Virat Kohli made a strong impression as captain in the Test against Bangladesh. Opting for five bowlers was a sign of positive intent even if the opposition was not quite renowned for being five-day specialists. By all accounts he handled the attack judiciously, never letting go the opportunity to take wickets. That the Test finished in a draw was hardly his fault. Rain lopped of more than half the playing time and despite forcing the follow on, there was just no way India could force a win. Whether Kohli opts for five bowlers against stronger opponents remains to be seen, but for the moment it seems that his touted claim that he plays to win is not hot air.
However, his more significant contribution came after the Test was completed when Kohli said he was ‘open’ to the Decision Review System. This was a dramatic and welcome departure from the inflexible stand taken by the BCCI and some influential players before this. I would like to believe that Kohli was speaking out of personal conviction. M S Dhoni, who had opposed DRS as captain, is no longer part of the Test team. Even Team Director Ravi Shastri, with whom Kohli shares a strong rapport, had been adverse to the review system in its current form, so clearly Kohli has not been prompted by anybody.
This is refreshing, new thinking. He is now the senior-most player in terms of experience as well as captain, which accentuates his authority. Impressively, Kohli has shown that apart from enjoying the power that comes with the job, he is willing to move away from a pointlessly dogmatic position. India’s recalcitrance to accept DRS despite playing in the first series when it was tried, against Sri Lanka in 2008 has been at odds with the conduct of the sport universally. Some senior players expressed unhappiness with DRS after that series and the BCCI has since vetoed any attempt by the ICC to get them to agree.
This has led to the unseemly situation where all other leading member countries of the ICC play with DRS included except when they play India. How quirky this is best understood using tennis as an analogy: imagine a Grand Slam even where Djokovic, Nadal, Murray accept Hawkeye, but Federer insists he won’t! To compound matters, where ICC tournaments are concerned, the BCCI is forced to accept DRS. So, in the World Cup, India play Bangladesh with DRS in place, but a couple of months later when they meet in a bilateral series, the DRS is dropped.
In saying this, I don’t discount the technical objections raised by the BCCI against DRS. None of the various systems in use Hawkeye, Snickometer etc have been found to be cent per cent foolproof. In some, the margin of error is as high as between 5-10 per cent. Also, these technologies don’t come cheap and some of the poorer boards can hardly afford them. There is reasonable ground to argue that these technologies need to be improved and also get cheaper for universal application.
On the flip side, the DRS not only enhances TV viewing of sport, but is also seen as fairer by the players what with stakes being so high now and careers being made or unmade by a single decision. That this would rob the sport of ‘human element’ is inevitable, but in that cricket is not the only sport to suffer.What is crucial is how the players and fans view it, not just critics and administrators. From an administrative aspect, it is of being even-handed. If DRS is flawed, the best recourse is that it is not used at all till the technology is improved and acceptable to everybody.
That really is the crux of my argument. Can there be different parameters and yardsticks for different teams playing the same sport internationally concurrently? Surely, this is absurd.
