South Africa v Pakistan, 1st Test, Johannesburg, 2nd day February 2, 2013

Warning signs and mixed signals

Plays of the Day from the second day of the first Test between South Africa and Pakistan at the Wanderers
  shares 40

Warning of the day
Pakistan ended the first day satisfied with their performance but knowing that a solid start on the second morning would be crucial. If they thought they could have it all their way, they were made to revise that opinion in the second over. Dale Steyn set up Mohammed Hafeez with a stunner that swerved away after pitching slightly short on middle. The next ball was fuller, with just as much movement and Hafeez couldn't help but nibble. He got a thin edge through to AB de Villiers to spark what became an almighty collapse.

Controversy of the day
Where there is DRS, there will be debate and another one was sparked today. When Jacques Kallis appealed against Misbah-ul-Haq in what he thought was a caught behind case, few were convinced. De Villiers did not even go up at first and merely tossed the ball to first slip. South Africa decided to review and, as it did yesterday against Faf du Plessis, the Hot Spot camera revealed only a tiny mark that disappeared in an instant. On the first day, that was deemed insufficient evidence to overturn the on-field not-out decision against du Plessis; on the second day, the opposite was the case. Misbah had to leave but he did so grudgingly while in the changing room Dav Whatmore, Pakistan's coach, held out his arms in disbelief.

Wasted wicket of the day
Perilously placed at 39 for 5, Pakistan could not afford to throw any opportunity away but Asad Shafiq did just that. When Vernon Philander was brought back for a second spell, he began loosely with a wide delivery that could so easily have been left alone. Shafiq reached for it as he tried to drive through the off side and got an edge through to de Villiers. With no referrals, he had to walk off. To make things worse, two balls later Umar Gul did exactly the same thing.

Number of the day
The South African attack have made a habit out of bowling teams out for under 50. First, they skittled Australia for 47 at Newlands, then New Zealand for 45 at the same venue and now Pakistan for 49 at the Wanderers. At 40 for 7 at lunch time, Pakistan still had ambitions of avoiding the same fate, but Steyn's three wickets in three overs after the break changed that. The swing king made sure Pakistan got one less run than Kallis did on the first day.

Shot of the day
At first glance, it would seem there weren't too many, especially not from Pakistan, but South Africa's batsmen put on a much more measured display. De Villiers played a stroke to marvel at when he danced down the track to Saeed Ajmal, who did not cause as much trouble as was expected, and bisected Hashim Amla's legs with a straight drive that had the poise of a ballerina and the posture of one too. That stroke took South Africa to 122 for 3 and the lead to 326.

Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Meety on February 3, 2013, 0:18 GMT

    There are problems with UDRS but is NOT the technology - it is the application. If Petersen was not out on Day 1, Misbah should of been not out Day 2. The application of benefit if the doubt has been really haphazzard of late & I recomend the ICC give more training to International umpires who officiate in the 3rd Umpire box. Whilst it wasn't really costly, recently Clint McKay was given not out by the on-field umpire, the decision was overturned with snick-o-meter when it didn't APPEAR to line up with the ball passing the bat. Fortunately it was only a 1-dayer & we were going to be beat anyway. This is a Test match, & the benefit of the doubt should of been FAIRLY given to Misbah. Whilst Pakistan were in a massive hole anyway & probably would lose from where they were, Misbah may of gotten Pakistan close & put pressure back on Sth Africa? The inconsistancy in interpretation is the problem. I have no problems in Misbah being given out, if Petersen had been - its about consistancy.

  • Harmony111 on February 3, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    I am afariad most of the ppl here who are pro-DRS seem to be having some diff. in grasping the diff between howlers & marginal ones and keep repeating their arguments all the time and sometimes add the Embrace-Technology argument to sound more cool. I have seen this in the past too - ask these ppl to talk about DRS per se and not about BCCI vs Technology then they have few answers to talk about DRS. Will the pro-DRS ppl show me a peer reviewed study of the components of DRS or should we simply believe the manufacturer who would be primarily looking to recover his costs and may inflate his accuracy figures? Will the pro-DRS ppl show me a time & place when DRS was discussed exhaustively by ICC members before they said yes to DRS? As for live usage, it beats me how can ppl STILL be pro-DRS after they've seen DRS behav like this.

    DG & I are saying - Why DRS when it is so exp yet fails on marginal ones and when for howlers we can use slo-mo+common sense.

