Pakistan v England 2011-12 January 20, 2012

Flower wants DRS rethink

185

England coach Andy Flower defended the effectiveness of the decision review system but said the protocol when using the technology needed to be reviewed.

The England coach visited the match referee Javagal Srinath in the latter stages of the Test to seek an explanation after England captain Andrew Strauss was adjudged to have been caught behind, even though there was no evidence from hot spot that he had hit the ball.

Earlier Saeed Ajmal had also been given out to a catch at short leg that where hot spot was unavailable and replays suggested the ball had missed both Ajmal's bat and gloves. Flower believes the protocol where a third umpire requires categorical proof of an error before overturning a decision might need to be reviewed.

"With DRS, we get more decisions right, so I think it's a good addition to the game," Flower said. "I think Ajmal's dismissal was worse than Strauss'. It was very obviously not out. Strauss was unfortunate, one of those examples where technology didn't come up with the right decision.

"I certainly don't think a side should lose a review in those circumstances. It wasn't proven one way or the other whether they hit it or missed it, so I think the protocol does need looking at.

"I wanted to have a chat with Srinath about both those decisions. We're always looking for consistency from umpires and there was certainly inconsistency about the way Ian Bell's decision was handled in the Sydney Test and how Strauss' was handled here. But in the main they've a very tough job so I wouldn't want to criticise them too much."

Flower also suggested the England players' long break from their last Test - in August against India - might have been a contributory factor in this defeat. "I hope that doesn't sound like excuse-making but it is part of the reason," he said. "Some have had two months off cricket, some as much as four months off, so that could be part of the reason we underperformed so badly in this Test.

"We badly under-performed with the bat and, even though the ball wasn't turning much, we didn't deal with it skilfully. We made poor decisions. We made it look harder than it was to be quite frank.

"It was a bit of a shock," Flower said. "Look, we played poorly and we particularly batted poorly. Test cricket is a tough game and if you keep on batting like that you will be punished. Pakistan were good enough to do so.

"We haven't had that much time working together since India, although I thought our preparation at the academy here was excellent. The two first-class games were good and the opposition provided good competition. There were no problems on that front. With three tours of the sub-continent this year, all of them important, our play against spin very obviously has to be a lot better than that."

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on January 23, 2012, 22:49 GMT

    I think Andrew was clearly out ...... No question the hot spot also showed it DRS is good ..... It seems that the english men when falls in there own traps like to find the way out from it ,,,, Bust the defeat have badly hit them and there position on international level.

  • StoneRose on January 23, 2012, 10:52 GMT

    Don't know if I agree: Ajmal's was a bad decision, regardless. Strauus was out - there was a noise.

  • ifti_m on January 23, 2012, 10:11 GMT

    I suppose DRS ought to include sound detection along with hotspot to detect faint nicks that aren't picked by hotspot or missed due to some malfunction at that instant. Inclusion of two technologies would make the system more robust and less prone to error... Idea is to raise the probability of detection as close to one as possible while keeping false alarms probability near zero.

  • kam_uk on January 23, 2012, 10:02 GMT

    Not sure if anyone has seen this article about DRS , it makes very intersting reading- http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/548069.html Like many I believe DRS to be an important innovation but it obviously needs to be modified. Hotspot is very unreliable and should be scrapped, Snickometer is a much more reliable tool to judge edges anyway. I also agree with choo 4 20- DRS should only be there to take out howlers, unfortunately it is being used as gamesmanship by the players to try their luck on decisions which is an abuse of the system. In the recent Pk v SL series there were only allowed 1 failed review per innings. Players were alot more careful with its use and it was only used for the howlers. Perhaps 1 failed review rather then 2 would be better.

  • karthik_raja on January 23, 2012, 7:03 GMT

    @Si Baker.. If u understand the conversation clearly, its not the result of match v r talking abt.. Its abt using a false technology, spending huge amnt of money to make fun of Umpires and their decisions.. My question is very simple - why shud v hav two decisions for any case.. Remove Umpires r remove DRS.. Let one of them make decisions all the time.. If u go by DRS, make it consistent across the world and let ICC handle and standardize it..

  • karthik_raja on January 23, 2012, 6:56 GMT

    @Kopravian.. Ur argument sounds silly.. Whn Ind is forced to use DRS in WC, why shud SRT not use it..?? Going by ur comment, u live by principles it seems.. If u hv a principle of not eating sweets, u wont eat @ any cost.. rite..?? Even if u r in gun point forcing to eat a sweet.. May b u will rather die than taking sweet.. Hats off to u my dear bro(think u r a pakistani, I am a Indian bro)..

  • karthik_raja on January 23, 2012, 6:48 GMT

    Mr Andy..?? R u doing/saying this..?? can't believe wt I am reading now.. Btw, wt were u doing whn Dravid was dismissed in last test and first ODI in Eng wid all help of DRS(without enuf evidence).. No, I didn't expect u to turn against DRS r comment against DRS.. All I expected was a simple/humble statement -"Dravid is Unfortunate".. I didn't hear even a single of that kind frm ur camp..?? I hv a gr8 respect for u.. Bt, didnt expect this from u.. Bad..

  • rocky2801 on January 23, 2012, 6:46 GMT

    So Mr. Flower wants DRS rethink and convert a dubious onfield decision by another dubious overturn by tv umpire. Please understand that the tv umpire decisions of not overturning because there is no conclusive proof is the best in current circumstances. By changing this process Mr. Flower, you are allowing an opportunity for adding another wrong decision to be taken by tv umpire (what if it did hit and was not caught by technology and the onfield umpire was right?) then overturning would be another wrong decision right?. On second thoughts lets do what you suggest.. it will help to prove how useless the current technology of hotspot is.. once a few right decisions because they are reviewed are wrongly overturned.With HotSpot not being upto mark,the pathetic line that DRS should be continued but more complexity and errors be brought into play by adding another decision making process at tv umpire stage is the product of a fuddled brain.. which has been done so by the spinning ball...

  • karthik_raja on January 23, 2012, 6:40 GMT

    Wt wud hv happened in this forum if an Indian hv told/done this..?? Any guesses.. plzz... Btw, whn Dhoni's remarks abt continuous cricket played by Indians r considered as excuses, wt whud b told abt "lack of cricket" comments by Flower/Prior..?? English fans.. please enlighten me with ur most unbiased thoughts.. Its always wonderful to hear from u.. esp.. U.. dear @5wombats..

  • SRT_GENIUS on January 23, 2012, 4:11 GMT

    DRS is not the reason why you lost dude! Look somewhere else for excuses.

  • on January 23, 2012, 22:49 GMT

    I think Andrew was clearly out ...... No question the hot spot also showed it DRS is good ..... It seems that the english men when falls in there own traps like to find the way out from it ,,,, Bust the defeat have badly hit them and there position on international level.

  • StoneRose on January 23, 2012, 10:52 GMT

    Don't know if I agree: Ajmal's was a bad decision, regardless. Strauus was out - there was a noise.

  • ifti_m on January 23, 2012, 10:11 GMT

    I suppose DRS ought to include sound detection along with hotspot to detect faint nicks that aren't picked by hotspot or missed due to some malfunction at that instant. Inclusion of two technologies would make the system more robust and less prone to error... Idea is to raise the probability of detection as close to one as possible while keeping false alarms probability near zero.

  • kam_uk on January 23, 2012, 10:02 GMT

    Not sure if anyone has seen this article about DRS , it makes very intersting reading- http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/548069.html Like many I believe DRS to be an important innovation but it obviously needs to be modified. Hotspot is very unreliable and should be scrapped, Snickometer is a much more reliable tool to judge edges anyway. I also agree with choo 4 20- DRS should only be there to take out howlers, unfortunately it is being used as gamesmanship by the players to try their luck on decisions which is an abuse of the system. In the recent Pk v SL series there were only allowed 1 failed review per innings. Players were alot more careful with its use and it was only used for the howlers. Perhaps 1 failed review rather then 2 would be better.

  • karthik_raja on January 23, 2012, 7:03 GMT

    @Si Baker.. If u understand the conversation clearly, its not the result of match v r talking abt.. Its abt using a false technology, spending huge amnt of money to make fun of Umpires and their decisions.. My question is very simple - why shud v hav two decisions for any case.. Remove Umpires r remove DRS.. Let one of them make decisions all the time.. If u go by DRS, make it consistent across the world and let ICC handle and standardize it..

  • karthik_raja on January 23, 2012, 6:56 GMT

    @Kopravian.. Ur argument sounds silly.. Whn Ind is forced to use DRS in WC, why shud SRT not use it..?? Going by ur comment, u live by principles it seems.. If u hv a principle of not eating sweets, u wont eat @ any cost.. rite..?? Even if u r in gun point forcing to eat a sweet.. May b u will rather die than taking sweet.. Hats off to u my dear bro(think u r a pakistani, I am a Indian bro)..

  • karthik_raja on January 23, 2012, 6:48 GMT

    Mr Andy..?? R u doing/saying this..?? can't believe wt I am reading now.. Btw, wt were u doing whn Dravid was dismissed in last test and first ODI in Eng wid all help of DRS(without enuf evidence).. No, I didn't expect u to turn against DRS r comment against DRS.. All I expected was a simple/humble statement -"Dravid is Unfortunate".. I didn't hear even a single of that kind frm ur camp..?? I hv a gr8 respect for u.. Bt, didnt expect this from u.. Bad..

  • rocky2801 on January 23, 2012, 6:46 GMT

    So Mr. Flower wants DRS rethink and convert a dubious onfield decision by another dubious overturn by tv umpire. Please understand that the tv umpire decisions of not overturning because there is no conclusive proof is the best in current circumstances. By changing this process Mr. Flower, you are allowing an opportunity for adding another wrong decision to be taken by tv umpire (what if it did hit and was not caught by technology and the onfield umpire was right?) then overturning would be another wrong decision right?. On second thoughts lets do what you suggest.. it will help to prove how useless the current technology of hotspot is.. once a few right decisions because they are reviewed are wrongly overturned.With HotSpot not being upto mark,the pathetic line that DRS should be continued but more complexity and errors be brought into play by adding another decision making process at tv umpire stage is the product of a fuddled brain.. which has been done so by the spinning ball...

  • karthik_raja on January 23, 2012, 6:40 GMT

    Wt wud hv happened in this forum if an Indian hv told/done this..?? Any guesses.. plzz... Btw, whn Dhoni's remarks abt continuous cricket played by Indians r considered as excuses, wt whud b told abt "lack of cricket" comments by Flower/Prior..?? English fans.. please enlighten me with ur most unbiased thoughts.. Its always wonderful to hear from u.. esp.. U.. dear @5wombats..

