Real culprit of world cricket farce....

[Malleeboy]

There is infact a quite clear pattern emerging from the last couple of major crises in world cricket. The culprit who is destroying world cricket is an Australian, but it isn't Ricky Ponting or James Sutherland....No its Simon Taufel.

This arrogant and egotistical aussie is ruthlessly ensuring that all competition to his unchallenged run as the worlds best umpire is maintianed.

Daryl Hair was challenging Taufel because of his high rating for correct decisions as measured by the ICC. But Simon the insidious managed to manipulate the match situation in the Eng v Pak match, so that his competition would be removed. Despite Hair having topped the correct decision rating for the year in which he has dismissed.

Last year Bucknor and Benson were next in line behind Taufel in te ICC awards, so suddenly they mysteriously are both found themselves under pressure to keep their umpiring spots with Bucknor quite possibly being put out to pasture. How could two umpires with such illustrious careers fall so quickly. Clearly this has to be the work of that arrogant aussie, Taufel the aweful. Could this be a coincidince, no clearly there is a pattern that any umpire that challenges Taufel falls on misfortune and gets banned by the ICC. It's a conspircay I tells ya.....

(A post in humour of the some of the irrational and silly stuff I've endured reading in the last week, and I'm talking especially to you Roebuck.)

 

[pasag]

Taufel the aweful.

 

[JASON]

I disagree strongly ...the culprits are Aleem Dar and Billy Bowden who have conspired to make all the others look poor...more than Taufel

 

[chaminda_00]

TBH I don't get way people rate Taufel so high. Personally I think his average and not that much better then Dar. His a long way behind Sheppard, Bucknor and Bird at their best. Probably still behind Venkat and Willey too.

 

[Jono]

TBH I don't get way people rate Taufel so high. Personally I think his average and not that much better then Dar. His a long way behind Sheppard, Bucknor and Bird at their best. Probably still behind Venkat and Willey too.

cue someone to make an argument stating "umpiring was better pre-2000, when flat tracks, small grounds and better bowlers were around

 

[frey]

TBH I don't get way people rate Taufel so high. Personally I think his average and not that much better then Dar. His a long way behind Sheppard, Bucknor and Bird at their best. Probably still behind Venkat and Willey too.

What??? Taufel behind Sheppard and Bucknor at their best? I have seen Taufel officiate in several Test matches and he is exceptionally good. I wish he was available to umpire matches in Australia. Far better than the poor standard I saw in Sydney in the past week.

I cannot get over the comment on Taufel !!

 

[NUFAN]

cue someone to make an argument stating "umpiring was better pre-2000, when flat tracks, small grounds and better bowlers were around

NIce one!

 

[Richard]

cue someone to make an argument stating "umpiring was better pre-2000, when flat tracks, small grounds and better bowlers were around

Well Umpiring was better in the days of Dickie Bird. He's the Bradman of Umpiring.

And standards of Umpiring, too, do go up and down. David Shephard was obviously outstanding too, as was Bucknor in his heyday, and Venkat as well. South Africa had a decent triplet at one point in Koertzen, Orchard and Diedricks too.

TBH I'm happy enough at the current lot of Dar, Taufel and Bowden (when not in Australia games), with Rauf and one or two others on the next rung down. It's a great shame Jeremy Lloyds decided (as did Peter Willey a little while before) he didn't want to do the international circuit. I still hold out some hope for Nigel Llong too.

I've never really thought Mark Benson was outstanding though TBH.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I can give you one very simple reason why Taufel is better - he's younger.

I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that simply having been around cricket for a long time doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing - Ian Botham is living testament to that.

It's also beyond reasonable doubt that younger, fitter men (Taufel takes great pride in his fitness) have far better reflexes, far quicker thought processes and far better eyesight. I don't understand why cricket proceeds with the archaic exercise of employing men aged 50 and above to do a job that requires such rapid calculations and such a level head.

 

[Richard]

The likes of Mark Benson prove that youth is not, at all, all there is to Umpiring.

What's more, Dickie Bird was still the best Umpire in The World well into his 50s. Age may be an advantage, but it's neither a prerequistite nor a guarantee.

 

[Malleeboy]

I'd rather like to point out that specifically praising Taufel was never my intention, it was a mocking of some of the nut cases out there seeing conspiriacy theory of the grandest order when the truthful and most logical answer is just the umpires had a shocker.

