I have written before about this being a new golden age for spin bowling. One of the few benefits of T20 and the IPL I can think of is the rise and rise of the slow bowler's art, especially leg-spin. On the down side, it's largely because variation in spin, pace and flight makes it hard for batsmen to score runs, rather than for wicket-taking.
Sides in the IPL started opening their attack with spinners, and this strategy was taken up by international teams, not only in T20 but also 50-over cricket. Pitches around the world are also becoming more spin-friendly, with the result that even Test elevens routinely field two slow bowlers, often one right-hander and one leftie for variety. The '90s gave us Warne, Muralitharan and Kumble, by far the most prolific Test wicket-takers in history. Despite the ongoing proliferation of spin, their totals may never be beaten. That trio benefited from often being the only spinner, or the only one of note in their team, and therefore bowled for long spells, resulting in more opportunities to take wickets. In many ways, Murali was a strike bowler just as much as Vaas was. Nowadays, there could be three spinners sharing the load and therefore the wickets.
Recent Test series have witnessed a large proportion of wickets falling to spinners, be they from Pakistan, England, Sri Lanka or even West Indies. Part of the credit must go to the official referral system, or DRS. Suddenly there are more LBWs than ever before, especially for spinners. In the past, umpires would rarely give any batsman out sweeping because the front pad was so far forward of the crease. The use of all the slow-motion gizmos has revealed that the ball would actually often have gone on to hit the stumps.
Whether because of the umpires or fielding skippers immediately requesting DRS for a refused appeal, LBWs are becoming more common. Just look at Herath, Swann and co last week. Now there are calls for the whole DRS system to be reviewed. Why? Because it redresses the balance back in favour of the slow bowlers and not the quicks or the batsmen? Assuming Hawkeye and so on are reliable - which I know is a big assumption - DRS merely demonstrates that we have been getting it wrong for over a hundred years, and not getting it wrong now! In that way, DRS is a force for good.
On the other hand, I get fed up with all the disruption of the action. It's vital to retain the limit of unsuccessful referrals to stop pointless and frustrating appeals to the TV umpire, often just to annoy the batting side, but I bet you that the maximum numbers of appeals will be increased in the coming years, so TV companies can squeeze in yet more ads. Like those blasted strategic timeouts which render IPL matches so flaming tedious to watch on screen. From this angle, DRS is a force for evil. Nevertheless, you can't disinvent it, and therefore is here to stay. I just appeal to the ICC not to spread it to every decision, every aspect of play or you'll just kill cricket as a spectacle. I imagine the spinners' union, however, will be only too happy for it to continue!