  • SRT_GENIUS on January 23, 2012, 4:11 GMT

    DRS is not the reason why you lost dude! Look somewhere else for excuses.

  • jmcilhinney on January 23, 2012, 3:22 GMT

    @screamingeagle, as usual, you miss the point. The England team, management and fans are, in general, supporters of DRS. There's nothing in this article to suggest otherwise. The fact that someone says that something could be improved is not equivalent to their saying that it is bad. By your logic, anyone who thinks Sachin Tendulkar could improve thinks that he is a bad batsman.

  • GeorgeWBush on January 23, 2012, 2:25 GMT

    The people that are making negative comments about what Andy Flower said seem to have not bothered to actually read the quote and are just basing their comment on the impression, erroneously, given by the article headline. Poor journalism as usual, trying to make a story where no story actually exists. Nothing Flower said could be construed as him making an excuse for England losing to Pakistan. He even said that the worst decision where DRS may have got it wrong was the Ajmal decision. It is debatable whether England are really the best team in the world but it is not their fault that they are at the top of the rankings. The reality is that there are 4-5 test sides that are all capable of beating each other at the moment. People should be happy that world cricket isn't being dominated by one team.

  • KashifMuneer on January 22, 2012, 21:14 GMT

    I do not know how many cameras they use to track the line and trajectory of the ball but I have seen many times where hawk-eye predicts incorrect line and trajectory after pitching. Maybe more cameras need to be used as standard. Look at 3 of swans wickets that he got via DRS. To me not even 1 of them should have been his wicket. Hafeez was clearly outside the line at impact but DRS said it was umpire's call. Misbah was so far out that its unbelievable that he was deemed to be "in-line" with the stumps. Billy Bowden was rightly amazed. Saeed Ajmal clearly did not get bat on that ball that he was dismissed on

    In short, England have benefited hugely from DRS even in this 1st test. I agree that the technology needs to be reviewed but the loss was clearly down to being outplayed by a better side. Better technology would have meant a heavier defeat in my opinion. Check "pakistan vs england 1st test day 2 highlights" on youtube to and compare swann's actual delivery line to hawk-eye version

  • on January 22, 2012, 19:31 GMT

    Where was Flower when Dravid was give out 2 times without anything on hotspot?

  • PACEGUY on January 22, 2012, 15:35 GMT

    I personally think that the DRS System is an absolutely wonderful system of tackling humanic error and mistakes it makes everything a lot more sophisticated, it decreases the chances of making blunderous mistakes and it also helps the on field umpires improve their decision making power.

  • Ross_Co on January 22, 2012, 15:08 GMT

    I look forward to Flower's call for an inquiry into the number of overseas players a test team can field. Oh, and the number of times per hour play can be halted by the batting team sending runners onto the field.

  • 200ondebut on January 22, 2012, 13:55 GMT

    Well said Flower!!! The way umpires are interpreting the rules is bringing the game into disrepute. They seem more intent in protecting their fellow umpires decisions than getting the decision right. If we are to place reliance in the technology - and it has been proved to me more reliable than umpires - then they should trust it. As such if Hot Spot shows no hot spot - there has been no contact. Fact. Saying that all you needed to see that Ajmal wasn't out was half decent eyesight - he missed it by miles - perhaps the umpires should go to specsavers!!!! Well done Pakistan on your win - lets hope the rest of the series is not so one sided.

  • sirECB on January 22, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    poor andy flower,blame the drs for the teams failings. in the 1st test match drs accounted for one decison that couldnt be proved otherwise, strauss wicket was a nick to tke wicket keeper. i will be waiting for the new excuses when england lose the series 3 -0 ..... the joke is on you andy hooefully the ecb will look for a new head coach after your teams sub continent spankings!!! @nyousaf50

  • spongebat_squarestumps on January 22, 2012, 13:17 GMT

    If DRS is designed to "remove decision howlers", then ikt is right that line decisions should count against the team calling for the review. Next time they think twice and only call for review when they are sure it is a "howler". If DRS is designed to allow players to make a game out of of umpire calls, then the game is going backwards...

  • Sports4Youth on January 22, 2012, 12:44 GMT

    Snicko meter would have been better. By now we have seen far too many casses of failure in hot spot technology. now we should forget the expensive hotspot and continue with the game and that heed of the BCCI's advice of improving the umpiriring standards.

  • on January 22, 2012, 10:31 GMT

    I see nothing wrong with what Andy said, his comments are very fair. No need to slat him or the English.

  • rahulkmc on January 22, 2012, 9:50 GMT

    I am an Indian and I hate BCCI stance about DRS. But having said that its purely from a monetary front that BCCI is backing off rather than the flimsy excuse they have been giving all along. Players and rest of the staff are just 'being made' to reflect their stance , well you know, one who can dictate the world cricket can dictate terms to its own people as well. But ask any Asian about the way DRS has worked so far, all benefits of doubts go against them so far. Its much easier to give us out than the 'English or the Aussies' on flimsy grounds. Whats the use of spending so much money for a technology which is ultimately going to benefit others and actually going to work against you??

  • on January 22, 2012, 9:18 GMT

    who said there wasn't an evidence I have a recording of that strauss's dismissal.. I can see a tiny spot on the bat and a big one on the ball... i don't know wht everyone is talking abt here..

  • screamingeagle on January 22, 2012, 8:56 GMT

    And I thought the English fans were saying DRS was the best thing ever...

  • himanshu.team on January 22, 2012, 8:54 GMT

    ICC must do this to make DRS work best 1.For a batsman to be given out there must be evidence to give him out. If there is no edge on hot-spot, he should remain not out No matter what the umpires 'think' 2.If the decision not over-ruled for the lack of concrete evidence, the review should not be taken away from a side. For e.g. in one of the recent test matches, there was a massive appeal against Shane Watson. He charged down the track to short pitch ball outside the off stump, and there appeared to be a sound when the ball went passed his flashing blade. However,the area was outside of the zone, of hot-spot. In such a case, the side should not lose a review. A review must only be taken away if there is evidence against it. 3.And most importantly apply these rules uniformly across all matches. It should not happen that with India 0% DRS, with SL or Pak, 50% DRS and with others 100% DRS. If it is a rule it has be the same for everyone. Whatever it is.

  • spence1324 on January 22, 2012, 8:15 GMT

    @rahulkmc,'special' treatment shame that it has not benefited india in Australia and england because india are the only rich kid on the block here!

  • RoarofTiger on January 22, 2012, 8:07 GMT

    How come such a voracious comments poster like 5wombats in found missing since the defeat of England. He left no stone uncornered declaring the worlds best ever team surpassing west indies and aussies this English team has become.....must be real hard to digest the facts mate :) Try posting sensible comments n future as stones thrown at others might return with double force........be ready to receive your cry babies whining ENGLISH WORLD TEAM and Andy flower to ENgland.....(cricinfo...please publish)

  • bobmartin on January 22, 2012, 7:05 GMT

    I have a few thoughts about comments on cricinfo. I've noticed that some names which regularly crop up time and again prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that a) they no nothing about cricket or b) they clearly have not read the article the thread is about or c) if they have read it, they always somehow manage to associate it with something bad that has happened to their team and d) any combination of a), b) and c). By not bothering to read those comments, since they more than likely to be immaterial to the subject under discussion, I save myself a whole of trouble and it leaves me to concentrate on the many other contributors whose views I might disagree with but I respect.

  • on January 22, 2012, 6:25 GMT

    ENGLAND should accept their defeat from PAKISTAN and should workhard for next test matches. GOODLUCK PAKISTAN.....

  • on January 22, 2012, 6:20 GMT

    andy when saeed ajmal was out like struas at dat u n ur team was very happy now after straus caught y u r blaming on DRS. now england should accept their defeat....

  • on January 22, 2012, 6:13 GMT

    I believe that Eng and Ind are the same when faced with humiliating losses like in Dubai, they start blaming the system and every thing. its is easy to be critical over others but its hard to appreciate others bamboozling performances such as Pak's. Eng lost the first test and that's it, now look forward to the next match. mykhan

  • Poholiyadda on January 22, 2012, 6:03 GMT

    The same thing has happened to Prasanna Jayawardene in the first test in the recently concluded Eng vs SL test series. Jayawadene scored a century in the first innings and in the second innings he was given not out with no clear evidence to prove that he was out. The end result was Sri Lanka losing that match and that series by 1-0. No one went to meet the match referee. When India played against England last year, Kevin Peterson was given out caught behind of the bowling of Mahendra Singh Dhoni, when reviewed there was no hot spot and the decision was reversed. KP went on to make a double century. Why double standards ? Billy Bowden is one of the best umpires in the world and he has made the correct decision. If England want to be the real number one they have to learn how to win in different conditions, like West Indies and Australia did in the past.

  • on January 22, 2012, 6:00 GMT

    The need for proof is so stupid. IF THERE IS NO HOT SPOT, THAT'S PROOF THAT IT DIDN'T HIT THE BAT. That's the benefit of the technology...

  • Leggie on January 22, 2012, 5:48 GMT

    If Strauss' decision was unfortunate, so were several decisions that went against Rahul Dravid during the England/India series. The likes of Andy Flower must have contributed then to fine-tuning the DRS system. When they start contributing only when DRS gets certain decisions wrong against England, it sends very wrong signals.

  • on January 22, 2012, 5:24 GMT

    DRS sys give us more accurate decision many time i says out of 100 , 90 time it give us good decision , having 10 bad decision out of 100 we cant says that this tecnology are not good enough to be use in cricket . with the passage of time this tecnology will b more accurate then before

  • on January 22, 2012, 5:24 GMT

    when u tend to loose there is flaw every where...............you never complained when dravid was given wrongly out by drs.........england will not stay no.1 for a long time like india they are champions of home.......................

  • Marcio on January 22, 2012, 5:14 GMT

    In light of the comments below and others in light of the Pakistan win in the 1st test, I have come to the conclusion that Pakistani fans are very poor winners. All the slagging of the English by fans and former players is just sad. And I am an Aussie! Flower's comments here are sensible and diplomatic. So why all the rage? if you are so mean-spirited in victory, I hate to think what you will be like when you lose.

  • Naseer on January 22, 2012, 4:36 GMT

    It is quite simple folks, problem is not with DRS, it is with the way they use it, if they use the DRS with a bit of common sense it will prove a very handy tool to ensure that every decision is right and there is no umpiring error. In Ajmas's everything suggested that he was not out, therefore it was common sense to give him not out but in spite of that umpire went the other way which is un-understandable, how is it possible millions of people watching on their TV sets what is going on what is right and what is wrong, it is a shame for those who use this technology and shame for the cricket, this could easily hurt the image of the game in very short span of time and can also bring down the popularity of the game very quickly.

