Why was technology not used?

The heroic and spirited fight back by Wayne Parnell and Dale Steyn in the first one-day cricket international against India at Jaipur overshadowed what was a stumbling and stuttering display by the South African middle-order. If available and accepted technology was used, it could easily have been a different result.

The South African cricket team came close, but had to concede defeat by one run.

All things considered, India also benefitted at least twice from circumstances beyond South Africa’s control.

Ashish Nehra was run out by Johan Botha, but the umpire chose not to refer it, a factor that could have contributed to India’s flattering win. And Nehra was ‘bowled’ by Charl Langeveldt, but the bails never moved an inch.

The ball hit the off-stump, and then raced away to the third man boundary for a four with the score on 292/9.

India finished on 298/9 and South Africa, in need of three runs off the final legitimate delivery of the match, managed to scramble a run, but Parnell failed by a metre to finish the second run that would have given the Proteas a draw.

The decision not to refer the close run-out decision must surely raise questions about the referral system used so parochially in international cricket.

England complained bitterly during the test series in South Africa about the restrictions of the referral system, which gives both teams opportunities to question umpire-calls twice.

They also mentioned that the Hot Spot technology which clearly indicates whether the ball has touched the bat or not, was not employed by Cricket South Africa.

Mickey Arthur, former coach of South Africa, has been on record advocating the use of extensive technology universally.

In Australia and England, technology is used in this way and there are virtually no guesswork needed when a call is referred.

Yet, the Indian Board of Control has declined the offer to use the technology.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the proverbial tail is wagging the dog in cricket.

India, the financial powerhouse of international cricket, can virtually dictate to the International Cricket Council as to what is acceptable and what not.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune, and the Indians are doing just that.

But surely there must be some cases in which technology should and must be used, like line-calls on run outs where it is impossible to determine with the naked eye if somebody is run out or not.

Maybe the Indians have always dreaded the extensive use of technology. The first international match in which technology was used for run outs was in a fixture involving South Africa and India.

And the man, who saw the red light after being adjudged run out by Jonty Rhodes, was the beloved hero of millions of Indians, Sachin Tendulkar.

The Indians are at the forefront of development in cricket, especially through their introduction of the Champions League and the Indian Premier League.

Yet, their refusal to use technology to eradicate bad decisions like the one that ultimately contributed to India’s victory over South Africa is baffling and shortsighted.

And the ICC will have to demonstrate stronger leadership in this regard and decide to implement technology worldwide and invest in technology for their own account.

What the current malaise is doing is to cause friction, frustration and confusion. And that cannot be in the best interest of international cricket.

Yet, South Africa could not blame technology for the defeat.

The national selectors need a good look at the middle-order.

In the second test at Eden Gardens in Kolkota, an extraordinary implosion saw South Africa plummet from 228/2 to 296 all out in the first innings.

In the second innings, the Proteas were on course to save the test, but the middle-order wobble saw them deteriorate from 158/3 to 180/7.

In Jaipur, they stumbled their way to 180/7 before Parnell and Steyn resurrected the innings with a 65-run partnership that all but carried the visitors home.

JP Duminy might be South Africa’s fall guy in the test, but also the player most likely to be dropped for the tour to the West Indies.

It won’t help his course that he is playing in the Indian Premier League and therefore not likely to get an opportunity in the SuperSport Series to regain his confidence in first-class cricket.

But surely he is not the only player to be blamed. AB de Villiers, who has publicly stated his vision to become the world’s premier batsman, has had an indifferent international season.

He scored 344 runs in tests at an average of 34.4. He managed four half-centuries, but the worrying aspect about AB is his ability to run out teammates, or himself.

He has lost focus and needs to resurrect his test career. He has not done his enormous talent, or his status as one of the finest batsman in world cricket, any justice.

And he again displayed his tendency to lose his concentration at a vital moment by losing his wicket while promisingly poised on 25 at Jaipur.

Ashwell Prince might get a reprieve from the national selectors because he was used as an opener for the whole of 2009, while actually being a more settled number-6 batsman. But more failures could see him fall out of national favour soon.

Hashim Amla has catapulted himself to number-2 in the world rankings for test batsmen, scoring 490 runs in his last two tests at an average of 490, and managing 801 runs in his final six tests.

Even the mighty Sir Don Bradman, who averaged 99.94 in his test career, would have felt chuffed with vital statistics like those achieved by the bearded wonder of Durban.