No surprise that Dhoni has retired from Tests

Funnily enough I found myself wondering why MS Dhoni was still playing Tests earlier in the Australia/India series - he's now made the decision to retire from Tests with immediate effect.   He had to miss the 1st Test but it didn't feel there was any great clamour to get him into the side - there was a clear contrast to Michael Clarke who was pictured working with the physio a lot desperately trying to get himself fit.   Clearly an element of that is the way the Western media portrays the two captains, but I couldn't help thinking that in Tests Dhoni is an also-ran where as in ODIs and Twenty20s he's a match winner.   

In ODIs and Twenty20s Dhoni's captaincy also seems to suit the game - the batsmen can't defend for long periods.   In Tests Dhoni's "wait for the batsman to make a mistake" style of captaincy doesn't work, particularly against the tail.   There was an interesting tweet from Andy Zaltzman last night - at that point Australia's first 6 wickets had averaged 44 per wicket against India's 52.4, while wickets 7-10 had averaged 62.4 for Australia versus 14.1 from India's lower order.   I'd love to see the analysis of that over a number of captain's careers - I suspect Dhoni would come off very unfavourably, and I don't think Alastair Cook would fare too well either.

Another potential benefit for the game as a whole, not to mention the Indian team, is that Dhoni has never got behind the use of the umpire review system.   Given that some wrong decisions have gone against India in this series, I wonder if Dhoni was under pressure internally to change his stance and accept it.   One of his strengths is that he has a clear view of things and stays true to that vision - that may be to his detriment on DRS given that his original stance (that it wasn't 100% accurate) didn't reflect the overwhelming cricket majority who just want to see more correct decisions, however they're made.

Kohli's ready so Dhoni can concentrate on the form of the game he appears to enjoy more.   Journalists can look forward to more exciting press conferences, and Dhoni can concentrate on ODIs and Twenty20.   He'll be around one month away from his 38th birthday when the 2019 World Cup is played in England so that could be a realistic aim now he's not playing Tests, but equally Dhoni may feel that he's done enough - he certainly doesn't need to play any format of cricket for the money.

Lack of UDRS mars series....predictably!

Anyone that knows me probably knew this post was coming!   Once again the BCCI have proven themselves to be more stubborn then sensible, and in doing so there is the risk of some career-ending wrong decisions.   It only needs Cook or Prior to get bad ones over the rest of the summer and it could wreck a hard-worked for career.

There's too many wrong decisions in the series already to list them all, but it would be interesting to know how the umpires are feeling.   I'd be surprised if they prefer to have their howlers upheld with everyone knowing that it's a wrong decision before the batsman has even got to the changing room.

Poor Joe Root

I feel very sorry for Joe Root...no evidence he edged it but much suggesting the contrary and yet he's gone.   No problem with the technology, but once again the implementation of it that's the problem.   Instead of the batsman having the benefit of the doubt, the bowler got it.   And, although I didn't see it, I gather it's the second time in the day as the same happened to Steve Smith.

The only way round this is to get over the worry about taking responsibility away from umpires.   It shouldn't matter what their original decision is - if there's no evidence to prove the batsman is out then it's not out.   

My new hero suffers

So Ed Cowan comes into the Test side at last and is given out caught behind when he didn't hit it and LBW when ball-tracker showed that it was missing. I expect he's wondering why he bothered.

On the other hand Hussey (three times) and Ponting (once) survived because the umpires review system was not available - a major contribution to Australia's win.
Statistics are supposed to show that use of the review system increases accuracy of decisions from 95% to 97% - how they prove that I've no idea but Cowan's experience seems to be a fairly strong contra. But India don't want to use it because it's not perfect (I can't think of anything that is) and so it's not used in their Test matches. But there seems to me to be no reason why you shouldn't allow their opponents access to it even if India don't have such access in the same match and I bet that would bring them round quickly.

A bit of a lottery...

...when there's no UDRS. In Sri Lanka's crucial second innings against Pakistan, Sangakkarra looked incredibly unlucky to be given our LBW, and then Angelo Mathews was plumb not playing a shot but not given....

Shastri and Gavaskar BCCI employees

There seems some genuine surprise at the fact that Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar are paid by the BCCI for some of their commentary work. I don't think it's that surprising given, as ex-India spinner Maninder Singh has said "It's symptomatic of what the country is going through. There are scams, corruption in every sphere of life and cricket is no different." If you've ever been to India you'll recognise and understand that sentiment.

Surprising or not, I do think the amount they're paid is obscene. 3.6 crore, which I believe is £4,896,000 [this is actually 10 times too much - see comments!]. It doesn't seem a justifiable amount for an annual salary for any role, but certainly not cricket commentary. So the assumption I find it hard to avoid considering is that they must be being paid that much to ensure that they say exactly what the BCCI would like them to say - it would be interesting to hear what other explanation there is for that much money being paid for an ordinary commentary role?

