T20 cricket must get with the pace and adopt DRS
John Stern looks back to Sunday’s sorry T20 defeat where poor umpiring and poor shot selection cost England
Twenty20 is supposed to be a fast game. That includes getting the overs bowled quickly and the batsmen on and off the field swiftly, which is in contrast to the way the five-day and even the 50-over formats can dawdle.
So, in that respect, it is understandable T20 internationals do not embrace DRS. In every other respect – like fair play and the pursuit of excellence – it is a total nonsense.
Eoin Morgan likes to play it cool and his post-match delivery was as chilled as his public-speaking assignments usually are, but there was no escaping his “extreme frustration” at the howlers from umpire Chettithody Shamshuddin that marred India’s thrilling five-run victory in front of 45,000 screaming fans at the VCA Stadium.
His opposite number, Virat Kohli, did not front up to the written press after the match, making do with a TV grab that did not interrogate him about the officiating. Instead it was left to the veteran seamer Ashish Nehra to filibuster about how DRS is not fool-proof (the old Indian standby) and, anyway, ‘who am I to be answering a question such as this’.
But the DRS debate is only part of the issue here. There are two other concerns. One is the notion of having two ‘home’ umpires for an international match, as if T20s are not really proper cricket. The other is specific to the Nagpur match.
Umpire Shamshuddin was not originally due to stand in Nagpur and only arrived in the country 24 hours before the match after officiating in Australia’s one-day series against Pakistan. That might partly explain why he gave both Kohli and Yuvraj Singh not out based on height when the former was so obviously out and the latter, to be fair, was a more marginal call.
That the Indian board is ultimately responsible for the umpiring appointments raises issues of impartiality which we thought had disappeared a generation ago with the introduction of neutral umpires. This is not a slight on the BCCI, more that surely the ICC should be in charge of all appointments for internationals, regardless of format.
Both Morgan and Moeen Ali, who spoke eloquently and fair-mindedly the day after the game, admitted that England should have won the match anyway. It was a testing pitch for batsmen which made the game all the more enthralling after the overflowing run gluttony of the 50-over series.
Batting second is such an advantage in those situations and England were confident even when, at 80 for three off 13, they seemed to be off the pace in the pursuit of 145. The brute force of Ben Stokes and the audacity of Jos Buttler, who somehow hit 16 off the penultimate over, left them with eight to win from the last.
But it would be wrong not to credit India, particularly Jasprit Bumrah, the seamer with the quirky action who bowled the 18th and 20th overs, conceding all of four runs off the bat in the process.
KL Rahul’s 71 from 47 balls was 33 more than any other batsman on either side managed, and could well have earned him the match award instead of Bumrah.
Overall, this was more evidence of England’s development as a white-ball team. On a classic, cloying Indian pitch, they still had all the bowling resources and skills to best their opponents. All the talk beforehand was of Tymal Mills and his lightning pace: “90mph is no problem,” said Kohli. But back-of-the-hand slower balls do appear to be a problem, Virat.
Meanwhile, Chris Jordan, whose three for 22 was his most economical four-over spell in a T20 for England, must fancy his chances of a Champions Trophy squad place, not to mention another gig in the upcoming IPL.