Has DRS helped spinners the most?

[Sparkley]

I don't have empirical data to back this up, but my gut feeling is that most of the decisions overturned with the DRS system have been when spinners have bowled. This begs the question : has the system helped spinners the most, perhaps more than necessary? What impact would the DRS have had on the reocrds of the great spinners of the past.

 

[zaremba]

I think it has helped the spinners most. I don't it's helped them "too much" though. It's just highlighted how poorly served they've been by generations of umpires in the past.

 

[kyear2]

It has helped spinners more, especially to batsment pushing down the front pad. It has also hurt some fast bowlers when the umps see how many ball bounce over the stumps. Just my personal obsevations.

 

[Jono]

I don't have empirical data to back this up, but my gut feeling is that most of the decisions overturned with the DRS system have been when spinners have bowled. This begs the question : has the system helped spinners the most, perhaps more than necessary? What impact would the DRS have had on the reocrds of the great spinners of the past.

What do you mean by this?

 

[silentstriker]

No, not too much. Use the bat. Too many batsmen got away with just padding up and it was a very negative style of play IMO. This is good.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it has helped the spinners most. I don't it's helped them "too much" though. It's just highlighted how poorly served they've been by generations of umpires in the past.

Yep, spot on.

 

[Jono]

No, not too much. Use the bat. Too many batsmen got away with just padding up and it was a very negative style of play IMO. This is good.

SS just said spinners doing well is good

 

[Flem274*]

Sig that thang

 

[silentstriker]

SS just said spinners doing well is good

Step and fetch it still better than batsmen though - always been consistant on that point.

 

[thierry henry]

Kinda weird that until the DRS umpires never figured out that faster bowlers usually got more bounce than spinners?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Especially in Australia, the UDRS (and to be fair, probably the wide use of hawk eye beforehand made umpires realise this too) showed how many balls were going over the top, even when hit on the crease.

 

[nexxus]

It made a complete fool of Kevin Pietersen, I think it's worth every penny purely because of that.

Oh, and the spinner thing, I've quite enjoyed that. It's ironic that erm, some people, hate it so much when it appears to have aided finger spinners far more than anyone else, and erm, those people, are historically quite dependent on spin.

 

[Sparkley]

What do you mean by this?

Some of the decisions overturned have been a little too marginal for mine.I'm all for DRS correcting the howlers but I'm not too comfortable with batsmen being given out lbw despite being well forward.Too much uncertainty there.Either that or give every thing that hawk eye shows hitting the stumps out. AT least that'd be more consistent.

 

[Arachnodouche]

It will probably help spinners of Ajmal's ilk, ones that rely on slight deviations, more than the conventionally huge turners like Warne or Murali. I think their returns would've dwindled drastically under DRS.

 

[Outinthedeep]

I think that DRS has helped spinners hugely. Umpires are no longer reluctant to dismiss LBW appeals simply because the batsmen has a stride in, and this has forced batsmen to play with their bat rather than their pad. And this has increased LBW dismissals.

I have just started my own cricket blog, please feel free to view and comment.

http://outinthedeep.wordpress.com/

James

 

[vic_orthdox]

It will probably help spinners of Ajmal's ilk, ones that rely on slight deviations, more than the conventionally huge turners like Warne or Murali. I think their returns would've dwindled drastically under DRS.

Hmm, disagree esp. regarding Warne, the amount of extra wickets he would have gotten with his slider, especially post-suspension, would be even greater.

 

[marc71178]

Some of the decisions overturned have been a little too marginal for mine.I'm all for DRS correcting the howlers but I'm not too comfortable with batsmen being given out lbw despite being well forward.Too much uncertainty there.Either that or give every thing that hawk eye shows hitting the stumps out. AT least that'd be more consistent.

Although it is a bit odd that the same ball is out or not, depending on who reviews but personally I'm not too fussed about that because those are margin calls which is not what UDRS is meant to eradicate.

 

[Sparkley]

I partly agree. A counter argument is that a ball clipping the bails is as out as a ball taking out the entire middle stump. The system could do with a little more consistency.

 

[marc71178]

I partly agree. A counter argument is that a ball clipping the bails is as out as a ball taking out the entire middle stump.

Wrong. A ball clipping the bails reviewed by the bowler is not out, a ball taking out middle stump reviewed by the bowler is out.

The umpire giving the clipping bails either way is right whichever way he calls it as it is too marginal a call. The umpire giving the one taking out middle not out is wrong to a howlerish level, so UDRS corrects him.

 

[Furball]

Some of the decisions overturned have been a little too marginal for mine.I'm all for DRS correcting the howlers but I'm not too comfortable with batsmen being given out lbw despite being well forward.Too much uncertainty there.Either that or give every thing that hawk eye shows hitting the stumps out. AT least that'd be more consistent.

Getting down the track should not make you immune from being dismissed lbw.