Various Moments Of Ind VS NZ Serize

Australia run out of focus

No moment highlighted Australia's fall from world beaters to stragglers more than when Shane Watson's right knee stopped a certain run-out on Friday night. Watson's leg wasn't the only thing being blamed and the slapstick incident had its owner smiling, in frustration and humour, after arriving in Brisbane today.

For the past two decades Australia have been so well drilled in the field, but when Upul Tharanga ended up at Kumar Sangakkara's end the locals fell apart. And it was not the fresh faces who lapsed, but three seriously senior men.

When Brad Haddin collected the ball all he needed was a vaguely accurate lob to the bowler's end, but he overshot wildly. Michael Clarke backed up well and then made the mistake of aiming at the stumps instead of sending the ball to Watson, or running up to remove the bails himself. While the throw was on target, Watson was too slow to move and was struck an embarrassing, but not painful, blow on the leg. As the ball rolled away from the stumps, Tharanga finally regained his ground and went on to an unbeaten 86.

"I thought I was involved in a game of brandy with a cricket ball," Watson said. "Next time I need to get out of the way." Clarke hasn't offered Watson a free shot as payback, but the blow hasn't changed Watson's belief that Clarke is the best man to lead the team in Ricky Ponting's absence on Sunday.

Australia have lost seven games in a row in the game's three forms but the missed-run-out episode, played over only a couple of seconds, was a snapshot of how deep the problems have become. In the past the team's batting has stumbled and the bowling has been loose, which are often forgivable offences. Results in the field have always been non-negotiable.

Even before Mike Young, the former baseball coach, joined the squad to refine techniques, the work of the fielders was expected to be perfect. The area was used as the team's performance barometer, but as the side's Test ranking has slipped and its one-day reputation has eroded, the pressure they now place on the opposition is seriously low.

Watson insists Australia aren't far off clicking and, like most of the players in the squad, believes their efforts have been close to the standard required. But if they can't win on Sunday it will be the first time the national outfit has been defeated in eight matches in a row.

"It's not an ideal situation for the games we've lost over the last little while, but it is a new era of Australian cricket," he said. "Let's hope we can come together and make sure it is a successful period. It hasn't been for the last little while, but we know we're not far away from getting it right. So we hope people stick by us."

Watson will open at the Gabba - he still calls it his home ground despite moving to New South Wales last year - and will be particularly wary of the Sri Lanka seamers in the bowler-friendly conditions. The visiting fast men have gained significant movement in the opening two matches to hold Australia to 210 on Friday and 8 for 239 on Wednesday.

"The Sri Lankans have bowled very well, especially Nuwan Kulasekara and Lasith Malinga with the new ball," he said. "It's been hard to get them away. Let's hope they get carried away tomorrow night [in the conditions]." Only recently have Australian teams had to start hoping for opposition mistakes.

Why umpiring reviews are flawed

The current review system makes umpires doubt themselves, and in the long term undermines their skills

As a first-class umpire, thanks to technology I do find myself thinking differently about decisions, especially lbws. And I shouldn't think like that. I have been umpiring for 15 years, and for the last 13, certain decisions were definitely not out - now due to television I think they are close. Reassessing my decision-making means I am giving decisions based on Hawk-Eye graphics on the television. When someone gets hit on the pad, I decide based on my eye, instinct and experience. Over the last two or three years bowlers like Monty Panesar have won a lot of lbws that Hawk-Eye said would have hit but as a cricketer and umpire I wouldn't give out.

So when the technology is used fully, a lot more people are being given out. Are we going to give it out when it just nicks the leg stump or has a certain amount of the ball got to be hitting the stumps? If this is the case, then there is a danger of the stumps effectively becoming three inches wide. But then there is also a danger of teams being bowled out very cheaply.

Everybody wants perfection. If we are going to use technology in umpiring, use everything: Hawk-Eye's predictive elements, Hotspot - let's use the lot. And there should be no grey areas with the technology - it has to be black and white - out or not out.

Once cricketers work out the system, they'll play it; you will start with a rule-book 150 pages long as guidance for umpire reviews. Next season you will have 200 pages. Players will find ways around everything. Hopefully the umpires involved have been fully trained. During the trial period there was a lot of confusion about what was supposed to happen.

If you do use technology, do you have neutral people working the cameras and the systems? I am not suggesting that anybody would be corrupted but if a country's top batsman has a decision pending and there is a "technical problem" ("Sorry we've lost the pictures... ") you will have to have neutral technicians. People think this is rubbish, but at one stage nobody believed in match-fixing in cricket. How far do you go?

I have been in cricket since 1966 and it is a great shame we have come down to this. I think if an umpire makes a huge, obvious mistake - a big inside edge on an lbw for instance - the third umpire should be able to get in touch and tell him to change the decision as the batsman is walking off.

But to seriously take the pressure off umpires, I would increase the amount of Test officials and let them only stand in one Test of a series; if an umpire has a poor first Test he is under pressure in the next game. I don't care how strong you are you'll be thinking about having a bad Test. Change the umpires for every Test match so they are fresh, with no baggage from Test to Test. When I umpired in Tests, I'd do one Test abroad; might make a few bad decisions, come home and it is forgotten. You have five or six weeks off, then you go somewhere else.

There is a further problem that has arisen from the increased use of technology that international umpires have told me about. Umpires who have done Tests for five or six years have lost the art of giving out run-outs and stumpings - they just refer everything. If you have all the technology for a number of years you are going to lose the art of giving out caught-behinds, lbws and everything else because the third umpire is doing everything for you. The umpire will end up hardly having to make a decision. Then he stops doing Tests and goes back into first-class cricket and he has to start learning again. It could be dangerous for an umpire's career.

Technology does undermine the umpire - when I did Test matches and you had the big screen, you'd give a decision, they'd show a replay and you'd get the reaction from the crowd and you think you've made a mistake. Then the next ball will be exactly the same and you are under pressure and your thinking is not clear.

As a player I wouldn't have liked to have technology. I was brought up in the old-fashioned way. If you nicked it and didn't walk, you got off the field and got told off. And you only appealed if you thought it was out. Even the bus driver appeals now if you get hit on the pad. It changed because of television. It started first with the live games, then the increased technology.

Life has changed since the 1960s. They say the game is more professional now, I am not sure it is. I would like to go back to those days.