Right then, England have retained the 2013 Ashes after the draw in the 3rd test. It's been a great series for England as they've looked clinical more often than not. Probably not as clinical as what was expected before the series, but they've stuck together and have emerged on top. The contests have been good in Trent Bridge and Old Trafford. At least there was a time in those tests when Australia looked as though they could win the match, which wasn't the case at all at Lord's.
Ashes always produces its heroes from both sides. Individuals for whom a particular Ashes series is remembered for. Individuals like Ian Bell who have "Kids, that's the way it's done" written all over their shots. Or individuals like Ashton Agar, Joe Root, etc who prove that talent isn't the only valuable asset they posses. Apart from producing new heroes, this Ashes however, has somehow managed to turn one hero into a big filthy villain in the eyes of majority of Cricket fans. I'm talking about the Decision Review System (DRS).
If you watch Cricket, you probably would have your own opinion about the DRS by now. You are entitled to one. However, I think that whatever controversial decisions that took place in the 3 tests were purely based on human errors. Be it the Broad incident or the Khawaja incident. Not just that, but I simply don't understand the reason for the amount of hype these decisions have caused. There have been poorer and more 'game turning' decisions before in Cricket. Is it because this time Australia were on the receiving end? Aren't they allowed to, for a change?
Regardless of that, coming back to my point about the controversial decisions based on human errors... Let's start with the Usman Khawaja incident. Khawaja comes into bat after a 76-run opening partnership between Watson and Rogers. The ball is 16.5 overs old. Khawaja has played 25 balls for his 1 run, and eventually seems to be adjusting to the pitch and the conditions. There comes a Graeme Swann delivery which beats him and goes through to Prior. England hear a sound (I don't know from where. Maybe because the Royal Baby was crying at that time or because of something even more erratic than that) and appeal. Khawaja's given out. He knows he hasn't hit it, he reviews it straight away. There is absolutely NOTHING on hot spot. No sound as ball passes the bat, either. Nothing on Snicko too. Now, if you are a third umpire in your senses, you would over rule that decision and give it not out. Kumar Dharmasena has other ideas, he gives it out. Now, that is a huge human error right there. Actually, error is a more sophisticated word for that. It's like saying 2+2= 921.
Talking about the Broad incident... Now, this one probably had nothing to do with the DRS. I don't know why it was hyped to the extent which it was. Ironically, there were people from even from Australia (yeah, that's right Australia) talking about Broad not showing the 'sportsman spirit'! Broad, batting on 37, nicks a ball from Ashton Agar which clips Haddin's gloves and pops up to Clarke at first slip. He takes the catch. It's a clear dismissal. Australia start to celebrate. Broad stands his ground. Aleem Dar doesn't give it out. Australia are out of their reviews. They are shattered. Broad goes on to make 65 runs, which in the end turn out to be vital.
Now let's be honest to ourselves... No one, absolutely no one is a walker. And, there have been many instances in the past when batsmen haven't walked because the umpire didn't them give out, even if they were. I don't see a problem in it. I agree Cricket is a gentleman's game and all. But, one of the first rules of the game is that the umpire has the last say. Now, you can walk and create your impression as the 'good guy' for the audiences or else you can seize the opportunity and score some runs for your team. At the end of the day, the prime objective of a sport is to win, not to 'look good'.
Actually, that is exactly why the DRS was invented. To get rid off the howler or to eliminate the on-field umpire's human error. Had Australia used their reviews wisely earlier, they would have had the chance to challenge the umpire's decision on Broad. Whatever happened was unfortunate. But, the DRS isn't the one to be blamed. Just because it is new and adding another dimension to the game, doesn't mean that whatever wrong happens on the field, happens because of it. The ICC should seriously consider scoring or grading umpires' performances too. If a player plays badly, he is dropped eventually. Same should apply to the umpires. DRS actually brings the on-field umpire's performance under scrutiny a lot more. And, that's how it should be. We might find DRS in the middle of a lot controversies lately. But, it's probably because it has been revealing the truth and highlighting basic human errors. With all these controversies surrounding Cricket these days, <Dark Knight dialogue alert> DRS might not seem to be the hero Cricket needs, but the one it deserves.