    May be DRS due to 0 common sense.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 3, 2013, 6:46 GMT

    @Meety, you know it and I know it. I'm not against technology. But I'm against the 'technologies' that form the amusing core of DRS - hot-spot and tracker. ICC needs to answer this: What made them push the entire scenario of LBWs into DRS? What stopped them from using slo-mos for huge inside edge LBWs? Why did they do that? It all feels fishy. Who benefitted undeservingly with such scenarios? Surely the companies who designed these 'technologies'! BTW, on a sidenote, we don't have to get everything correct everytime. From where and when did we start thinking on such bickering lines? Can't we be grown-ups and play cricket and watch cricket instead of bickering that we got a bad decision? We all have accepted uncertainity in cricket from bowlers to batsmen to fielders. Why are we so pre-occupied all of a sudden with umpires getting it right everytime? I shall pull-up umpires only for howlers but not for tough calls. Where's the gentleman's game gone that treats umpires with respect?

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 3, 2013, 6:15 GMT

    My main concern is this - let's not buy this lame argument that DRS is there anyways only to eliminate howlers and that DRS is anyways not for marginals. I don't think we need to go in circles. Technology is welcomed. No questions about that. Hot-spot is a big no no. Tracker is a cracker of a joke. When I say 'technologies' of DRS - I mean those two. Who would say no if we want to invoke slo-mos for huge inside edge LBWs? The bigger question is why didn't they start it yet and tried to push the entire scenario of LBWs into this thingy called DRS? Call it DRS or referral to the third umpire or whatever - just bring the slo-mos for huge inside edge LBWs.

    @clarke501, remove Mark Nicholas and put that SKY mob instead, Nasser and all. Point is the same. Prescribing left, right and center that DRS 'technologies' are dis and dat. And then Mark Nicholas' article was an icing on the cake - "DRS should be used only to keep howlers but not for perfection regarding marginal calls". Seriously?

  • shakil_khan on February 3, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    ICC should take action against third umpire for wrong use of DRS Technology against pakistan team

  • Meety on February 3, 2013, 0:25 GMT

    @mahjut on (February 02 2013, 22:15 PM GMT) - once the technology is mandatory across all Tests/ODIs/T20s (even maybe domestically), the cost will quickly be more affordable, nature of a product cycle.

  • Meety on February 3, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    @Dravid_Gravitas_Statchin_Selfishkar - it is not "stupid" to think that UDRS was brought in to reverse howlers. There have been many incidents in the past where umpire errors (blatant mistakes) have swung matches. The problem we have is, the UDRS is not being implemented correctly. It is clear that in most instances, even the players don't know for sure what is a "good" decision & what is a "bad" decision. IMO - ultimately, UDRS should be in the hands of the 3rd Umpire & in SOME instances referred by the on-field umpire, (the umpire should make an initial decision & then refer). Technology is ultimately here to stay, you can bury your head in the sand, but atm there is only teething issues, not technological issues. The technology will (is) becoming better & once the BCCI join the 21st century, the technology will become more cost effective too.

  • shillingsworth on February 2, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    @Dravid Gravitas - I'm not saying replays changed 'howlers' in the past. Replays did however change perceptions and it was then inevitable that technology would be introduced in some form. Perhaps if you took the trouble to read my responses properly, you'll see that I never mentioned Mark Nicholas (this bizarre obsession fortunately appears unique to you), nor have I actually said that all is right with DRS. There is certainly sense in reviewing the various tools behind it and cutting out the less reliable bits, say Hot Spot and the predicted path. You see 'people like me' can't be pigeonholed as pro or anti DRS and don't blindly accept misleading arguments from the person who shouts loudest. Try it some time.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 23:03 GMT

    @theCricketPurist, you don't need the contents of the 'technology' that are used in DRS to correct glaring errors. Do you? Glaring errors are somethings that are obvious or should be obvious to the naked-eye and or slo-mos. Why the colorful baggage called trackers and hot-spots for glaring errors? Huge inside edge LBW is one such glaring error. You don't need hot-spots there. Do you? By definition, huge inside edge LBW is a howler and it should be clear to any sane mind that we don't need DRS 'technology' contents to decide on that. Yes, of course bring it on, the DRS I mean, in non-hot-spot, non-tracker version. I'll be the first one to oppose BCCI, if they oppose to such a re-arrangement in DRS. As it stands, DRS is a sham, a scam and a crying shame. We have seen many such scams by now, in the name of naivette vs knowledgeable.

  • mahjut on February 2, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    For the record ... The 3rd Umpire made a mistake with Faf yesterday and from what i saw (on a smartphone screen - to be fair), he made a mess of AB today! i am sure of that because the 'technology' says so. So, the DRS needs some work; but it is work on skill/confidence levels of the 3rd Ump - not necessarily any tweaking of the technology itself.

