IT is every cricketer's dream to tour England, and being capped in a Lord's test would certainly be one of the most special moments for any player. After all, it is the home of cricket, and the grounds that our Indian team is playing on are the cradle of the game. Much of the chatter before India's first test at lord's was about the senior players being eager to make in an impression in perhaps their last appearance at Lord's and the youngsters being overwhelmed by the privilege of being allowed to play a test at this holy venue. The thrill of watching cricket being played in English conditions is no less felt by the fans either. The picturesque settings-be it the backdrop of London's majestic clock towers or the rolling meadows of the English countryside-, the classic grandstands with elderly fans still dressing in their best formals to watch a cricket match, lush green outfields and not to mention the wind vane with Old Father Time at Lord's, all make cricket in England a very special experience. The weather might be the most unpredictable and uncooperative, but there is probably no other venue that provides as even a contest between bat and all, with plenty in the conditions for quality swing bowling initially, and enough respite for the batsmen in patches when the sun shines and the pitch eases up. I reckon batting in English conditions for this very reason is the true test of skill for any batsman, especially an opening batsman.
The second day of the first test produced a very interesting (controversial?) incident involving Kevin Pietersen. He edged one which was lapped up by Dhoni behind the stumps, and the Indian team was off on a celebration, umpire Simon Taufel and that was that.
Not quite.
TV replays showed that the ball had not carried to Dhoni, and Pietersen was almost off the field when his teammates frantically waved him back on and the umpires called him back on. He was to survive only three more balls before being caught behind cleanly again. I did not really think too much about the TV referral until the former Australian batsman Ian Chappell brought up the topic in one of his articles.
Cricket has always prided itself on being a game that put fair conduct first. Chappell has two points of contention against the further use of TV replays than are already in place and I comepletely agree:
1.) Cricket has always stressed putting faith in the good intentions and inherent sense of justice of a qualified umpire. Simon Taufel is one of the best around, and I would imagine that his mistake was due totally to human error. Overuse of TV replays means for one thing that we are not really showing faith in the competence and judgement of trained and experienced umpires who are probably right almost all the time. Further, our extra dependence on TV replays would mean that we start to "make do" with slightly lower quality umpires, since the replays are there to make the correction anyway. In short, we hazard the esteem of good umpiring and risk lowering the expertise of the average umpire. There is always scope for errors in judgement in any sport, and players should be willing to ride their luck. If errors occur alarmingly too often, it is the selection of umpires that must be addressed, and not the inclusion of technology.
2.) It is all very good that the batsman is done full justice in this regard, but what of the bowler? Bowlers do not get to refer an appeal that has been turned down to the third umpire, do they? No balance between bat and ball here.
Ironic that these questions had to come up in Cricket's own home.