  • csowmi7 on January 22, 2012, 4:11 GMT

    @5wombats. Where has your team played in the subcontinent in 2011. Your team's true colours will come when they tour the subcontinent. Cant believe there are guys like u going about being completely indifferent towards Indians. Yes we were beaten badly in England but England has been beaten badly in India as well. The difference is in the past 10 years India has won in England but England have not won in India.

  • me54321 on January 22, 2012, 4:04 GMT

    A sensible man says something sensible, and then all this hatred. Admittedly most of it seems to be by people who either haven't read the article properly or haven't read it at all. People should learn to listen to and read what actually is there, rather than what they want to be there to justify the stereotype they've already formed in their mind. As far as the errors go, there were mistakes by the on field umpires, followed by mistakes by the 3rd umpire. It was not a failing of the DRS, but yet again a failing to use it properly. Of course Dravid was given out incorrectly by DRS three times, except on two of those occasions he was out, and the third he was given out incorrectly by the umpire, but failed to use DRS.

  • nellaiseemai on January 22, 2012, 3:36 GMT

    1. How come the coach of a team can meet the match referee when the match is in progress? What is the need for AF to meet Srinath to get the details about the decision? 2. Ajmal's decision was wrong he was not out. Based on logic or common sense the third umpire should have given that not out. Clearly the umpire's decision was wrong so there is no need for the third umpire to conclusively prove that the umpire's decision is wrong. For Strau's he is out. There is no evidence to support that. But the umpire was right in that. Here also since the decision is right there is no need for conclusive evidence to support the umpire's decision. 3. From when the benefit of doubt go to the umpire? It has to go to the batsman as per the olden days rule. DRS seems to give the benefit of doubt to the umpire.

  • whyowhy on January 22, 2012, 3:15 GMT

    bumblefly you are more like the flies we have near our outhouses, Aussies abandon losing teams, but the poms (you must be a watered down version) try to find excuses like Ajmal chucking, DRS, undercooked.......I thought you have a cook in your team, maybe he can help with cooking the other batsman a bit more.......I hope you get greenwashed in the UAE.

  • SanjivAwesome on January 22, 2012, 3:12 GMT

    When they talk about DRS, they don't just refer to the technology, rather to the "entire system" called DRS - the tech, the protocols, the training, the rules and standards. As I understand it, getting the tech component right won't solve the crdibiltiy issues around this tool. There are tricky guideleines around where to station the DRS-Cameras around a pitch in the stadium. Camera position can alter the referee's interpretation! Imagine getting all cameras position at exactluy the same position vis-a-vis the pitch, in all games, in all countries, in all seasons, at all times!

  • on January 22, 2012, 3:08 GMT

    I think that whaever happend, with DRS in last test match between Pak-Eng test, was a "SABOTAGE". It seemed to me that match refree did the wrong decission "INTENTIONALLY" to make the "DRS" contorversial. ICC should pay attention about this matter. We all should support DRS and related technology. ICC shouldn't be sold out to Indian Cricket Board.

  • shamlaatu on January 22, 2012, 3:01 GMT

    The Indians who are jumping up and down for be self righteous in opposing the DRS should be THANKFUL to DRS or else Tendulkar was given LBW by the field umpire in the WC semi against Pakistan. From the naked eyes, even the field umpire couldn't believe it was not hitting the stumps. You guys would have been long kicked outta WC then.

  • johnathonjosephs on January 22, 2012, 2:51 GMT

    If there is no evidence, its the umpires call. The rules are very strict on that. Why blame UDRS for bad umpiring, I do not know. But Flower does have a point and the one point that seems to be the most important is the hotspot question. What happens if a player nicks the ball, the umpire gives it out, it is referred, and hotspot does not show anything? This has happened (controversially) only 2 times. The first time with Dravid's shoelace (he was actually not out) and the 2nd time with Strauss (he was actually out). The most important part to understand, however, is that it is not really deemed conclusive if there is a sound and no hotspot so the umpire's decision will stand. It is shady, but in the end its not on UDRS to make the decision. We do not have 100% UDRS, so even if UDRS shows someone is not out/out, the umpire's decision can still stand. it is important to not blame UDRS for the decision, but the umpires who's decision it is that will stand

  • Coastaltown on January 22, 2012, 2:35 GMT

    You know what, I know it sounds kind of lame, but a lot of the anti-england sentiment in these threads is kind of upsetting. I think the vast majority of england fans here will hold their hands up and say fair enough we were beaten, outplayed. Pakistan were far superior in all departments in this match, but to then use this game as an excuse to have a go at england for, well, everything is kind of depressing. If Aus lose a game I don't say "this proves Australia are the worst team ever", if India lose a game I don't say "this proves India are on the slide". Because this is cricket. Each could turn it round. And now some comments about the DRS are getting turned into excuses manufactured by perfidious england to explain their failure. No, the failure has already been explained. England were beaten by the better team. Now for the love of god grow up the lot of you and start thinking about the good of the sport rather than your petty rivalries, I'm sick of it

  • Ameega on January 22, 2012, 2:23 GMT

    It seems most of the DRS bashers just read the title of the article and start the old song, "See... No DRS! No DRS!!. Two reviews referred here are originally wrong decisions given by umpires, and unfortunately could not been overturned as no-enough evidence from DRS. Still, the errors are done by on-field umpires. Suppose, there were no DRS, still these two unfortunate dismissals would happen.

  • Ameega on January 22, 2012, 2:00 GMT

    Come on guys, Andy is not denying use of DRS. His suggestion is great. Reviewing team must not loose a review (i.e. not counted) if it is unsuccessful due to no-enough evidence to overturn the original decision. There may be still errors, but it is nice to see how DRS helps in great deal to see what exactly happened, though (some of) our Indian friends do not realize this.

  • on January 22, 2012, 1:59 GMT

    Typical English response when on the losing end. Indirectly what Flower is saying is that since Strauss is a better batsman than Ajmal, England got the short end of the stick. I gaurantee you if England had won this game, this issue, or the issue of not having played in the last several months, would not have come up.

  • badboynj on January 22, 2012, 1:58 GMT

    I hope my comments gets to Andy Flower somehow.....I watched the game and there was an evidence on hotspot on Andrew Strauss decision. I agree there was no spot on the bat but if you look closely there was a spot on the ball as it passed the bat. I am not sure why the commentators or third umpire didn't pick that.

  • PACEGUY on January 22, 2012, 1:54 GMT

    NEED to keep da kool u know especiaaly against Pakistan

  • haq33 on January 22, 2012, 1:51 GMT

    Let us be perfectly clear. It is NOT the case that India are vindicated and were somehow "right" that DRS is too flawed to be used - it is simply the case that Andy Flower is a disgrace to cricket for whining to an umpire about the ICC RULES that he is following! HOW DARE andy flower whine about agreed RULES - not opinion or interpretation, or even a flawed judgement, but just black & white rules. IF there is inconclusive proof to overturn bowden's decision, then bowden's decision stands. The final decisions made re: ajmal's and strauss's dismissals were as per the rules. End of. ZERO respect now for england. will support Ind and Aus against Eng.

  • indianpunter on January 22, 2012, 0:48 GMT

    The peddlers of this technology ( DRS ie), have accepted that it is not perfect. Imperfect, older generations cameras where used for hot spot tech in 2010 ( and decisions were reversed with that !!) and now we hear that positioning of the cameras can affect the pitch mat !! My 2 cents is that 1. Take the predictive pathway away from the DRS ( for goodness sake, which game uses predictions for decisions ??, that theory in itself is flawed). Use it only till the point of impact. 2. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the field decision stands. This is not perfect, but the idea of DRS was to avoid howlers. 3. The field umpires to make the call for a review ( rather than teams) and the call for this is growing stronger and that could be trailed. I have reservations because that has the potential to slow the game.

  • spinkingKK on January 22, 2012, 0:38 GMT

    @sarfin: We are not using DRS to prove that umpire is right most of the time. It is there to eradicate the wrong decisions. Even without technology, if you have an 8 year old boy minding the video replays, he can uphold the umpire's decision most of the time and just overturn his decisions when you can see with your eyes that the ball didn't hit the bat or if there was an inside edge. If they are only going to overturn the umpire's decision when it is so clear in the video replays, these hotspots, snickos and hawke-eyes are wasteful tools for them. They are only using the technology to highlight what is obvious, just like when getting a photocopy attested. So, the day when the correct decision was overturned by the technology will never come. But there will be many bad decisions upheld as if they were right and make the umpires proud and players frustrated. It is like many cheats and murderes getting a judgement that they are innocent even when the evidences suggested otherwise.

  • Blueangle on January 22, 2012, 0:30 GMT

    I dont understan why people are against DRS? If there was no DRS there would have been 6-7 wrong decisions in this match. With DRS, there were only two. Whats wrong here. Do you need a PhD to understand this? As for as Indians are concerned, they will accept the DRS, the day Sachin retires because with the help of DRS, he will be out even if the ball hits him on his groens

  • spinkingKK on January 22, 2012, 0:17 GMT

    I have seen people suggesting that we are getting more decisions right when using DRS and therefore we should use it. It may be right. However, you can't bend the DRS according to the whims and fancies of the third umpire. Then we will see a more biased umpiring even after using the technology. When people say that we are getting 99% right after using the DRS, who is making this judgement that whether a particular decision was right or wrong? Because, that 1% wrong decisions were also right according to the technology. Does the Strauss decision falls under that 1% wrong decisions? If they all knew it was wrong, why give the wrong decision? If the humans who watch the video can judge whether that DRS decision was wrong or right, they may as well make the decisions by themselves and get the 100% right decisions.

  • Blueangle on January 22, 2012, 0:15 GMT

    @ Rahulkmc! " key moments in the game which affect the outcome and one game's result has some effect on the others as well". Mate why india is always on the disadvantageous side of spectrum? You are saying that if Rahul dravid was not given out at that time, india would not have lost test series 4-0, would not have lost one day series 5-0, would not have lost to Australia 3-0 or 4-0, Sachin would have completed his 100th 100 and Zaheer khan would have been bowling at 150KPH??? Another gem "stop being cynical ". My dear rahul, please practice, before you preach

  • on January 22, 2012, 0:07 GMT

    I have always thought a team shuoldn't lose a review when the result is "umpires call", it's probably the biggest problem with DRS at the moment. I didn't have too much problem with the Strauss & Ajmal decisions, I mean, a bad decision by the umpire stayed as a bad decision, but the DRS turned several other bad decisions in the match into good ones, which is a good thing, right?