  • Meety on February 3, 2013, 0:18 GMT

    There are problems with UDRS but is NOT the technology - it is the application. If Petersen was not out on Day 1, Misbah should of been not out Day 2. The application of benefit if the doubt has been really haphazzard of late & I recomend the ICC give more training to International umpires who officiate in the 3rd Umpire box. Whilst it wasn't really costly, recently Clint McKay was given not out by the on-field umpire, the decision was overturned with snick-o-meter when it didn't APPEAR to line up with the ball passing the bat. Fortunately it was only a 1-dayer & we were going to be beat anyway. This is a Test match, & the benefit of the doubt should of been FAIRLY given to Misbah. Whilst Pakistan were in a massive hole anyway & probably would lose from where they were, Misbah may of gotten Pakistan close & put pressure back on Sth Africa? The inconsistancy in interpretation is the problem. I have no problems in Misbah being given out, if Petersen had been - its about consistancy.

  • Harmony111 on February 3, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    I am afariad most of the ppl here who are pro-DRS seem to be having some diff. in grasping the diff between howlers & marginal ones and keep repeating their arguments all the time and sometimes add the Embrace-Technology argument to sound more cool. I have seen this in the past too - ask these ppl to talk about DRS per se and not about BCCI vs Technology then they have few answers to talk about DRS. Will the pro-DRS ppl show me a peer reviewed study of the components of DRS or should we simply believe the manufacturer who would be primarily looking to recover his costs and may inflate his accuracy figures? Will the pro-DRS ppl show me a time & place when DRS was discussed exhaustively by ICC members before they said yes to DRS? As for live usage, it beats me how can ppl STILL be pro-DRS after they've seen DRS behav like this.

    DG & I are saying - Why DRS when it is so exp yet fails on marginal ones and when for howlers we can use slo-mo+common sense.

    May be DRS due to 0 common sense.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 3, 2013, 6:46 GMT

    @Meety, you know it and I know it. I'm not against technology. But I'm against the 'technologies' that form the amusing core of DRS - hot-spot and tracker. ICC needs to answer this: What made them push the entire scenario of LBWs into DRS? What stopped them from using slo-mos for huge inside edge LBWs? Why did they do that? It all feels fishy. Who benefitted undeservingly with such scenarios? Surely the companies who designed these 'technologies'! BTW, on a sidenote, we don't have to get everything correct everytime. From where and when did we start thinking on such bickering lines? Can't we be grown-ups and play cricket and watch cricket instead of bickering that we got a bad decision? We all have accepted uncertainity in cricket from bowlers to batsmen to fielders. Why are we so pre-occupied all of a sudden with umpires getting it right everytime? I shall pull-up umpires only for howlers but not for tough calls. Where's the gentleman's game gone that treats umpires with respect?

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 3, 2013, 6:15 GMT

    My main concern is this - let's not buy this lame argument that DRS is there anyways only to eliminate howlers and that DRS is anyways not for marginals. I don't think we need to go in circles. Technology is welcomed. No questions about that. Hot-spot is a big no no. Tracker is a cracker of a joke. When I say 'technologies' of DRS - I mean those two. Who would say no if we want to invoke slo-mos for huge inside edge LBWs? The bigger question is why didn't they start it yet and tried to push the entire scenario of LBWs into this thingy called DRS? Call it DRS or referral to the third umpire or whatever - just bring the slo-mos for huge inside edge LBWs.

    @clarke501, remove Mark Nicholas and put that SKY mob instead, Nasser and all. Point is the same. Prescribing left, right and center that DRS 'technologies' are dis and dat. And then Mark Nicholas' article was an icing on the cake - "DRS should be used only to keep howlers but not for perfection regarding marginal calls". Seriously?

  • shakil_khan on February 3, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    ICC should take action against third umpire for wrong use of DRS Technology against pakistan team

  • Meety on February 3, 2013, 0:25 GMT

    @mahjut on (February 02 2013, 22:15 PM GMT) - once the technology is mandatory across all Tests/ODIs/T20s (even maybe domestically), the cost will quickly be more affordable, nature of a product cycle.

  • Meety on February 3, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    @Dravid_Gravitas_Statchin_Selfishkar - it is not "stupid" to think that UDRS was brought in to reverse howlers. There have been many incidents in the past where umpire errors (blatant mistakes) have swung matches. The problem we have is, the UDRS is not being implemented correctly. It is clear that in most instances, even the players don't know for sure what is a "good" decision & what is a "bad" decision. IMO - ultimately, UDRS should be in the hands of the 3rd Umpire & in SOME instances referred by the on-field umpire, (the umpire should make an initial decision & then refer). Technology is ultimately here to stay, you can bury your head in the sand, but atm there is only teething issues, not technological issues. The technology will (is) becoming better & once the BCCI join the 21st century, the technology will become more cost effective too.

