Paul Lewis: India stand stumps cricket

Mike Hussey. Photo / Getty Images

There was something deeply satisfying about India's first cricket test loss to Australia - solely because of their refusal to adopt the Umpire Decision Review System.

In a key moment in the test, Australian batsman Mike Hussey, playing what turned out to be a match-winning 89, was out lbw on 31. Replays showed convincingly that the ball struck him in line, would have hit the stumps and was not touched by Hussey's bat.

However, as his bat moved towards the ball, it struck the bottom of his pad - making a noise not unlike that of bat nicking ball; meaning lbw could not be granted.

That double noise meant the Indian fielders made only a half-hearted, partly strangled appeal which was turned down by the umpire. If they'd signed up to the UDRS, the Indians would have had Hussey on his way back to the pavilion - where he could have joined Ponting, who made 60 in a century partnership with Hussey, but who could also have been out at 15 if the review system had been in play.

Some may make the point that the missed lbw decision made up for Hussey's golden duck in the first innings - where he was given out caught behind even though replays demonstrated he had not touched the ball. Arrant nonsense. Do two wrongs make a right? This is the same sort of logic as that stemming from the fact that various surveys have shown that the Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans, the British and we Kiwis. The French eat a lot of fat but still suffer fewer heart attacks. The Japanese drink very little red wine - but still suffer fewer heart attacks than Westerners. The Italians drink large amounts of red wine and have fewer heart attacks. The only possible conclusion is to eat and drink whatever you like - it's speaking English that kills you.

India have done themselves no favours with their insistence on both sides agreeing to have the UDRS during a match.

They come across now as the stubborn philosopher who argues trenchantly that it cannot be proven that there is not a rhinoceros in the room ... or the arrogant overlords of cricket, a few senior players egging on the all-powerful Indian cricket board to refuse the UDRS.

The technology might not be 100 per cent reliable but it is not far off and tests without it have demonstrated clearly that it is far, far better than the human eye. Not that Indian captain MS Dhoni buys into that.

After the first test - taken from them by the lack of technology and, fair point, good Australian bowling, poor batting and a puzzling inability to cut off the Australian batting tail - Dhoni said he was content to live with umpires' mistakes. India agreed to the use of the UDRS, although not to ball-tracking, on their recent tour of England and that experience has soured his view of the technology.

"I still put my money on the umpires because they have been doing the job," he said. "The pressure on them is just growing with plenty of technology around, especially when we feel the technology is not 100 per cent accurate. Before the start of the England series, I was a big fan of hot spot and, after how it went in England, I don't have the same kind of confidence.

"If it's not 100 per cent, I'll still go with the umpires, good or bad. It's a game where you commit mistakes. If the bowler doesn't commit a mistake, the batsman can't score runs, and if the batsman doesn't make a mistake, the bowler can't take wickets. It's part and parcel of the game. If it's not done intentionally, then I'm perfectly fine with it."

Is he bonkers? Why is a mistake from technology any less credible than a mistake from an umpire? Maybe the hot spot technology used in England is not as good as that used in Australia - the world leaders at this business - but that's easily fixed: use the Aussie technology across the board; in all matches.

No, Mr Dhoni, you make no sense. The right decision is surely what the game hinges on and the technology clearly offers a better chance of getting the right decisions. Anything else would be like going back to the days of unrolled pitches or when they were not covered when it rained. Time to move with the times and to increase fairness, Mr Dhoni.

Until India reaches that point, I am going to support not Australia, but umpires who make bad decisions against the Indians. I will cheer each one, as each one must move the Indians closer to joining the real world.

BRAVO, Marina Erakovic, who found Sacha Jones' decision to flee to Australia to further her tennis career surprising and puzzling. Erakovic was spot on when she said Jones' decision sent a signal to young tennis players that it was not possible to make it in the international tennis scene in Auckland.

Jones' point - and a legitimate one - is that New Zealand tennis is poorly funded these days after years of underachievement.

But Jones is 21, has travelled far and wide under the New Zealand tennis flag and with funds from her sport. Leaving at her age seems a turncoat kind of decision, even if you understand a sportsperson's need to improve.

It's hard to stomach, even when New Zealand has lost young players like Sean Berman, who was 11 when he was interviewed by the Herald on Sunday in 2004.

Sponsored by Prince and the Peter Snell Institute of Sport then, Berman's parents acknowledged the financial cost of supporting him but said they would stay in New Zealand: "We travel overseas to compete against players a level above Sean but we have the best set-up in the world here."

Berman, nearly 18, is now resident in Melbourne and spends a lot of time in Los Angeles.

He tried to qualify for the Australian Open last year, falling to a French player, and is expected to compete in this year's qualifying tournament.

Erakovic could, if she wanted, play for Croatia but she reiterated her allegiance to New Zealand and said this week: "I've done quite a lot of work and I've sort of made it and I don't want people to say one of our top players is leaving so that means you can't make it here, because that's not true. You can make it and this is just a real shame, really."