  • spinkingKK on January 22, 2012, 0:04 GMT

    I haven't watched the match. However, how on earth can they give someone OUT caught behind when the hotspot suggested that there was no bat on ball? This is ridiculous. This type of things should never happen in DRS. If hotspot suggests that the decision was wrong and you still uphold the onfield umpire's decision, when are you going to overturn the decision ? If you don't trust your technology in a black and white deicion, why use it? Then, India is very much right in refusing the DRS. I am very much surprised that Andy Flower is not taking it seriously. DRS itself is a good thing. However, people who manages it is making it too complicated and making it wasteful and useless. Now, I HATE DRS. Go India!!!!

  • whyowhy on January 22, 2012, 0:03 GMT

    Why is he talking to the match referee ?? Is it because Srinath is an Indian ? Only the Indians do not want DRS and speaking to an Indian about DRS (or reading their blogs) is stoking a fire...........Mr Flower should spend more time talking to his team and telling them how to use their bats which seem to be like a stick of Rhubarb now (Sorry Boycs). I personally have stopped reading any blogs from an Indian sounding name as they are the most biased and self centered blogs.

  • Nampally on January 21, 2012, 23:57 GMT

    Here we go.Dravid was given out three times in the series against England when the DRS clearly showed that he was NOT OUT. No body from England team bothered & in fact were strongly backing third Umpire + DRS. I had mentioned at least 6 tiomes in tese very Cricinfo columns that if the DRS says NOT OUT, then that decision stands.Umpires - third umpire or field umpires - have no right to over rule DRS.In fact DRS had given Dravid Not Out & the field Umpire over ruled it! In this situation why have DRS - is it not reviewing the Umpiring decisions? How can an Umpire over rule DRS? All the Cricket Boards + ICC should sit together and use these Examples + others, to establish right protocol. If DRS is supposed to review the Umpiring decisions, it is the final judge & the DRS decision governs. Third Umpire has no business to interfere with DRS decision.Third Umpire merely interprets what DRS decision is & communicates it "as is". If he tampers with it, the Umpire should be banned for life!.

  • SagirParkar on January 21, 2012, 23:54 GMT

    was watching Sky's 2 hour dissection of England's loss in Dubai.. i got to see Strauss' dismissal in the 2nd innings.. a lot of fuss was made about it as hot spot didnt show a hot spot.. well, the guys who watched it are wrong cos they didnt watch it in the right place...

    the ball hit the side edge of the bat rather than take the edge of the face.. that much is clear from the replay and the way that shot was played.. there was no contact between ball and pad and that is clear from the replay.. The side edge wasnt facing the camera and is visible only during the follow through of the stroke. in the hotspot replay, u dont see the spot because the ball didnt hit the face of the bat.. if u rewind that replay and watch it again but this time search for a spot along the side edge, you can see a little white dot as Strauss' bat goes into his follow through.. it is a teeny one but its definitely there...

  • RiazQureshi on January 21, 2012, 23:45 GMT

    Flower, You are right there, both Strauss and Ajmal were victim of poor DRS results and subsequent referral indecision resulted in bad decision.DRS appeal protocol needs change. Additionally, ICC must enforce DRS in all matches where technology is available or affordable because DRS has improved decision making and put umpires on toes as well which has resulted in active and accurate umpiring.

  • Manuu on January 21, 2012, 23:35 GMT

    A major problem is who is controlling the technology. There is a definite question mark here.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 21, 2012, 22:54 GMT

    This half-baked DRS is like: human judgment adulterated with technology; and technology adulterated with human judgment. No consistency. No protocol. No validity. No reliability. No repeatability. No cold data. No nothing. Hopeless. Implementation is devoid of any common sense. Technology is dubious. A recipe for disaster. If this is how these jokers/greedy businessmen want to call theirs as technology and bring it forth to a science forum, I'm sure it will be thrown out of the window, straight into a garbage bin, the very next minute. I'm proud of BCCI for not buying this poor joke for boatloads of money. What guts and shamelessness by the manufacturers to demand boatloads of money for their pathetic joke!

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 21, 2012, 22:44 GMT

    So, Andy was there enough evidence when Dravid's decision(s) was(were) upheld? hmmmm...anyways why find fault with Andy? He is dealing with the matter as and when his team was wronged. Shame on our team management and coach (Duncan who?) that they didn't take it up when our team was wronged.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 21, 2012, 22:41 GMT

    @5wombats, Srinath didn't give the decision. Third umpire did. What are you up to mate ( O _ O )!

  • RSBali on January 21, 2012, 22:00 GMT

    Now you know why Indians are not in favour of the review system. It needs to be fool proof.

  • raj_12345 on January 21, 2012, 21:27 GMT

    This DRS debate has really gone on for too long. I really think that for something so ineffective, the DRS just needs to go away. I mean come on, look at games like soccer, basketball and so many others. These games are much more popular than cricket, and have much higher margins of error. Yet, they just trust the umpire. For cricket to fight and spend money over these issues rather than to spend money on spreading the game makes no sense to me. Umpires make mistakes, but that makes the game fun and unpredictable. As long as the umpire is not biased, I am just fine with them and not worrying about such stupidity as DRS is. Instead of spending so much money on DRS, if the ICC could spend money on umpire training and increasing salary of umpires, that would be more beneficial in my opinion..

  • on January 21, 2012, 20:38 GMT

    Andy u must take into account the positives of DRS ..and try to make it as error free as possible ....let alone to scrap it altogher .,... dont forget england also benefited during last ashes

  • Kopravian on January 21, 2012, 20:38 GMT

    Our Indian friends need to give up their silly stance or hypocrisy. If they were seriously opposed in principle, Tendulkar should not have used this technolgy to reverse his dismissal and win the world cup through dodgy means as they call it. The system may not be perfect but we do get 9 out of 10 decisions right. As for Flower, I hope he and his players will stop here. One more loss and they will start to question Ajma's bowling action. That designer "cry baby" Bob Willis has already made a rant on TV; the same Bob who sang the ball tampering songs against Wasim, Waqar & co but now shamelessly analysis the art of reverse swing.

  • on January 21, 2012, 20:36 GMT

    I think that what Flower said was quite reasonable. Should a team lose a review when there is insufficient evidence to make a decision? No.

    That is all. He hasn't said that it is a bad system, or that it shouldn't be used. He has suggested a variation in implementation.

  • rahulkmc on January 21, 2012, 20:35 GMT

    The way English handle cricket, it reminds me of the rich kids in the block. They get 'special' treatment when it came to how the game was played. They expect all benefits of doubts and infact all mistakes to benefit them alone. Right throughout history of cricket.

  • on January 21, 2012, 20:21 GMT

    These r just lame excuses of a team's coach who does not accepts defeat.......they have just learnt to win but someone should tell them that its a gentle man's game and a loss should also be accepted as humbly as victory....they cant be victorious every time especially against a hard working pakistan unit who wants to prove is odds wrong....so rather than making excuses like they had a long break or the DRS palyed foul for them engish man should apply themselves agianst a potent pakistan bowling attack and make some strong strategy to overcome this assault from a daring pakistan team..........we proud of u pakistan ....make us more proud by wining with a greater margin against this english team who is relying more on making statements than playing cricket as they usually do

  • smileintears on January 21, 2012, 20:19 GMT

    Both Ajmal & Strauss' decisions were umpiring howlers not DRS..... Even Steve Bucknor's grandma cud have seen easily that the ball was miles away from Ajmal's glove even if hot spot was out of frame.

  • rahulkmc on January 21, 2012, 20:18 GMT

    @ Si Baker: Cricket is a funny game mate. Watch it for a bit longer and you will know that there are key moments in the game which affect the outcome and one game's result has some effect on the others as well. Not saying it was Dravids out that was the reason, you can get enuf evidence in most series/tournaments. So stop being cynical and try to get what is being said.

  • yorkshire-86 on January 21, 2012, 20:18 GMT

    How can you call Flower biased? He actually said Ajmal's descision was worse than that of his own player! All he is saying is that currently there are 3 ways DRS can fall - conclusive evidence that the umpire was right, conclusive evidence that the umpire is wrong, and a marginal decicion either way (such as a LBW clipping leg stump). The respective result is lose referral original descision stands, keep referral decsicion overturned, and umpires call, usually meaning lose referral umpiures descision stands. What Flower wants is a 4th option - technology fails to provide an answer, with a resuly of umpires call stands but no loss of referral.

  • on January 21, 2012, 20:17 GMT

    The technology will get matured only if it is practiced so i think let it go this way we should not drop it, there are FEW bad lucks with player but don't forget lot of good lucks for players.

  • kiranphy on January 21, 2012, 20:08 GMT

    @5wombat grow up, math referee are not there for to give umpiring decesions umpires are there for this

  • jonair21 on January 21, 2012, 20:02 GMT

    When england played badly at the world cup, it was because they had played too much cricket, now it is because they have not played enough cricket! I wish lkthese guys would stop giving interviews. we are tired of listening to the same tired ramblings. i suppose it is the journos fault for asking. do we really want to know the reasons for a defeat? how about a standard "the better team won" response for all?

  • rahulkmc on January 21, 2012, 19:58 GMT

    @bobmartin: I suggest YOU have a look at what the rules were mate. The rules still stated unless there was convincing evidence to refute on-field umpire's decision, it should be upheld. So that bit of ruling hasnt changed. Its who is moaning and from what end is what has changed, England had no reason to moan back then coz it benefitted them, now its against them, so they come out like 3-4 year old.

  • on January 21, 2012, 19:24 GMT

    i agree by 100 percent to rethink about the technology.. it is not perfect to make decision on LBW and operator can turn the boll as he want. we have penalty of videos to prove UDRS wrong ...very obvious example of poor decision when tendulkar called notout in last world cup against pakistan when operator moved the spot and the turn the ball in later effect

  • Skylight28 on January 21, 2012, 19:21 GMT

    The problem with using technology is that there is little/no tolerance for error with technology in place. When human umpires have the last word, one blames the human factor and moves on. However, with technology, you expect (whether thats the correct expectation or not is another matter) 100% correctness or at least no inconsistencies. We have learned in almost every series played with DRS that its neither 100% correct nor consistent. Hence BCCI's apprehension in using it. I personally support technology, but I also think that the way to perfect this technology is in a lab, not on the cricket field. Would you ever fly an airplane that wasn't quite ready to be in the air on the pretext of "test it to fully develop it"?

  • Baundele on January 21, 2012, 19:13 GMT

    DRS is a blessing; but the men that make the rules are flawed.. Flower has a point.

  • aarifboy on January 21, 2012, 19:04 GMT

    umpires=75% on the other hand umpires+DRS=99%. Now who cares about only 1%, leave this -ve thinking about technolgy.nothing is 100%.

  • cricket_fan_1980 on January 21, 2012, 19:01 GMT

    Completely agree with Flowers points here, and have always respected this man. Very smart and really humble. All we need is to iron out the kinks in the DRS management. Really still can not understand what Dhoni and co have against it. They should really get with the program.