  • shillingsworth on February 2, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    @Dravid Gravitas - I'm not saying replays changed 'howlers' in the past. Replays did however change perceptions and it was then inevitable that technology would be introduced in some form. Perhaps if you took the trouble to read my responses properly, you'll see that I never mentioned Mark Nicholas (this bizarre obsession fortunately appears unique to you), nor have I actually said that all is right with DRS. There is certainly sense in reviewing the various tools behind it and cutting out the less reliable bits, say Hot Spot and the predicted path. You see 'people like me' can't be pigeonholed as pro or anti DRS and don't blindly accept misleading arguments from the person who shouts loudest. Try it some time.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 23:03 GMT

    @theCricketPurist, you don't need the contents of the 'technology' that are used in DRS to correct glaring errors. Do you? Glaring errors are somethings that are obvious or should be obvious to the naked-eye and or slo-mos. Why the colorful baggage called trackers and hot-spots for glaring errors? Huge inside edge LBW is one such glaring error. You don't need hot-spots there. Do you? By definition, huge inside edge LBW is a howler and it should be clear to any sane mind that we don't need DRS 'technology' contents to decide on that. Yes, of course bring it on, the DRS I mean, in non-hot-spot, non-tracker version. I'll be the first one to oppose BCCI, if they oppose to such a re-arrangement in DRS. As it stands, DRS is a sham, a scam and a crying shame. We have seen many such scams by now, in the name of naivette vs knowledgeable.

  • mahjut on February 2, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    For the record ... The 3rd Umpire made a mistake with Faf yesterday and from what i saw (on a smartphone screen - to be fair), he made a mess of AB today! i am sure of that because the 'technology' says so. So, the DRS needs some work; but it is work on skill/confidence levels of the 3rd Ump - not necessarily any tweaking of the technology itself.

  • mahjut on February 2, 2013, 22:33 GMT

    @ Dravid_Gravitas_Statchin_Selfishkar ... I'm afraid you weren't clear, to me anyway -technology is technology - slo-mo' is technology. A howler is simply a way of describing a decision that we won't give the umpire the benefit of the doubt. We use the DRS in a simple way ... does the technology say it's out!? if yes, then it's out...Unless (and in this example only ball-tracking would pick it up), for example, an lbw DRS falls within the clearly stated parameters which give the umpire the benefit of the doubt ie, the centre seam of the ball must be hitting the inside of 50% of the off- or leg- stump in order for an original 'not out' lbw call to be overturned; that is a "difficult" decision that this technology - and no other -solves. It's worth persuing if the money is there!! In my experience - as a TV watcher - I think snicko (technology) and hotspot are definitely more accurate than slo-mo' in detecting an edge too. If the funds are there then ALL techno that can help, ... should!

  • mahjut on February 2, 2013, 22:15 GMT

    I agree with curbing the cost of DRS (drastically if possible) - though that is because I am a zimbo, I imagine the BCCI can probably scrape enough funds together to invest in one or two hotspots. Are they better than slo-mo'?, i would say, from having seen the slo-mo try to detect snicks, yes, hotspot is more accurate! for 'catches-to-ground' slo-mo' is used effectively enough (player's word not sufficing). Does the DRS encourage mediocre umpiring? No, quite the opposite; it puts the ump on trial at the same time - by providing 'Ump's call/Original decision' - recognising an ump is not infallible. What's even better is it eliminates (or will when 3rd Umpires are better trained) the need for teams to cry foul ... and, rather, makes them put their money where there mouth is - players look silly when calling for DRS in the 'HOPE' of it being 'a howler'. Unfortunately, getting 3rd umpire's well trained is taking time, but it would've regardless of when introduced. Make it affordable!!

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 21:50 GMT

    @clarke501, read harmony111's post quoting you. He's bang on. Don't make it sound as though I'm saying that there are marginal answers to my tough calculation. There's only one answer. I know it and you know it. That's not the point. So, yeah you are being silly there in not letting the essence of my analogy into your Central Nervous System. Anyways, why should we jump from a howler to DRS and leave out slo-mo replays for huge inside edges (howlers). You are the same guy who is saying replays changed lots of howlers from the past. So, why jump to DRS all of a sudden by skipping slo-mos? Don't you think you naively bought yourself into the seemingly intelligent articles by Mark Nicholas in which he purported the myth that DRS is for howlers only anyways?

