Cricket at its best, almost

Tony Becca, Contributor

The last days of 2010 and the first few days of 2011 were wonderful ones for me. They presented me with cricket at its best, or near to its best. For the first time that I can remember, number one was up against number two, number three was up against number four, it was India versus South Africa and England versus Australia, and thank God for SportsMax. I was able to see every ball, or almost every one.

The pitches were good in both countries. They were all different, and they provided some excellent cricket.

India, routed on the first day for 136 of the series and losing the first Test, recovered to draw the three-match series 1-1, England, dismissed for 260 in the first innings of their series, bounced back brilliantly to win their five-match contest 3-1, and at the end India, South Africa, and England retained their positions while Australia slipped to number five, below Sri Lanka.

In South Africa, the scores were India 136 and 459, South Africa 620 for 4 declared; India 205 and 228, South Africa 131 and 215; and South Africa 362 and 341, India 364 and 166 for 3; and in Australia they were England 260 and 517 for 1, Australia 481 and 107 for 1; Australia 245 and 304, England 620 for 5 declared; Australia 268 and 309, England 187 and 123; Australia 98 and 258, England 513; and Australia 280 and 2881, England 644.

England, it should be noted, crushed Australia by an innings in their three victories.

Individually, there were outstanding achievements also.

In South Africa, there was Sachin Tendulkar - two centuries for a magnificent total of 51, AB deVilliers - the fastest century (85 balls) in South Africa's history, and Jacques Kallis - three centuries, including his first double-century, including two centuries in one Test match, and a total of 498 runs at an average of 166.

In Australia, all but one of the Englishmen was on form. No one, however, more so than Alastair Cooke - the left-hander who batted in seven innings, scored 766 runs, the most runs in a series for England since Wally Hammond's 905 against Australia in 1928-29, with three centuries at an average of 127.01.

In South Africa, bowlers took five or more wickets in an innings five times, and in Australia they achieved the milestone on seven occasions.

The surprise, however, was not only that Peter Siddle took the only hat-trick of the series but that of the five times the bowlers took six wickets, Australians Mitchell Johnson, Ryan Harris, and Siddle (twice) did so on four occasions.

There were two splendid series but if I had to choose one series over the other, my choice would be the Ashes series, not because it was England versus Australia, but because it was played how cricket should be played.

The third umpire was in place, the review system was used, and when a batsman was out, or not out, he was given out, or not out.

The review system is not perfect, but it is the best around, and it is definitely better than the naked eye.

Review system

The review system was used in Australia, but it was not used in South Africa. And it was not used in South Africa because India refused to use it, just as they did against Sri Lanka recently.

"We don't accept the technology. We are not going to use it in any bilateral series," were the defiant words of N. Srinivasan, the secretary and president-elect of the BCCI.

India accounts for approximately 70 per cent of the world's cricket revenue so may be it can call the shot. May be India can play by one rule while the other countries play by another rule but it just does not seem right.

I wonder what the ICC would say if the West Indies, or Pakistan, or Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh, or Zimbabwe were to brush aside the ICC, the governing body of the game, as India have done.

In South Africa, I saw, in one session, the Indian bowlers beat Tendulkar a few times. There were appeals for catches, and the umpires said not out to the frustration of the fielders.

I also saw Harbhajan Singh play and miss, the ball brushed the stump, the bail did not drop, was a noise, Mark Boucher and the South Africans appealed, and umpire Ian Gould said not out.

It was a top-class decision.

Whether Tendulkar was out or not out, I do not know. What I do know is that although was the standard of umpiring was excellent and it may not have mattered, the third umpire was not involved.

On the contrary, in Australia, the third umpire was called upon to make many decisions, and may be that is why England won, and won so handsomely.

In the fourth Test match, with the series level at 1-1, England were 294 for five when Matt Prior, on five, was given out caught at the wicket by Aleem Dar.

As Prior walked away the umpire looked at bowling crease, stopped Prior, checked with the third umpire, the third umpire told him it was a no-ball, and he reversed his decision.

Prior went on to 85 and was dismissed at 459 for six.

In the fifth Test match, Cooke, on 46 at 140 for two, was caught and started to walk when umpire Billy Bowden stopped him, check the third umpire, and was told it was a no-ball.

Cooke went on to make 189 and England 644.

That is how it should be. Based on the rules, a batsman, for example, should be given out when he is out and not out when he is not out.

That is not how it is, or was, over the holidays. Two Test series were played, at the same time, one in South Africa, and one in Australia. They were played under different rules, however, and that meant that a batsman was out, or not out, in one, out or not out in the other.