  • on January 21, 2012, 18:54 GMT

    I have no idea what happened to the snickometer. I always thought it is more conclusive compared to hotspot.

  • maddy20 on January 21, 2012, 18:43 GMT

    @Akthar Hussain HotSPot was available in case of Andrew Strauss. Its just that it did not pick up the edge. There should be snicko available as well which will improve the accuracy of DRS. There was a clear noise of the ball hitting the bat before it went through to the keeper and it would have been a farce had the umpire ruled him not out on the basis of HOTSPOT.Can't say the same about Ajmal though. He was clearly not out.

  • IndiaNumeroUno on January 21, 2012, 18:38 GMT

    WHERE WAS ANDY FLOWER WHEN DRAVID WAS GIVEN OUT UMPTEEN TIMES, INCORRECTLY, BY DRS??!!!

    Looks like only India play by the "Spirit of the Game" !

    In it's current form, DRS is completely unacceptable.

    BCCI has been right all along about DRS... it's about time people started looking beyond personal grudges against BCCI and analyse DRS independently, and about what really needs to be done to start using it compulsorily.

  • yorkshirematt on January 21, 2012, 18:29 GMT

    Even I'm annoyed at this. Suddenly after a bad decision the england set up have "reservations" about the DRS. I am still all for it.

  • on January 21, 2012, 18:25 GMT

    The English talk about DRS only when the chips are down. Flower is no exception. And Bob Willis talks about Ajmal's teesra and full sleeves when the English team is bowled out before reaching 200. Why dont they criticize when they are winning. Spoil sports these Brits !

  • ElvisKing on January 21, 2012, 18:23 GMT

    The problem most of the guys making comments about India's decision about DRS is that India has been saying that since these technology is not perfect they should not be charging exhorbitant fees , $ 55,000 per day! It should be free since they are still in experimental stage, why charge any money when you cannot provide good technology!

    Its like "Blueangle" says Little technological mistakes should be allowed , so in the same breadth, if the Plane has a little technical fault it should be allowed to take off and Crash but they are not allowed to take off anywhere in the world and so India's stance is hundred percent correct.

    Andy Flower and England again go to a Match Refree, an Indian, is unbelievable. How much lower are these guys going to stoop ! Its fortunate that they did not go the Match Refree immediately after Strauss' wicket, but you can rest assured that its going to happen, asking to reverse the Umpire's decision, with Andy Flower and company one of these days.

  • njr1330 on January 21, 2012, 18:14 GMT

    Andy Flower said that the present system needs looking at BECAUSE A PAKISTAN BATSMAN [SAEED AJMAL] WAS WRONGLY GIVEN OUT. Those who are accusing him of whingeing (and yes, it does have an e in it) presumably can't read!

  • Bramblefly on January 21, 2012, 17:58 GMT

    Oh Jonesy. What are you doing on this thread? I first came across you casting your pearls of wisdom over the last Ashes series, attempting to diminish Enlgand's thumping of your team by matching us up against a historic Aussie 11 ("I guarantee you Cook wouldn't average 30 against Lillee, McGrath.." blah, blah). Andy F is a distinguished coach and is entitled to an opinion about DRS just like Mickey, Mohsin, Gary et al. You may not like it but at least have an informed counter view. Whingeing poms? Australian fans of your ilk abandon a losing team faster than you would a burning building. Now head over to the thread on the Adelaide test whenever it appears. On topic, DRS is a great move forward but no hotspot means not out.

  • wrenx on January 21, 2012, 17:35 GMT

    @ Naveed Khan agreed, Ajmal's decision was a howler, Strauss' not so much. Loud sound could only have been bat on ball. DRS debates have some good points, especially when they swing the outcome of a match. In this case, it did not - England didn't play good cricket, and Pakistan did. Flower should focus on getting his team in shape instead of approaching match referees and giving interviews on his "private views" on bowlers' actions. People want to remember a good coach, not someone who whines when his team puts in mediocre performances and can't perform against the first stiff challenge in 2 years.

  • Prasath_Houston on January 21, 2012, 17:23 GMT

    No sport uses assumption to make a decision, let it be Tennis,NFL or anything. How can one assume the bounce and trajectory angle of a ball using hawk-eye and confirm? Apart from hawk-eye DRS can be used and again hotspot/snickometer has to be used together.

  • wrenx on January 21, 2012, 17:17 GMT

    Now that someone from the English camp has finally said what the rest of the world has been saying for months, something might actually get done.

  • FawadRehan on January 21, 2012, 17:14 GMT

    I think a combo of Hotspot with Snicko meter could solve all these issues. I am quite sure Snicko would have proved Strauss's dismissal was correct, there was definitely a noise there...

  • hulk777 on January 21, 2012, 17:08 GMT

    I had mentioned previously, why have only 2 reviews. Instead deduct 6 runs as extras for every unsuccessful reviews . Or atleast after 2 reviews.

  • StatisticsRocks on January 21, 2012, 16:53 GMT

    Oh! Now Mr Flower wants to revist the DRS...hmmmm makes me wonder. We Indians r not agnst DRS but all we r saying is that it is not 100% fool proof. Until the technology is close to a 100% it should not be used as we have seen wrong decisions being given with the DRS not only in this match but in others too. Also if DRS is so reliable why not replace the onf ield umpires completely and just have DRS and the match refree. IF this was coming from someone in India, boy -oh-boy can u have imagined the posts here....The technology is not accurate as it relies on simulations and for example the path the ball might travel is a prediction and true science. Once we use probabilistic approach we always need to have room for errors 1%, 5% ...whatever. I am sure the Models are developed using all thefactors (Wind Speed, Dew, temperature, etc.) to predict the path that the ball might go had it not hit the batsmans pad to decide whether it is an LBW. There r still issues that needs to be adrsd

  • Philip_Gnana on January 21, 2012, 16:53 GMT

    The TV umpire needs to be correct in his judgement. If only when he himself is unsure with the facts that is presented to him, should he revert to the original decision. Here we have a TV umpire who is not using the technology that is available to him. This just defeats the objective. Technology sure has improved in getting more decisions right. If the TV umpire is not going to be logical in his thinking any improvement in technology is not going to help. We need to have proven TV umpires in this job. Otherwise, this position will become a joke. The captains and the batsmen need to be smart enough in making requesting for the review. In the recent matches in SA, we have seen that there had not been many reviews. Which means that the players are being wise and looking at things positively. India for one, have never been good at requesting reviews as they tend to get them wrong, which is one of the reasons they do not like it. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • Sagay-Ed on January 21, 2012, 16:49 GMT

    Any DRS supporter have an answer for below incident: Aus VS WI 2009/2010 season, 2nd test 1st innings. Chanderpaul's dismissal.

    62.3 another loose forward prod from Chanders to one pitching closer to off stump, there's a noise before Haddin collects, no reaction from the umpire and we have a review. For the second time involving Chanderpaul, several replays are reviewed and again Hotspot is inconclusive. Is it bat flipping pad? Australia don't look pleased. Second time Chanders has been involved in a caught-behind review. Ponting, who asked for the review, leads the celebrations when the outcome is OUT. Hotspot didn't show anything but the review works for the Australians this time. Chanders is gone for a fighting 62. The bowling change works and a dangerous stand is snapped. This one was far less convincing that the first appeal last session. Chanders shakes his head and walks off. Crucial breakthrough from Watson. 235/4

  • Tlotoxl on January 21, 2012, 16:46 GMT

    Blueangle has got it exacly right *BOTH THESE MISTAKES WERE BY THE UMPIRE NOT DRS* how many times has a good decision been made a bad decision by DRS? anybody going to give any examples examples at all? OTOH there has been hundreds if not thousands of bad decisions beeen made good, DRS is a good idea, a good addition to Cricket, it may just need a few minor tweaks.

  • Deepfreezed on January 21, 2012, 16:42 GMT

    typical Eng approach. it's not working our way, change it to fit our needs.

  • rahulcricket007 on January 21, 2012, 16:30 GMT

    WELL , WELL ANDY FLOWER SAYS THAT ENG PLAYERS DIDN'T PLAY COMPETITVE CRICKET FOR 3-4 MONTHS THAT 'S WHY THEY WERE NOT READY . SEEMS LIKE FLOWER HAS LEARN THE ART OF MAKING EXCUSE FROM DHONI . LIKE DHONI SAID DURING THE ENG TOUR ," WE R PLAYING CONTINOUS CRICKET . OUR PLAYERS WERE INJURED ."

  • Sarfin on January 21, 2012, 16:29 GMT

    As there was no conclusive evidence, field umpire's decision stood. That's quite fair for me. DRS doesn't change any correct decision. Without DRS, still it would be a wrong decision. DRS will never be 100% accurate. No technology is. Even in case of marginal run out or stamping, sometimes normal replays create controversy. Still we are happy with that because a second look gives a better perception. Same goes to DRS. Leave ego and be practical. If DRS changes a correct decision by on field umpire, I'll oppose it. Till then it's ok.

  • rahulcricket007 on January 21, 2012, 16:20 GMT

    WHEN INDIA REFUSED TO USE HAWK EYE IN ENG TOUR THEN ALL THE FORMER ENGLISH PLAYERS LIKE BOYCOTT , LYOD , BOTHAM OPENLY CRITICIZE BCCI FOR THIS . I STILL REMEMBER DURING THE OVAL TEST WHERE RAINA SCORED A 29 BALL DUCK , WHEN SWANN APPEALED TWICE FOR LBW BUT UMPIRE TURN IT DOWN THEN SWANN WAS REACTING ANGRY & ENGLISH CROWD WAS BOOING ON SURESH RAINA . NOW WHAT HAPPENS?????? THE SAME SNAKE ( DRS) BITES YOU .

  • kiranphy on January 21, 2012, 16:18 GMT

    hey@ 5wombats grow up, math referees are not taking umpiring decisions. his duty is to run everything smoothly. Umpires are there to take decisions like to give out or not. So understand the system and then talk. and leave jelously about india.

  • Crikoot on January 21, 2012, 16:15 GMT

    Flower has a point when he said," The England players' long break from their last Test - in August against India - might have been a contributory factor in this defeat." I hope that doesn't sound like excuse-making but it is part of the reason," he said. "Some have had two months off cricket, some as much as four months off, so that could be part of the reason we underperformed so badly in this Test. " So, when Bangladesh does badly in any match after playing each test after long breaks--why then; whole world joins the band wagon to criticize them? Flower is also right when he wants to review the DRS protocol. The simple idea is to give benefit of doubt in favor of the batsman when there is no inconclusive evidence to overturn umpire's decision--not the other way. In justice system, verdict goes in favor of defendant when there is no proof found beyond reasonable doubt. The same spirit should be applied in cricket. DRS is great -- all we need to adjust it with for right reason.