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 21:45 GMT

    @mahjut, and all those umpteen decisions you point to, have been overturned without using the hots-spots and ball trackers. My analogy is simple, we have to be utterly stupid to think that technology is for howlers only anyways and not for marginal ones. You see, 'for howlers only anyways' you don't need the 'technologies' (hot-spots and ball trackers). Even if we unfortunately or stupidly get 2+2 wrong, simpler rectifying tools (slo-mo replays) will rectify that scenario. No need to invoke 'technologies' called hot-spot and ball-tracking there. Hope I'm clear here, at least.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 21:26 GMT

    @SurlyCynic, let's leave the boards aside. Just if BCCI supports it doesn't make it correct or vice-versa. Merits only please. Yes, use slo-mos for huge inside edge LBWs. I will welcome it. Make it available, as it doesn't add even one extra cent of expenditure just like how we use slo-mos for tough runouts, stumpings, sixers vs fours etc. Firstly, let's agree with this - DRS 'technology' as it stands should not be construed as a tool to eliminate howlers. As it stands - they are charging boatloads of money and shamelessly saying it is for howlers anyways. Do they have a conscience? Don't you guys see the fallacious nature of their point? I'm lost. Let's not be pakis or indians or what have you. After all cricket, a fair cricket, is for all of us to enjoy. Hot-spot is not there for them to show that beautiful white spot in the middle of the bat when Afridi lofts a sixer. It is there to show the tougher ones - faint edges. If it can't, then down with this sham, scam and shame!

  • mahjut on February 2, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    @ Dravid_Gravitas_Statchin_Selfishkar ... "avoiding howlers" = 'Ump's call'. A team's DRS calls are limited, so they must be absolutely convinced that the Ump has made a 'howler' ie a decision bad enough for him [the Ump] not to be given the doubt if there is any! So, with that in mind you would have to imagine - from your 2+2 argument - that no-one would ever call for the DRS - it's too obvious. They do call though, you know!? and sometimes they're right, sometimes not! but the technology gets it right every time - the 3rd ump doesn't always, but the technology does - and the result have been being used for years to inform umpire decisions: run outs, stumpings, no-balls, snicks, lbws, catches to ground, pitch of the ball, height ... the lot (it's not new). I'm not convinced you've thought your argument through fully!

  • theCricketPurist on February 2, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    @Dravid_Gravitas: I completely agree with 'clarke501'. Your analogy is weak. Why do you forget that DRS decisions stay with the umpire when the outcome is unclear. For example, if DRS was not used then most of these decisions would have still remained the same (the original decision). At least when the DRS is there, we can have some hope that a glaring error could be corrected. Also, we must not forget that there is no compulsion on teams to use its reviews within an innings. So if they do not trust technology then they can choose not to review. I do not say DRS is perfect. But it is still a handy enough option to use. DRS, no matter how flawed it is, will always remain better than NO-DRS.

  • SurlyCynic on February 2, 2013, 20:50 GMT

    Dravid_Gravitas: You call supporters of DRS 'impractical' for using hot spots and hawkeyes and not just 'trusted slo-mos'. So why don't the Indian board support the use of slo-mos to get rid of 'howlers' then, like a big nick onto a pad in an LBW decision? Are they not also being 'impractical'?

    I watched the India v England test series and the errors were far worse than anything I saw today. Maybe a DRS with only slo-mos would be fine, but as it stands I'd far rather have DRS than the BCCI approach.

  • Harmony111 on February 2, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    @clarke501: Will you please first tell us what a howler is? Dictionary meaning is a laughably stupid blunder. Pls note --- Laughably + Stupid + Blunder. Thus a howler is something that you just cudn't have done yet you somehow did it for eg a student failing to write his enrol no on his answer sheet or forgetting his school address on exam day. Hence my dear, a howler by definition is something that is immediately seen as wrong - as soon as it comes into existence.