Interesting to see that Shastri's intransigence around the UDRS, echoing that of the BCCI, is now being called into question. His little spat with Nasser Hussain made me laugh - first Hussain references the fact he has played 96 Tests as a reason why he's allowed to voice an opinion about the BCCI....surely it's the fact that he is a commentator and his role is, as Geoff Boycott isn't shy of reminding us, to comment. Who cares how many Tests he has or hasn't played?

And then Shastri's retort...."India has every right to take it or not". Erm, not really - ever heard of democracy Ravi? The ICC members should be putting it to a blind vote and then implementing the UDRS. One of the reasons the BCCI gave for not implementing the UDRS a while back was that it cost too much. Perhaps a bit of a cut back on paying back-handers to commentators fellas, and then you wouldn't just be able to pay for the technology for India's home series, you'd be able to pay for the low-income nations to use it too. Now that really would be fantastic leadership of the game of cricket.

How is the UDRS accuracy checked?

I love the fact that more decisions are being made correctly - I think it's all that professionals who dedicate much of their lives to improving their performance deserve. But I've got a question....

How does anyone REALLY know whether a decision was made correctly or not?

If there is a way of telling, can we use that for the UDRS please and then we'll get 100% accuracy on decisions?

Sony buy Hawkeye

It seems that the Winchester based company, Hawkeye Innovations, who provide the ball tracking part of the UDRS in some counties, have been bought by Sony.

What are the implications for cricket? I'd love to be able to tell you....I presume that with greater financial backing, Hawkeye Innovations will be able to afford to go further in demonstrating their technology for free during pitches. That was something of a stumbling block when dealing with FIFA in the past, as football's governing body wanted full demos paid for by pitching companies without any commitment to use the technology for goal line decisions even if the technology tested successfully. Hawkeye weren't willing to commit to a huge spend to do all the tests without any guarantee of business off the back of it.

I imagine that Sony will be able to utilise their greater international coverage too....it will be interesting to hear what they plan to do with Hawkeye know they've bought it.

Incidentally, this is an interesting piece I noticed having just gone to the Hawkeye site about issues with the Virtual Eye technology used in The Ashes. Worth a read if you're as sad as me....

South Africa try to shake off chokers tag

When India won the 2nd ODI in their series against South Africa by 1 run, a crucial wrong decision went against them (Johna Botha) as there was no UDRS in place. I would argue that decision changed the result although of course there's no way anyone can say for sure.

From there the collapse specialists / chokers tag was always going to come back - it's like speculation on the stock market...it becomes self-fulfilling given the extra pressure.

I wonder if this "marshmallow syndrome" that has been written about would have surfaced if the UDRS had been in place in the South Africa / India ODI series?

UDRS in the spotlight again

The lesser version of the UDRS without hotspot is being used in the World Cup, but I doubt anyone knew there was a rule that if the batsman gets more than 2.5m forwards then the on-field umpire can ignore the technology. That seems strange as the accuracy of the technology, from what I understand, is more variable based on how far the ball travels between bounce and impact, rather than distance to travel after impact, but if that's the case, that's the case.

All that needed to happen was that the replays need to be shown in order - front foot from the bowler, did it hit him 2.5m or more away from the stumps, then the straight on replay (only when everyone is aware that it's likely to be irrelevant).

Not surprisingly, the additional layer on the UDRS annoyed MS Dhoni, and Andrew Strauss admitted he didn't know about it. Slightly worrying that no-one has thought to read the laws and match rules inside out as one misinterpretation can prove crucial - maybe the Bell incident will ensure that Strauss has the appropriate bed time reading.

South Africa v India decider

While England have been retaining The Ashes a remarkable game was going on in South Africa where India came back from being thrashed in the 1st Test of the series, to take the second match and level the series between the top 2 sides in the world. Just one innings of over 40 from man-of-the-match VVS Laxman in the match tells the story of two supposedly strong batting sides struggling. The series is now on a knife-edge and will make brilliant viewing.

It's a pity that captain's only speak about the UDRS when they suffer poor decisions, but that's better than nothing I suppose, with Graeme Smith asking for it to be used in all series after one highly questionable and one terrible umpiring decision helped India wrap up the match.

Incidentally, the fourth of New Zealand's ducks at the top of the order was Ross Taylor who was given out LBW to a ball going over the top of the stumps....

Umpiring error hurts India

Jesse Ryder and Kane Williamson batted for the afternoon and evening sessions against India today to help New Zealand fight against India (Ryder was out for 103 from the final ball of the day). But India will be ruing the fact they haven't got the UDRS - Williamson was blatantly caught behind in the 50s and not given.

The more that happens to India while the BCCI refuse to implement the UDRS the better, as far as I'm concerned....

Dhoni not a UDRS fan

I like the way MS Dhoni has converted himself to being a flashy batsman to a totally reliable one, making himself more valuable to his team in the process. And the way he captained India to a win in the first World Twenty20 through placing really attacking fields.

But I'm saddened to read he wants to delay the inevitable progress of a full UDRS system, and especially when one of his arguments is cost...an area the BCCI don't have any problems in!