  • zubair67 on January 21, 2012, 16:11 GMT

    Andy Flower sounds a bit honest.......Umm

  • La_Bangla on January 21, 2012, 16:05 GMT

    @Akhtar Hassan - Could you explain your comments as you seem to contradicting yourself. I am more and more convince that Indian's concerns are valid. I have seen batsmen given out in England eventhough Hotspot didn't show anything. And it was claimed then that Hotspot missed it but there was some deflection. How can that be explained now? The fact is English bunch gets very loud when things go against them, whether it's Saeed Ajmal's action or Strauss's dismissal..

  • shamlaatu on January 21, 2012, 16:04 GMT

    If Dhoni is SO against the use of technology then he should have an iota of shame NOT to ask for a third umpir's decision when he makes a close stumping call from behind the stumps. 'Use of technology' is after all 'use of technology', isn't it?

  • blind_gypsy on January 21, 2012, 16:04 GMT

    Ajmal was baltantly not out from the normal replay. Strauss was blatantly out. Maybe Flower should get his eyesight and hearing checked. If you listen to the radio commentators they said the same I as did. On the slo mo you can see a very slight change in hotspot on the bat after impact. It is very faint but it is there.

  • rkannancrown on January 21, 2012, 15:43 GMT

    Once again, the problems with the DRS technology are sought to be brushed aside. It is far from acceptable level for international matches but is being forced down the cricketing nations. BCCI is the only board adopting a logical approach but most other boards are just using this as an excuse to indulge in BCCI bashing. Apart from these bloomers, nobody wants to discuss the ease with which this technology can be manipulated.

  • Andy1102 on January 21, 2012, 15:41 GMT

    @Akhtar Hassan I agree with you 100%, why do Indian fans have such a victim mentality, grow up! The article clearly states that Flower thought Saeed Ajmal's dismissal was worse than Srauss', and that he wasn't querying DRS but the manner in which decisions are made. DRS is here to stay get used to it.

  • Naseer.HKG on January 21, 2012, 14:48 GMT

    Remember the good old days when empires decision was FINAL unless Fielding captain withdraws the appeal. Well friends on fields umpire's decision is STILL Final, Unless changed by third umpire with the help from DRS.

    In both Ajmal and Strauss's case in this test, Third umpire was not able to find or offer a CONCLUSIVE evidence to the on field umpire to CHANGE his Decision. Thus the On-field Umpires decision STANDS. Remember that it's the on-field Umpires ORIGINAL Decision that is Being Challenged.

  • samincolumbia on January 21, 2012, 14:35 GMT

    HAHA....Now Andy wants a rethink!! Till now, they wanted to force ICC to implement DRS without any discussion whatsoever and ignoring BCCI's legitimate concerns!!

    Why do the english coach/players try to intimidate the match referee when a decision does not go their way!! Was he trying to bully him into siding with England when the next time Strauss gets out the same way!! Can we say Hypo...!!

  • jonesy2 on January 21, 2012, 14:27 GMT

    whats with england and just wingeing about everyone. its embarrassing to honest. flower and strauss are complete jokes

  • charlesandrewbudge on January 21, 2012, 14:09 GMT

    @Matt - Every side does, the Australians are experts at it. Remember Ponting bleating when he was run out by a substitute in 2005? Or when he, of all people, criticised James Anderson's sledging on the most recent Ashes tour? Flower's absolutely right, although it's early days for the technology and it's come a long way since it was first implemented. I don't believe he's making excuses, considering it affected a single dismissal. There nineteen others which were the result of poor batting and nothing more.

  • on January 21, 2012, 14:09 GMT

    Indian stand is 100% wrong. Both the decisions (dismissals of Ajmal and Strauss) went wrong when technology was not fully available.

  • baskar_guha on January 21, 2012, 14:02 GMT

    Reasons not to use DRS system (1) Not independently reviewed - trusting vendor's own review shouldnt count for anything. ICC has blundered in not doing so in the first place. (2) Appeal system favors bowling side more than batting side. Bowlers can pick and choose when to review as they have arbitrary # of balls to get the batsman out while batsmen have to seriously consider reviewing when given out as there are only ten outs per innings.

  • on January 21, 2012, 13:48 GMT

    I don't know why Flower and Strauss are behaving like babies ! During India series they ran to Indian dressing room to overturn Bell's dismissal and now they ran to the match referee. I don't think they consulted officials after Dravid was at the receiving end of DRS. Play better cricket if you want to save your no 1 ranking !

  • heathrf1974 on January 21, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    Players should not been given out if there is no hotspot, period. In a court of law evidence is required to support your conclusions and the rationale for the DRS should be the same.

  • tusharkardile on January 21, 2012, 13:39 GMT

    How quickly these articles vanish from the front page. And how convininently any comments referring BCCI's stance get censored!!!

  • SaneVoice on January 21, 2012, 13:27 GMT

    Double standards Mr. Flower, were you sleeping when the same happened against an Indian? The whole world goes to sleep when Indians are wronged!!! What can one say to such people?

  • Blueangle on January 21, 2012, 13:25 GMT

    No technology is perfect and will never be. Only point is that, with the use of technology, you have better chances of making a correct decision. Lets look at the this test. How many correct decisions were made with the help of technology? MANY..How many incorrect decisions were made with the help of technology? 2-3.. Ajmal and Strauss were give out by field umpire and they were out if there was no DRS, and unfortunately DRS failed to correct the mistake. Whereas Many LBW in the match were not give the field umpires but DRS showed that batsmen were out and right decision was made. Problem with indians is ego, not the use of technology. They should stop flying because their is a chance of plan crash, stop riding cars, stop using computers because all these technologies are not perfect, they have flaws

  • Snick_To_Backward_Point on January 21, 2012, 13:25 GMT

    kiranphy - when was Flower 'begging?' he's correctly pointed out that both the AJMAL and Strauss decisions were dubious to say the least. All he was seeking was an EXPLANATION. Why don't you actually read the article properly before making a comment? If something is clearly wrong with the DRS process are you suggesting we should ignore it - or not ask how it can be improved?

  • arifbag123 on January 21, 2012, 13:18 GMT

    i think andy flower is right in strauss case there was no evidence in hot spot so how umpire given him out

  • tahir989 on January 21, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    Well he has a point and if today Eng, tomorrow Pak would have gotten a wrong decision. Well , they got in form on Ajmal. Anyways, it would be nice if rules are re-written and benefit of doubt as always should go to the batsmen regardless.

  • on January 21, 2012, 13:09 GMT

    Flower is a joke. He wasn't doing much complaining when DRS was working in his favour last summer. Dravid was given out when there was no evidence that he nicked the ball at the Oval. Pietersen was reprieved at 49 at Lords when all the evidence pointed to a clean catch. Pietersen as you remember went on to score a double hundred which changed the course of the match and possibly the series. Then there was the whole Laxman, hot spot and Vaseline incident. Perhaps Srinath thought that Strauss had greased his bat with Vaseline. The whole reason the BCCI refuse to accept the system is that DRS is not foolproof and if it not foolproof what is the point in using it. Flower is also claiming that England were undercooked well everyone can come up with excuse when playing away from home .The real reason that England are up against it is that their bowlers are not bowling on doctored green tops with Duke balls and their batsmen struggle against quality spin bowling.

  • miafridi on January 21, 2012, 13:09 GMT

    DRS are helpful, they shouldn't be considered as full proof but yet they are necessary as they help in many cases and if in some cases they don't help then ultimately the Umpire decision stands.. So DRS are important. If they help in 8 out of 10 cases and don't help in 2 out of 10 cases(where the umpire decision stands) so why criticizing DRS. Instead it is doing good by giving 8 decisions right. As far as the 2 out of 10 failed decisions are concerned they are ultimately umpires decisions(with or without DRS what difference does it make). So DRS are good in providing 8 out of 10 decisions right.

  • bobmartin on January 21, 2012, 13:06 GMT

    To those questioning why the Dravid decision wasn't queried, I suggest you just check the playing conditions regarding the DRS, which appear to have changed since that incident. Previous use of the DRS was to get the right decision, irrespective of how the on-field umpire had ruled. Now the on-field umpire's decsion is only changed if there is conclusive evidence to show that a wrong decision had been made. Therefore, as happened particulary in the cases of Ajmal and Straus, given the lack of such evidence, in accordance with the ICC's instructions, the third umpire had no option but to support blatant howlers by Billy Bowden. That is not the fault of either the DRS or the third umpire, but the ridiculous instructions by the ICC as to how the DRS evidence or lack of it, is to be interpreted. Everyone was of the impression that DRS was there to protect the players from injustice, but it appears that it is now being used to protect the umpires as was proved by the two injustices.

  • Azharnadeem on January 21, 2012, 13:06 GMT

    Why is it that whatever English cricketers lose they make excuses. When Pakistani cricketers invented reverse swing it was branded as cheating but when the same cheating is done by an english bowler it is called an art. They are no better than Indian side who cannot succeed without the help of local conditions. At the moment only Australia can boast as the world no. 1 in the true sense of the word.

  • BoonBoom on January 21, 2012, 13:02 GMT

    Mr Flower: Why don't you just accept the fact that you were beaten by a better team. This is not in the true spirit of the game that you find something and someone to blame for your disgraceful defeat inside three days? When you were winning you had no problem with DRS but just one defeat and you find flaws with the DRS.... Amazing!!

  • khurramsch on January 21, 2012, 12:57 GMT

    agree with him . actually its not the technology its the rules to use it which always comes up with such things. the rule for hot spot says that if 3rd umpire find clear evidence then he will change decision otherwise stay with onfiled umpires decision. in straus case this applies as hotspot was not clear so 3rd umpire stayed with billy. A doubtful decision ofcourse. in ajmals case hotspot was not clear but replays showed it wasnt out but 3rd umpire has followed rules of hotspot instead of commmon sense to stay with onfiled. so its rules which need slighlty mprovements. & yes agree that atleast in such cases the review should not be considered as wasted & they should not count it as review used.

  • on January 21, 2012, 12:50 GMT

    I think we should get rid of the Third Umpire altogether and give 3D visualisation glasses to the Umpires on field, so that they can review the delivery again with Hot spot, Hawk-eye and Snicko and then they can adjudge it themselves making the game go alot quicker, and give back the power to the onfield umpires, could do the same for run-outs too!

  • SagirParkar on January 21, 2012, 12:48 GMT

    well, Dravid suffered a calamity similar to Strauss when batting in the ODIs in England.. he was given out when hotspot didnt show a, well you know hot spot.. but there was sound and Ian gould, the 3rd ump gave that as out.. so it appears that the criteria are being applied consistently.. and Flower here is right to ask for a review.. after all, DRS is there to enable umpires to make the right decisions but its current implementation is a farce !

