If DRS had been around back then...

Nope, not a rant at India's DRS stance, or even an attempt to re-open the old debate. Just a bit of fun highlighting some umpiring errors that may (or may not) have changed the course of test matches. Going to start off with three fairly recent examples, all involving England, two fairly obvious and one perhaps more random. Feel free to add your own, etc.

1) England vs Australia - Edgbaston 2005: Kasprowicz given out caught behind despite his hand being apparently off the bat when it made contact with Harmison's vicious bouncer.

The context: everyone remembers this. Australia, 1-0 up in the series are in touching distance of an extremely improbable victory, needing just three more runs to win with their last pair at the crease. Harmison bowls a bouncer, n°11 Kasprowicz gloves it to a diving Gerraint Jones, and Bowden raises the crooked finger. BUT, replays suggest his hand was off the bat. Have Australia been robbed?

What could have changed: Australia would have had at least one review remaining (only Gillespie's LBW was susceptible to review, the other wickets being bowled, obviously caught or hit wicket). Kasprowicz reviews it, survives, and Australia go on to win. They thus go 2-0 up, and a thoroughly demolarised England have no chance of coming back from that.

The counter argument: Harmison said in a post-math interview he reckoned it just clipped the bat handle first up anyway. Hotspot confirms this and Kasprowics is on his way, having tried to swindle England out of a well-deserved victory. Possibly the most convincing counter-argument is that Kasprowicz was in fact fairly plumb LBW to Flintoff about 30-40 runs earlier. With DRS, England could have reviewed and the drama been averted/

2) England vs India - Lords 2007: in the gathering gloom, Panesar traps Sreesanth plumb LBW, but Bucknor reckons otherwise.

The context: it's the first test of the series, England have a young (or at least inexperienced) bowling attack, but have put themselves in a great position to win the game on the last day. The light is closing in, and the spinners are on, with the last pair Sreesanth and Dhoni at the crease. Panesar hits Sreesanth low on the front foot, right in front of the stumps, but Bucknor says No! A few minutes later, the light is offered, and India escape with a draw. They go on to win at Trent Bridge and hold out for a series win.

What could have changed: England review, convinced they have their man, and so it proves. England win the match, and buoyed by the win, go on to dominate the series rather than stutter at Trent Bridge.

Counter-argument: not much about the result (he was fairly plumb, although England might not have had any reviews left by then of course). However, India won easily at Trent Bridge, and should really have won at the Oval too but for an over-cautious approach (delayed declarations to make sure England couldn't win), so maybe they would have turned it around in any case. This was, let's remember an England side in course of rebuilding.

3) England vs Australia - Adelaide 2006: Strauss wrongly given out caught at short-leg, precipitating England's demise.

The context: England were well beaten in Brisbane, but have produced a much better effort here, scoring strongly in the first innings, and sticking to their task well to claim a narrow lead on a flat pitch. The game looks destined for a draw, and England have made a steady, albeit slow, start, on the last day. Strauss then is given out caught at short-leg to Warne, despite being nowhere near the ball. England collapse, Australia chase it down, and the rest is history.

What could have changed: Strauss reviews, the call is overturned, the game meanders to a draw. England gain great confidence, wipe the first Test from their mind, and from then on produce much better cricket, retaining the Ashes.

Counter-argument: England were going nowhere on that final day, the collapse would have happened sooner rather than later. Even if England had survived, that Australian team was vastly superior in every department to their England counterparts, and with the next three pitches being result-pitches, would have cruised to a 4-0 win rather than the whitewash.

A few other decisions that spring to mind:
- Atherton getting away with a glove to Boucher vs SA at Trent Bridge in 98.
- Graeme Smith getting away with one off Panesar in that famouns 150 not out at Headingley in 2008.
- Brian Lara surviving a strong appeal for caught behind off Harmison when on 0 during his world-record knock of 400*.

Feel free to add your own examples .

I'd been even more bored with DRS if it had been around years ago.

Bring back the umpire   

Sorry, nice article, MFC  

Could England have won the 2004 CT final? Pretty sure there was a plumb lbw turned down in the latter stages of that - Flintoff bowling perhaps??

With the confidence from that England go on to win the 2007 World Cup as well!

The 2005 one is interesting - would Kasper even have reviewed that, he didn't seem to complain at the time so not sure he knew about the rule!

You missed another recent one - first Ashes Test last year, Aussies go 1-0 up and shock England after Haddin with able support from the tail completes an unlikely run chase. England retain the Ashes with a 2-2 draw, which Australia deem creditable so retain the same team for the winter: no Mitch Johnson, no whitewash!

Nice article, MfC.

Going back some time, I'll give a shout for the whole 1970/71 Ashes series down under. Not one lbw appeal made by an England bowler was upheld. Yes, that's right - not a single Australian batsman was given out lbw by the home Australian umpires in the entire six Test series (seven if you count the washed out Test).

As regards context and significance, probably gave a nudge towards the need for neutral umpires.

VTR wrote:Could England have won the 2004 CT final? Pretty sure there was a plumb lbw turned down in the latter stages of that - Flintoff bowling perhaps??

With the confidence from that England go on to win the 2007 World Cup as well!

The 2005 one is interesting - would Kasper even have reviewed that, he didn't seem to complain at the time so not sure he knew about the rule!

Good topic.

Pleased to see there is someone else that remembers the stonewall lbw that England should have been given in that CT final. Koertzen was the umpire and no one had any idea on what basis he turned down the appeal.

I agree with VTR about the 2005 Ashes incident. Don't think Australia would have asked for a review.

Putting the boot on the other foot so to speak, if there hadn't been DRS and depending on earlier decisions England would have beaten Sri Lanka in the first Test this season due to Reiffel's shocking lbw decision in the last over. Maybe the extra confidence and lifting of some of the pressure off Cook may have resulted in a series win and a 5-0 whitewash of India ?