    As for Dravid_Gravitas's analogy, do you know every analogy has a context and a certain linkage between its two components? The linkage in that analogy was that you don't need tools for somethings. You took it as if he was talking about questions having multiple answers. For howlers, slo-mo replay + common sense shud be enough for eg lbw for ball pitching outside leg stump or ball seeming to go above stumps. For marginal ones you got to decide how to deal. You can't 1st use DRS 4 them and then say DRS was 4 Howlers anyways.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 19:32 GMT

    @clarke501, you are spot-on. The second addition has only one answer but no marginal answers. Agree with you completely there. But the question is a difficult one. Isn't it? That's where we invoke technology, computing, calculators or what have you. Agree again - many howlers sneaked right under our noses before the age of replays. So, bring them slo-mos and replays dude. Why cold-spot? Why the colorful graphics of tracker? If you are telling me that you need DRS 'technology' for huge inside edge LBWs, you are basically telling me that you are one from the cohort that supports mediocrity of umpires by not invoking slo-mo action replays. The bigger question I will of course have against people like you is - why have you decided to jump to DRS 'technology' but not to them slo-mo replays? So, you also want to be impractical - preaching to spend boatloads of money without using the trusted tools (slo-mos) that we have with us is called impracticality (if I have to lay it out for you).

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 19:14 GMT

    @dear fellow cricket fans (my enemies paki fans included), please answer my question: Do you need technology to calculate 2+2 = ? Don't you think we need help in calculating 689749876 to the power of 47 divided by 7654898093 to the power of 8675432198? Of course we can solve this lengthy calculation by taking time. But calculators and computers will help us in solving such problems. Proponents of DRS are taking all of us for a ride by saying that technology is for eliminating howlers. They are trying to cheat innocent people with their high-flow language and colorful onscreen tracks, graphics and dis and dat. Just because somebody comes in with colorful graphics and a high-flow language into the seminar room doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards to whatever tosh he comes up with. I'm not against DRS just because I'm an Indian. I'm against it because it is utter garbage, silly and downright reprehensible to spend boatloads of money to reverse howlers. Think. Don't follow.

  • SICHO on February 2, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    Pakistan should really be afraid, Steyn is back to his best, Morkel hasn't unleashed his snorters and Philander hasn't joined the party although he's got 2 wickets. What happened to the "great" Pakistan bowling heh? Ooh yeah AB and Amla are murdering them right now, just wait for Pakistan's second innings when Steyn, Philander, Morkel plus Kallis show them how it's done. #pure protea.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    @SurlyCynic, my request is we need to come out of this silly mindset that DRS is there to eliminate howlers but not for perfection like eliminating marginal calls. It's actually the other way around. Technology HAS to answer difficult questions and not JUST the easier ones. Mark Nicholas and his coterie knew pretty well that the technology in DRS is utterly hopeless in judging marginal calls and so they started coming up with article after article hammering the point that DRS is for howlers. Really? That's blatant insult to our collective intelligence. Technology reverses a howler - There you go, guys saying DRS solves howlers. Of course it WILL. It HAS to. Because howler is something that should be visible even to the normal eye and brain combo to judge accordingly. You don't need DRS to say that a batsman is runout when he is 5 feet from the crease. Do you? You need technology on close calls - by a cm or an inch runouts. DRS falls flat in close marginal calls. DRS is a crying shame!

  • shillingsworth on February 2, 2013, 19:01 GMT

    @Dravid Gravitas - Your analogy is false. The second addition has only one correct answer and cannot be a a 'marginal call'. You are peddling an even sillier myth, namely that the human eye can 'easily pick up and judge a howler'. Many a 'howler' used to pass without comment, until replays showed the the reality. Were they easy to pick up without the replay? Evidently not.

  • Harmony111 on February 2, 2013, 18:56 GMT

    @Dravid_Gravitas: Bang on. I was about to say something similar when I read SurlyCynic's comment. If the Hotspot is not for marginal delicate ones then what is it for? Is it meant to show huge white spots to indicate where exactly the ball hit the middle of the bat? The predictive path of HawkEye has its own limitations but as long as those limitations are well documented its fine. In case of Hotspot something really weird is happening. It really beats me. Maybe its the altitude of Joburg :-p.

    And if they say DRS is primarily meant only to avoid HOWLERS then well it can be done with not one penny's extra investment. But when it is an ego thing some ppl just don't listen.

    Maybe BCCI has sabotaged DRS by hiring some psychic or some super-hacker. You never know, this might be the latest excuse some ppl will have for another round of BCCI-bashing.

  • NAHEEM on February 2, 2013, 18:42 GMT

    Its a horror day of pakistan test cricket. poor short selction by batsmans..tough decision of misbah...unplayable ball to azhar..top stuff ma styen gun feeling pity for nasir and rahat. now this match is over for pak they should work hard for next 2games. i think after this tour misbah career is in trouble but every one blaming umar akmal for 30 and 40runs but today we missed his 30 and 40 indeed hope we will get back his place in test team very soon. every one has good days and as well as day but we should support team pak

  • NaniIndCri on February 2, 2013, 18:29 GMT

    Hotspot in DRS, as some people suggest, is not for removing howlers it is supposed to help in marginal calls. Howlers can be avoided without hotspot with a simple slow motion replay.So if Hotspot cannot do its job of picking up faint edges then its not even worth a cent.