  • Zahidsaltin on January 21, 2012, 12:36 GMT

    It is a bit tricky thing this Hotspot. Some times the woody sound is very clear and from the impact you can even see the ball changing its rotation moves but even then Hotspot is unable to show anything. Other times you do not have camera angles in the required positions like when the ball has possibly touched inside of the bat.

  • Sports4Youth on January 21, 2012, 12:28 GMT

    @ skumar8494 .. You are absolutely right. long live the BCCI. After all the BCCI has been proven right.

  • Sports4Youth on January 21, 2012, 12:27 GMT

    @ Si Baker .. you are absolutely right. in both these decisions DRS did not make any difference to the umpiring error.

  • Sports4Youth on January 21, 2012, 12:24 GMT

    Yes, i agree with Flower. The Third Umpire should be asked to apply more of the Spirit of the law (Common Sense Justice) as we could clearly see in the case of Ajmal, instead of sticking to the letter of the law more emphasis should be given to the spirit of the law. Also i agree in this case was the Hop Spot cameras were found to be deficient then the review should not have been counted as used. After all there was no fault of Ajmal.

  • on January 21, 2012, 12:23 GMT

    No.. its no good for pakistan if DRS removed ,because pakistan players never get fair decisions from empires!!!

  • Thandiwe on January 21, 2012, 12:16 GMT

    Its about time that the review rules be criticize. They make very little sense if we want to get it more right than wrong.

    Why not let the third umpire determine if the review is lost, he should do so based on the closeness of the review. In addition, an umpire should be able to ask for a third umpire assistance on any appeal and not have to wait on the players. Finally, if the decision is right let it stick, if it is wrong change it, if it cannot be proven right or wrong, then squash it as well.

  • A.Ak on January 21, 2012, 11:51 GMT

    England team are allowed question anything when they want, not their opponents. That will be considered against the spirit of cricket.

  • zoot on January 21, 2012, 11:50 GMT

    The DRS rules seem inconsistent. The umpire was overturned when Misbah was given out and that was exremely marginal on line and yet Ajmal was given out when there was clear daylight between the bat/glove and the ball.

  • on January 21, 2012, 11:45 GMT

    skumar8494 and kiranphy need to remember that Dravid was given out during the England tour because he DID NOT review his caught behind decision. He obviously heard the noise and felt bat vibration and just walked upon being given out, so how you think that the 3rd Umpire, UDRS or the England management were meant to reinstate him from this situation is don't know?! Perhaps you should stop criticizing others for this and ask the BCCI why they won't employ a team shoelace tie-er for your batsmen who are obviously now too old to bend over and do it themselves?! ;) PS - Dravid is all class and a wonderful rolemodel... perhaps another reason why he feels uncomfortable challenging the standing umpire's decisions...

  • on January 21, 2012, 11:26 GMT

    @Atrivedi, Kiranphy, Skumar & the other Indian trolls: you're absolutely right, of course: the ONE dubious DRS decision that went against Dravid was directly responsible for India losing all four Tests by margins of, respectively, 196 runs, 319 runs, an innings & 242 runs, & an innings & 8 runs. The injustice of it all! :~)

  • tusharkardile on January 21, 2012, 11:05 GMT

    now imagine if it was BCCI who had said this!

  • raheesfayaz on January 21, 2012, 10:54 GMT

    DRS is hot topic, well in Pakistan , England match Umpire got one wrong for Pakistan when Saeed Ajmal given out and than one of Engalnd DRS is make sure be get batter result but when they increases more problem it should not be there i think we should go back to old fashion where umpire decide faith of players , by saying that i must have to admit it increases the drama in the game and is more fun when every one look closely toward replay to judge . Rahees Fayaz UK , Bradford

  • Herath-UK on January 21, 2012, 10:38 GMT

    What Andy says is what we all want ,an effective DRS system with proper guidelines.A similar incident happened when I think Samaraweera was given out on mere presence of a sound on passing the bat in the SA series..Either All accept it all All reject it;not moaning when you are affected only. Ranil Herath -Kent

  • on January 21, 2012, 10:20 GMT

    I'm impressed with the way Flower has reacted to the umpiring errors in the Dubai Test. If he had been Ravi Shastri or Sunil Gavaskar, he would have been crying on Strauss' caught behind decision, but he admitted that Ajmal's decision was even worse than the one Strauss got. However, I believe that the English captain could have changed the game with the bat and his dismissal was more crucial in the context of the game. I hope that such errors are not repeated in the remaining series.

  • on January 21, 2012, 10:10 GMT

    I concur with the statements of Andy Flower, Technology should be used, Period. However the way technology is used can be improved, and in all likely hood will be. However bad decisions are part of the game and living with getting the short end of the stick without too much fuss is what sportsman spirit is all about in the first place.

    Also the reasons for English defeat are valid too(Although Pakistan were superb in the match first and foremost) so i while i think Pakistani fans have every right to celebrate and toot their own horn for the first game they have to remember that England are still the # 1 team in the world and will continue to be (even if they lose 3-0) and please don't be like the Indian fans and say that England don't deserve to be # 1, they DO!

    Again Best of Luck to Pakistan for the series i am getting goosebumps just thinking what if... 2-0 sounds soooooooo Kawaiiiii!

    Love and prayers for Pakistan team <3

  • on January 21, 2012, 9:50 GMT

    He is right. But DRS still relatively a new technology so with time it will get more mature.

  • on January 21, 2012, 8:56 GMT

    "I think Ajmal's dismissal was worse than Strauss" well it wasn't actually a bigger dismissal but i hope such good gestures keep coming from both the sides. i don't think Javed Miandad's has really contributed towards a better relationship between both the teams. would surely love to see a better competition in the upcoming test matches..........

  • KarachiKid on January 21, 2012, 8:44 GMT

    He has a point here. Fully fully agreed. At least the reveiwing team should not lose its reveiw in such cases because its not reveiwing team's fault that technology was not complete enough to fully check their claim.

  • kiranphy on January 21, 2012, 8:34 GMT

    why he didnt inquired when dravid was given out without any hot spot evidence in ind vs eng series.

  • 5wombats on January 21, 2012, 8:27 GMT

    Javagal Srinath - a match referee! No wonder he made a "mistake". The Strauss decision was, frankly, amazing. The review is there to CONFIRM that the ball hit the bat. Strauss called for the review which DID NOT CONFIRM that the ball hit his bat. Therefore, to give him out was a staggering decision. There is this long-standing thing in cricket umpiring called "giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt". That should have happened here, but for some mysterious reason this time it didn't. Obviously there will be a million india "fans" on here howling now about how DRS. Again. They will also claim that Flower is making excuses, even though he isn't. The thing is, England are beaten in Test Matches so rarely (unbeaten home and away for whole of 2011), when we are beaten, it takes a good side, like Pakistan, to do it. All 5 of us think the Strauss decision made no difference to the outcome of the match. Once again, well played Pakistan. No excuses.

  • kiranphy on January 21, 2012, 8:23 GMT

    why English players, captain and their coaches starts begging the opposition captain match referee and umpires either to change the decision or seek explanations

  • S_Nath on January 21, 2012, 8:22 GMT

    Now the cat is out of the bag, during India's series in England, Dravid was given out twice by the third umpire when the hot spot did not show anything. Similarly, Suresh Raina was given out stumped by the third umpire where the benefit of doubt should have been given to the batsman. I wish the Indian coach/Manager also had highlighted these mistakes as justification for not accepting DRS. Even for LBW decisions in DRS, there is no proof that the trajectory given by DRS is correct since it is all based on assumptions since the natual travel of ball stopped at the point of hitting the pad. Rest all are extrapolation by technology and cannot be relied as truth since the late swing of ball etc can change direction depending on atmospheric conditions.

  • on January 21, 2012, 5:48 GMT

    The only real problem with DRS is that it isn't *entirely* foolproof: as the decisions given against Hafeez, Ajmal & Strauss proved, it's only as foolproof as the fools who administer it.

  • on January 21, 2012, 5:41 GMT

    This is what Dhoni was commenting on when he said: "Technology corrupted by human judgement". Neither here nor there! After two years of Dhoni's statement Flower is saying the same thing. It looks, you wake up when it hurts you. Either way -- for UDRS.,...or, against UDRS! It is funny, really! Personally, I feel UDRS is in the right direction. But, the field umpire who took the wrong decision should have the honesty and professional integrity to reverse the decision, after seeing the replays. This is particularly so, when the third umpire washes his hands off, quoting the small print..."NO conclusive evidence to reverse the field umpire's decision" . That feed-back from upstairs need not -- nay , should not -- mean that the wrong decision stays. When common man can see the obvious error, an experienced field umpire definitely can. I am waiting to see who would be the first field umpire to demonstrate that honesty and integrity. Let us wait and see.

  • Romenevans on January 21, 2012, 5:39 GMT

    """""The England coach visited the match referee Javagal Srinath in the latter stages of the Test to seek an explanation after England captain Andrew Strauss was adjudged to have been caught behind, even though there was no evidence from hot spot that he had hit the ball."""" .....Why didnt he seek an explanation when Dravid was declared out 2-3 times when the hotspot went coldspot and showed nothing? Zimbabwean turned poms are a lot more funnier than real poms lol.

  • texan_karthik on January 21, 2012, 5:31 GMT

    Look who is talking now....that is what BCCI and INDIA were telling the whole world that DRS is not good enough in it's current form. The 2.5 m rule for lbw and umpires decision stays and things like that. This is what M S Dhoni said during the world cup 2011 that it should be either technology or human decision and both should not be mixed to get the decision. BCCI fills ICC's coffins and they have every right to deny any waste of money by the ICC. It's really laughable that only 2 decisions can be reviewed in an innings by a team. How can any one guarantee that an umpire commits only 2 mistakes in an innings.Remember the SydneyGate 2008 which had at least 10 wrong decisions in the match in which case DRS would not be any good. DRS is waste of money and nothinf else.

  • skumar8494 on January 21, 2012, 5:08 GMT

    While Rahul Dravid given out in England without evidence why this same Andy Flower not ask the match referee. I think the India stand in DRS is 100% correct. Bcs DRS is not 100% fool proof.

  • on January 21, 2012, 5:07 GMT

    How can we be so sure that the technology is superior than the human senses at all times! Couldn't there be instances where an Umpire on ground sees an angle or a frame which a camera misses to capture?

  • on January 21, 2012, 5:02 GMT

    Ofcourse - when England loses even a good system needs a review, if England won and Pakistan asked for a review of DRS, English would say, this is part of the game, move on. England's no1 ranking is biased - losing a test match within 3 days.