Australia thrashed

It's only Twenty20 but it's again nice to see Australia struggling so badly against Sri Lanka in today's match in Perth. The match wasn't really a contest, although Brad Haddin (who from what I can tell most Australian's don't want in the Ashes side because they rate the very average Tim Paine as better) and Steve Smith did their best to make it one with a partnership of 66 after Australia slumped to 43-5. They crawled up to 133-8 off their Twenty20 and when David Hussey talked to the commentators during Australia's fielding stint he said they thought they were about 40 short.

It's difficult to say how many they would have needed because Sangakkara made sure of the win by batting very sensibly after the second wicket fell on 42 (it pitched outside leg and wasn't out, but there was no UDRS). He even played out a maiden in the 16th over he was so determined to ensure he was there at the end...you got the feeling they could have chased 133 in 12 overs if they'd needed to, rather than taking 16.3 in the end.

It'll be interesting to see how the two teams perform in the three ODIs coming up but on today's form Sri Lanka looked formidable, as Michael Clarke admitted.

There's no legislating for idiots...

I've written before about how leadership is about doing things before everyone is calling for them to happen and all the market research backs the potential action. Sometimes even good leaders get decisions wrong because there is a risk attached to being visionary. Management is risk free and is about responding to what everyone is calling for already and making it happen. Successful leaders get paid more than managers for obvious reasons.

I'm not quite sure what you call the BCCI. Laggards is one word. Or idiots is another. They have not only proved themselves incapable leaders on the UDRS issue, but also poor managers, given that they're still putting off the inevitable by not using the UDRS in their up coming New Zealand series even after error-ridden umpiring in their recent Australia Test. When they finally get round to it, which they inevitably will, they will have lost even more credibility. Indian cricket supporters might consider that the BCCI staff wages should be dropped to be comparable with others that can't lead or manage....

After 6 months the ICC confirms what we already knew

Yes, it appears it's taken 6 months to conclude that the sound wasn't set right when Daryl Harper mistakenly failed to give Graeme Smith out. Of course, the ICC should take the grief for that as they should be sorting out the UDRS, but it appears that the broadcaster's technician is the one in the firing line. It just goes to demonstrate why the ICC should not be relying on broadcasters - it should be mission critical to the ICC so they should have their own technician's ensuring everything is perfect. Instead they have chosen to rely on the broadcaster for whom small details are not mission critical.

It's inevitable the ICC will have to take control of the UDRS technology eventually, but a bit sad that they are being backed into a corner rather than showing genuine leadership to move the game forward successfully. Or the foresight to have considered this years ago and planned for a successful implementation of technology.

Any thoughts on the use of the UDRS?

I see that Rudi Koertzen has called for the UDRS to be used in every Test and it seems that in the England v Pakistan Test they're using every piece of technology available finally. And they're showing the use of that technology at the ground which I suspect came about in an attempt to keep Test crowds high.

But it seems that it wasn't without the odd...."issue"....such as Eoin Morgan being "out" LBW to Shoaib Malik, the appeal being turned down, and Malik not being able to refer it as Pakistan were out of referrals, despite seeing the replay on the big screen before he bowled the next ball and knowing it was out. Of course, Morgan went on to play a stunning innings and score his first Test century.

Any thoughts from Cricket Burble readers out there on the success - or otherwise - of the UDRS today?

Chappell's view on UDRS

Ian Chappell is against the use of technology to increase the accuracy of umpiring decisions, but he has written a sensible piece on Cricinfo on the use - or not - of the UDRS. He says "Like a lot of decisions made by cricket administrators, the umpire review system wasn't fully thought through before it was implemented" which sadly is correct, but there is still time for history to record a successful move to implement the available technology of the day when looking back in several decades time.

However, while the BCCI refuse to implement it despite having more cash than many a small island, it doesn't bode well....

Cook's decisions

Interesting to see that the first LBW shout to Alastair Cook was shown to have hit the inside edge within seconds by hotspot - I thought one of the objections to using that to help umpires was that it took too long.

Then he was given out by one that looked at first glance on TV to be going over the top and so Hawkeye thought too. No UDRS - more wrong decisions than is necessary.

Trott will no doubt get out now but he's looking quality early in his innings!

Review of Reviews

The Editor's view in The Cricket Society News Bulletin this month contains a number of observations on what I think has become an absurd system that really does not work. I have picked out a few of the points for further thought.

This winter you had a better chance of surviving an appeal in South Africa than in Australia where they had all the technology. Surely it makes sense for there to be a uniform requirement and, as the Television Networks use all of them they should be made available to the third umpire as part of the tendering process.

Once again, the question arises as to whether referrals should be restricted to umpires alone. I firmly believe that this should be the case. Also I understand that, at professional level, the square leg umpire is not encouraged to help with lbw appeals by indication the height of the ball. This happens all the time in club cricket and is encouraged on the training courses.

In summary, the whole review process needs to be reviewed and the technology agreed and standardised.