  • SurlyCynic on February 2, 2013, 18:08 GMT

    Again, I ask the Indian fans seizing on these very faint nicks (and marginal decisions) to criticise DRS: How were the decisions in the India England series? Do you remember how many absolutely terrible decisions there were? DRS will never be perfect but is a lot better than no DRS.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on February 2, 2013, 17:36 GMT

    Here's is a silly myth: DRS (technology) is for howlers but not for marginal calls. I sympathise with people who got carried away with that myth. By definition, a howler is said to have been committed when something that is easy for the eye to pick-up and judge was wrongly judged by the umpire. A marginal call is something that is hard for the eye to pick-up and judge. Solve these two additions: 2 +2 = ? and 69834765294 + 5788947632987 = ? For which one of those two do you need calculator (technology)? People who use technology for the first addition would put the most moronic of people to shame. We use technology to solve the most difficult challenges, like marginal calls. AND the proponents of DRS themselves know that DRS is utter garbage in marginal calls. Don't trust me? Ask Mark Nicholas. Where's he? Bring it on Mark with your seemingly intelligent inputs. We call them silly myths. I'm really proud of BCCI for their simple stand on the purpose that technology HAS to serve!

  • 2nd_Slip on February 2, 2013, 17:30 GMT

    Australia 47 all out, New Zealand 45 all out now Pakistan 49 all out extraordinary fast bowling the best unit i have seen in a very lng time

  • veeezel on February 2, 2013, 17:28 GMT

    I was use to be a vocal supporter of DRS system but not any more after witnessing the abuse of the system by steve davis and South Africa now i know why India is so much against the system i was giving South Africa full credit for out classing Pakistan in this game but now i feel sorry for Pakistan because i know how hard it is for them against no 1 team but when you add up umpires into their team as well then who can compete with them i believe no one

  • screamingeagle on February 2, 2013, 17:18 GMT

    DRS working brilliantly. Well at least enough to prove BCCI right to an extent. Someone remarked that howlers are avoided by DRS, but really, is removing howlers worth spending millions?

  • on February 2, 2013, 17:13 GMT

    Pakistan there is a miracle in the making :P South Africa lead by 535 Pakistan day 3 135-2 Pakistan day 4 536-9 ... :P

  • sixnout on February 2, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    The DRS is not 100% accurate and anything electronic object will always have a margin of error. But how the officials interpret it will always be cause of concern. How do u quantify the amount of evidence was sufficient to overrule an decision. Maybe they should remove the third umpire from using the DRS but program it directly to give a decision. It will atleast take the human error out of DRS. Ironic that DRS was supposed to take out the human error and we have humans making error while quantifying the data provided by it.

  • VickGower on February 2, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    With every passing day of the tour we see more and more evidence of how farcical the implementation of DRS is. The ineptness is just mind boggling. The sad thing here is nothing's changing, nothing's improving. This same drama repeatedly played out when India was touring England in 2011.

  • SurlyCynic on February 2, 2013, 16:48 GMT

    Amazing bowling by Steyn, and great to see the old timer Kallis bouncing out a top order batsman with a snorter. But how about a word for De Villiers? Great catching behind the stumps, to go with top scoring with the bat. After all the articles about how SA need a different keeper I'm not sure how a keeper could have had a better day.

  • khurramsch on February 2, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    i dont think by not enforcing following is for grinding them down, or scoring 600 so they mentally get out of the whole series as some suggests. i think its that no body can imagine that this match can go out of SA hands now. so they are giving there batsmen more time in middle for next matches. grinding and mentally grinding means nothing when next match starts and tiring is also out of question as next match is on 14th feb.

  • khurramsch on February 2, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    well it as expected that pak batting will not be ok vs SA bowlers but 49 is too poor. they look clueless agains superb bowling of SA. What is more unecceptable is that pak bowling is toothless in 2nd inings . no way near what they did in 1st inings. ok not getting wickets but atleast ask questions.

    the most pak can get from this test is to try spending some time in middle. else this test in done and finished for them

  • SurlyCynic on February 2, 2013, 16:42 GMT

    I can understand Pakistan feeling frustrated about the marginal DRS decisions, we got a couple of unfortunate ones in England and it's hard to take (esp in close games). But I thought the mark for Misbah was a bit clearer than with Faf, even Ramiz Raja on commentary didn't think there was a mark with Faf (At first).

