against Pakistan. Even losing to Pakistan may be good for Australia during the knock out phase. The game should go to the wire to test Australian mind set.

  • vemachine on March 13, 2011, 14:46 GMT

    Ian Chappell is just as culpable as Ricky Ponting and a host of commentators who slam the Associate teams for making the World Cup a boring and predictable affair by simply not being good enough. This perspective is not only blinkered but arrogant. Who needs another match between Australia and Sri Lanka or India? How many times do these teams play each other year in, year out. There is no God-given right to be part of a WC. That is, every team should qualify for it on equal terms. It is only the greed of the organisers who would give teams free-passes because they are afraid to lose the tv-viewers and hence advertising revenue. Cricket is in decline because it is entirely money-driven as witnessed by player-burn out, bat-over-ball imbalance and hence a dearth of fast bowlers. The playing schedule is a disgrace, everyone knows it, no-one does anything about it. It is hypocritical lip-service when people ask Associate teams to improve when they do not offer them a road for doing it.

  • Aussasinator on March 13, 2011, 14:56 GMT

    Australia will lose to Pakistan!

  • on March 13, 2011, 17:18 GMT

    uhh If Pakistan has one of its good days, there's no way Australia's winning.