  • dockhaul4 on January 21, 2012, 4:42 GMT

    why every losing team criticizes DRS and technology ? i think here is the case of sour grapes

  • on January 21, 2012, 3:55 GMT

    Both these decisions were retained because no conclusive evidence wasn't found to overturn umpire's decision....but in that case what about benefit of doubt to bastsman...I personally think Andrew Strauss should have been given benefit of doubt...Ajmal's decision was surely a mistake...

  • jmcilhinney on January 21, 2012, 3:40 GMT

    I agree with Andy Flower on the DRS situation. There's no way Ajmal was out and it appeared most likely that Strauss wasn't out either. The front-on replay showed the ball didn't hit Ajmal's bat and the side-on replay showed that the ball didn't hit the glove. The Strauss replays showed that the noise occurred when the ball passed the thigh pad, not the bat. I have no issue with the technology, just the rules around how it's used. As for England being rusty, that may be a factor, although it is odd that it didn't seem to affect the bowlers too much. I guess the difference is that a batsman only gets once chance and if he makes a mistake he's gone, while a bowler can bowl a shocker but he gets to bowl again straight after. That said, the bowlers seemed to bat better than the batsmen too. Whatever the reason for the poor batting I hope they get over it. I accept that they batted poorly but I don't accept that they're not able to bat well in these conditions... yet.

  • atrivedi101 on January 21, 2012, 3:25 GMT

    England questioning the DRS system? Isn't that a disgrace, Mr Naser Husain? Did not hear Flower questioning it when Dravid was given out 2-3 times under the same conditions?

  • on January 21, 2012, 3:18 GMT

    Andy flower has said that 'because England players did not play competitive cricket for 4 months, probably they were not ready'. Is that an excuse? Yes i think it is an excuse.They knew they were going to play series against Pakistan. Who stopped them to start their preparations earlier? The fact is that they are good at home but in these conditions they are not ready to play competitive cricket. Nasser hussain said that England is always ready during big ocassions. May be because the stadium was empty that is why it did not excite them and they did not play to their potential. What a crap by Nasser. If playing for your country is not a big ocassion for you than you should stop playing cricket. Plus look at the record of England in subcontinent. If that does not motivate you, what will? People are looking at you as no. 1 team. If that does not motivate you, what will?

  • KingOwl on January 21, 2012, 2:51 GMT

    "I hope that doesn't sound like excuse-making but it is part of the reason," he said. Loser!

  • iBilal on January 21, 2012, 2:27 GMT

    agree with Andy. Technology is good, but the way it is used, needs to be reviewed. DRS should not be used by umpires to save their ego but rather to have correct decisions. Like Aleem Dar said, "I would be rather happy with my decision being correctly over-turned than wrongly upheld"

  • Matt. on January 21, 2012, 0:58 GMT

    england sure do winge when things don't go their way. reminds me of when bell got run out against india..... flower and strauss went to cry outside india's dressing room until they got their way

  • jattkadanda on January 21, 2012, 0:51 GMT

    there are fixers in the team, their action is wrong, now drs is wrong..whats next. uae is too dusty for English team.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 21, 2012, 0:41 GMT

    Yet another question mark on DRS and rightly so.

  • on January 21, 2012, 0:37 GMT

    Fowler should learn to give some credit to the opponents, it will not belittle him, but enhance his reputation as a Cricket Statesman. He should worry about England Bowling. With two poor decisions in favor of his team (Ajmal and Hafeez), Pakistan still batted for 120 overs. Any team that bats 120 overs seldom loses a Test Match. Does England have the bowling strength to bowl out Pakistan twice? I seriously doubt it. Also, Andy you have such a great reputation, why spoil it be making "Excuses". You are right on DRS. I do not think that Strauss decision was a "Howler", however, I believe that Ajmal was definitely a "Howler".

  • billy_bilal on January 21, 2012, 0:25 GMT

    I think at the end of the day it all depends on competency of the umpires. With really good umpires like Aleem Dar, with or without DRS, there is rarely any controversy about dismissals. whereas, with some other umpires when it comes to close ones, even with the DRS, wrong decisions are made. Strauss and Ajmal would have been given not out for sure. Umpire needs to go by the obvious and use common sense rather than seeking too much evidence.A batsman could be unsure when he is taking review for LBW, but for an edge one, he knows more than anyone else.so when he goes for a review for an edge, it must be a clue for the umpires that they have made a wrong decision. and then if technology supports his judgment to some extent then reverse the decision, rather than looking for absolute 120% evidence.

  • danpaul on January 21, 2012, 0:23 GMT

    Rules should not be changed to let one team win. DRS is a tool that provides additional information, like replay, sound, hot spot etc. based on that the decision can be rechecked. It is not the name of hot spot only, but hot spot is just one of the few other additional information that is available to the umpire, if required. Andrew Struass case showed a BIG SOUND, and that information cannot be ignored. Even if hot sport failed to catch the hot point, it did not show any hot point either on the bat nor on the body. Sound, solid woody sound, was more than enough to rule the decision correct. Why would a third umpire ignore such an evidence for something the camera did not pick? In case of Hafeez's LBW, the ball clearly hit the pad outside the off stump. Somehow, Steve Davis used it as an evidence to give him out. It only shows his incompetence. In case of Ajmal, the ball did not touch anything. This evidence was ignored by Steve Davis. His credibility is at stake!

  • wristy on January 21, 2012, 0:23 GMT

    Haha...where is Tony Greig? Him and a lot of people love to have a go at India for not using the DRS. I hope Tony Greig reads this, he is from England. People keep talking about technology and questions why India doesnt use the technology and how they still live in the stone age. Haha. What do you all say now? It is better to get out against a bad umpiring decision than getting out against a bad technology. Simple as that.

  • Flat_Track_bullies on January 21, 2012, 0:17 GMT

    Was it really a shock Mr Flower? No surprises to any Englishman who knows their team, or to anyone from subcontinent even - because its a common knowledge english struggle outside england - last performance in australia was a one-off built against the weakest australian team for a very long time...england wont be no 1 by end of this year - mark my words!!

  • on January 21, 2012, 0:14 GMT

    Completely agree with Mr.Flower here !!

  • on January 21, 2012, 0:02 GMT

    England did bat particularly poorly, the bowling good better as the innings progressed but England certainly look rusty and appear to be playing from memory than any real rhythm but there are no excuses for failure, sort it out... that was not the performance of the England team we've seen over the past couple of years, foreign conditions or not, vested interest in England losing or not it's they played at a fraction of their ability.

  • sfjamal on January 21, 2012, 0:02 GMT

    I have no respect for Andy Flower. Read the column on Telegraph.uk where he is questioning Ajmal's bowling action and refused to accept the decision. Such a whiner. Cant believe English Coach have no back bone to accept that they were beaten by Pakistan comprehensively in every department. jan 25th will be another blow in his face. Inshallah

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • sfjamal on January 21, 2012, 0:02 GMT

    I have no respect for Andy Flower. Read the column on Telegraph.uk where he is questioning Ajmal's bowling action and refused to accept the decision. Such a whiner. Cant believe English Coach have no back bone to accept that they were beaten by Pakistan comprehensively in every department. jan 25th will be another blow in his face. Inshallah

  • on January 21, 2012, 0:02 GMT

    England did bat particularly poorly, the bowling good better as the innings progressed but England certainly look rusty and appear to be playing from memory than any real rhythm but there are no excuses for failure, sort it out... that was not the performance of the England team we've seen over the past couple of years, foreign conditions or not, vested interest in England losing or not it's they played at a fraction of their ability.

  • on January 21, 2012, 0:14 GMT

    Completely agree with Mr.Flower here !!

  • Flat_Track_bullies on January 21, 2012, 0:17 GMT

    Was it really a shock Mr Flower? No surprises to any Englishman who knows their team, or to anyone from subcontinent even - because its a common knowledge english struggle outside england - last performance in australia was a one-off built against the weakest australian team for a very long time...england wont be no 1 by end of this year - mark my words!!

  • wristy on January 21, 2012, 0:23 GMT

    Haha...where is Tony Greig? Him and a lot of people love to have a go at India for not using the DRS. I hope Tony Greig reads this, he is from England. People keep talking about technology and questions why India doesnt use the technology and how they still live in the stone age. Haha. What do you all say now? It is better to get out against a bad umpiring decision than getting out against a bad technology. Simple as that.

  • danpaul on January 21, 2012, 0:23 GMT

    Rules should not be changed to let one team win. DRS is a tool that provides additional information, like replay, sound, hot spot etc. based on that the decision can be rechecked. It is not the name of hot spot only, but hot spot is just one of the few other additional information that is available to the umpire, if required. Andrew Struass case showed a BIG SOUND, and that information cannot be ignored. Even if hot sport failed to catch the hot point, it did not show any hot point either on the bat nor on the body. Sound, solid woody sound, was more than enough to rule the decision correct. Why would a third umpire ignore such an evidence for something the camera did not pick? In case of Hafeez's LBW, the ball clearly hit the pad outside the off stump. Somehow, Steve Davis used it as an evidence to give him out. It only shows his incompetence. In case of Ajmal, the ball did not touch anything. This evidence was ignored by Steve Davis. His credibility is at stake!

  • billy_bilal on January 21, 2012, 0:25 GMT

    I think at the end of the day it all depends on competency of the umpires. With really good umpires like Aleem Dar, with or without DRS, there is rarely any controversy about dismissals. whereas, with some other umpires when it comes to close ones, even with the DRS, wrong decisions are made. Strauss and Ajmal would have been given not out for sure. Umpire needs to go by the obvious and use common sense rather than seeking too much evidence.A batsman could be unsure when he is taking review for LBW, but for an edge one, he knows more than anyone else.so when he goes for a review for an edge, it must be a clue for the umpires that they have made a wrong decision. and then if technology supports his judgment to some extent then reverse the decision, rather than looking for absolute 120% evidence.

  • on January 21, 2012, 0:37 GMT

    Fowler should learn to give some credit to the opponents, it will not belittle him, but enhance his reputation as a Cricket Statesman. He should worry about England Bowling. With two poor decisions in favor of his team (Ajmal and Hafeez), Pakistan still batted for 120 overs. Any team that bats 120 overs seldom loses a Test Match. Does England have the bowling strength to bowl out Pakistan twice? I seriously doubt it. Also, Andy you have such a great reputation, why spoil it be making "Excuses". You are right on DRS. I do not think that Strauss decision was a "Howler", however, I believe that Ajmal was definitely a "Howler".

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 21, 2012, 0:41 GMT

    Yet another question mark on DRS and rightly so.

  • jattkadanda on January 21, 2012, 0:51 GMT

    there are fixers in the team, their action is wrong, now drs is wrong..whats next. uae is too dusty for English team.