    But critics of DRS should remember that with DRS you get these marginal decisions to query, but with no DRS you get marginal decisions and 'shockers'. Just look at the Ind v Eng series for example. DRS is not perfect but it's a lot better than no DRS.

  • khurramsch on February 2, 2013, 16:41 GMT

    Hot spot is serving BCCI cause here very well. even where they have clearly knicked there is nothing and when there is a doubt we have steve davis who is i think living in someother world. why decision was not overturned yesterday in FAF review? and how come misbah's lbw over turned today. and the bigger one what was the conclusive evedence when ABD decision is over turned? there was no hotspot no evedence of edge? after that 1st test in SL where davis was involved in 16 wrong decisions he is showing that he cant even do it behind tv now. yes these would not have make any difference but technology is there to remove error not add more.

  • khurramsch on February 2, 2013, 16:41 GMT

    Hot spot is serving BCCI cause here very well. even where they have clearly knicked there is nothing and when there is a doubt we have steve davis who is i think living in someother world. why decision was not overturned yesterday in FAF review? and how come misbah's lbw over turned today. and the bigger one what was the conclusive evedence when ABD decision is over turned? there was no hotspot no evedence of edge? after that 1st test in SL where davis was involved in 16 wrong decisions he is showing that he cant even do it behind tv now. yes these would not have make any difference but technology is there to remove error not add more.

  • SurlyCynic on February 2, 2013, 16:42 GMT

    I can understand Pakistan feeling frustrated about the marginal DRS decisions, we got a couple of unfortunate ones in England and it's hard to take (esp in close games). But I thought the mark for Misbah was a bit clearer than with Faf, even Ramiz Raja on commentary didn't think there was a mark with Faf (At first).

    But critics of DRS should remember that with DRS you get these marginal decisions to query, but with no DRS you get marginal decisions and 'shockers'. Just look at the Ind v Eng series for example. DRS is not perfect but it's a lot better than no DRS.

  • khurramsch on February 2, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    well it as expected that pak batting will not be ok vs SA bowlers but 49 is too poor. they look clueless agains superb bowling of SA. What is more unecceptable is that pak bowling is toothless in 2nd inings . no way near what they did in 1st inings. ok not getting wickets but atleast ask questions.

    the most pak can get from this test is to try spending some time in middle. else this test in done and finished for them

  • khurramsch on February 2, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    i dont think by not enforcing following is for grinding them down, or scoring 600 so they mentally get out of the whole series as some suggests. i think its that no body can imagine that this match can go out of SA hands now. so they are giving there batsmen more time in middle for next matches. grinding and mentally grinding means nothing when next match starts and tiring is also out of question as next match is on 14th feb.

  • SurlyCynic on February 2, 2013, 16:48 GMT

    Amazing bowling by Steyn, and great to see the old timer Kallis bouncing out a top order batsman with a snorter. But how about a word for De Villiers? Great catching behind the stumps, to go with top scoring with the bat. After all the articles about how SA need a different keeper I'm not sure how a keeper could have had a better day.

  • VickGower on February 2, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    With every passing day of the tour we see more and more evidence of how farcical the implementation of DRS is. The ineptness is just mind boggling. The sad thing here is nothing's changing, nothing's improving. This same drama repeatedly played out when India was touring England in 2011.

  • sixnout on February 2, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    The DRS is not 100% accurate and anything electronic object will always have a margin of error. But how the officials interpret it will always be cause of concern. How do u quantify the amount of evidence was sufficient to overrule an decision. Maybe they should remove the third umpire from using the DRS but program it directly to give a decision. It will atleast take the human error out of DRS. Ironic that DRS was supposed to take out the human error and we have humans making error while quantifying the data provided by it.

  • on February 2, 2013, 17:13 GMT

    Pakistan there is a miracle in the making :P South Africa lead by 535 Pakistan day 3 135-2 Pakistan day 4 536-9 ... :P

  • screamingeagle on February 2, 2013, 17:18 GMT

    DRS working brilliantly. Well at least enough to prove BCCI right to an extent. Someone remarked that howlers are avoided by DRS, but really, is removing howlers worth spending millions?

  • veeezel on February 2, 2013, 17:28 GMT

    I was use to be a vocal supporter of DRS system but not any more after witnessing the abuse of the system by steve davis and South Africa now i know why India is so much against the system i was giving South Africa full credit for out classing Pakistan in this game but now i feel sorry for Pakistan because i know how hard it is for them against no 1 team but when you add up umpires into their team as well then who can compete with them i believe no one