Maybe I should have used "The Boys from Brazil" scenario where a mad scientist has created a race of genetic clones, that are slowly working there way into positions of supreme power in a range of countries. Once in those position of power they will do the job so badly that they will weaken the power of the state. In the US the president is the most important, in Australia clearly the cricket captain is the most important.

This is the only obvious solution to the similiarilities between George Bush and Ricky Ponting, I mean look at them they could be brothers. (Albeit about 20 years apart.)

 

[Barney Rubble]

The likes of Mark Benson prove that youth is not, at all, all there is to Umpiring.

What's more, Dickie Bird was still the best Umpire in The World well into his 50s. Age may be an advantage, but it's neither a prerequistite nor a guarantee.

You're right, by all means it's completely possible to be a competent umpired into old age, and simply being young does not make you good. I just don't understand why cricket's love of tradition stretches to allowing numerous umpires to continue doing their job long after they are physically apt for the job.

 

[Slow Love™]

I like this Malleeboy fella. Seems the old awards have gone by the wayside, but I'd cast a vote his way for best new member.

 

[Richard]

The Awards are dormant at the moment fella - can't get the staff.

 

[Richard]

You're right, by all means it's completely possible to be a competent umpired into old age, and simply being young does not make you good. I just don't understand why cricket's love of tradition stretches to allowing numerous umpires to continue doing their job long after they are physically apt for the job.

Numerous?

Of late I can think of Bucknor (who's basically a wholly over-stated case, he's been juuust fine the last 2-and-a-half years, having seemed to have been past his retire-by date for the previous 2-and-a-half) and possibly Rudi Koertzen (whose hearing is apparently getting worse, and obviously if that's true he must retire).

David Shephard was still a perfectly good Umpire into his 60s, Venkat retired just as people might have started saying "he's getting old"... is there anyone else you had in mind?

 

[Barney Rubble]

Numerous?

Of late I can think of Bucknor (who's basically a wholly over-stated case, he's been juuust fine the last 2-and-a-half years, having seemed to have been past his retire-by date for the previous 2-and-a-half) and possibly Rudi Koertzen (whose hearing is apparently getting worse, and obviously if that's true he must retire).

David Shephard was still a perfectly good Umpire into his 60s, Venkat retired just as people might have started saying "he's getting old"... is there anyone else you had in mind?

There was no-one particular I had in mind, really, and that last part was phrased very badly. I just wondered why, with so many mistakes being made by so many umpires worldwide and with so much riding on them, no-one had questioned whether or not the standard of world umpiring could be almost universally improved.

I'm not saying there's numerous umpires out there who are doing their jobs badly - just that there is certainly an argument that states that it is certainly worth investigating why it is we proceed to settle for the current level of umpiring as a benchmark. Are umpires these days doing their jobs to a satisfactory level? Yes. Could today's umpiring standards be improved? Almost undoubtedly.

What's to say that the decisions we do see umpires get wrong these days are part and parcel of international cricket? Why shouldn't we strive for perfection in every aspect of the game? Why should we settle for seeing anywhere between five and ten match-changing poor umpiring decisions in Test cricket every year? Employing younger umpires, and by that I mean encouraging players to go directly into umpiring after retirement and actually helping them train rather than letting them spend ten years rotting in county cricket, could benefit the game immeasurably in the long run, and I feel it's extremely short-sighted of the ICC not to consider doing so.

Geddit? "Short-sighted"? No......?

 

[Richard]

What's to say that the decisions we do see umpires get wrong these days are part and parcel of international cricket? Why shouldn't we strive for perfection in every aspect of the game? Why should we settle for seeing anywhere between five and ten match-changing poor umpiring decisions in Test cricket every year?

I agree completely about this BTW - I posted on the matter in this thread. I do believe it'd be very much possible to have near-perfect Umpiring decisions, and to take this down to more than merely the international level.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well Umpiring was better in the days of Dickie Bird. He's the Bradman of Umpiring.

I liked Dickie as much as the next man, but it would've been interesting to see him umpire in these days of Hawkeye. Whilst acknowledging it's still fallible, I personally reckon it would've showed he turned down an awful lot of not-unadjacent LBWs.

 

[Richard]

I reckon he would have done at first - then, realising what was HawkEye's results was showing him and everyone else, would have changed his practices and started giving them out. He was never blind or stubborn to ways of improving himself.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

not-unadjacent LBWs.

Like...adjacent ones?