Alem Dar

[Zainub]

Forgive me for being a little (just a little) biased, but I happen to think Aleem Dar is a good umpire. I was just wondering what every one esle makes of him.

[The Great DonTalon]

He's a coward..he seldom gives decisions.The truly good umps give players out instead of hidding behind the notout verdit

[Zainub]

Well, you're entitled to keep your opinions, but there was a certain Zimbabwean umpire who got sacked from the elite list because he was apparently giving too many people out (ICC inquiry found out he was consistently giving out players LBW even when the ball pitched out side leg). And speaking of him being coward, he wided Shane Warne day before yesterday, twice, for bowling too wide out side off stump to Oram, the first one was really wide, but the second one was closer, so Warnie asked him why he wided that, and he replied unquote "you worry about your job and I'll worry about mine"...a person that would be coward wouldn't dare say that to the world record holder, or would he?

[The Great DonTalon]

why wouldn't he say that to Warne?..A cricket cheat..

[Maranello]

Yes Zainub I really enjoyed that little episode between Dar and Warne - pulled Warne down a peg or two! He was deliberately bowling negative and then had the cheek to suggest he was doing so to get a top edge from any attempted Oram sweeps! What sweeps on bowls a foot outside leg? I don't think so!

So Dar did the right thing, though the expression on Warne's face was priceless :-) I guess he is not used to officials standing up to his cheeky antics, since the ACB (and even the ICC) have been spineless in its dealing with their so-called "star".

Anyway, good on Dar..hence I rated him excellent. In general though, I'd say he is very good, and alongwith Australia's Simon Taufel the best umpire around. He officiated in part of the IND-AUS series and did well - for a Paki umpire to get plaudits from Indian fans for being unbiased, is a rarity indeed.

On a slightly different note, and we may well end up starting a new thread for this ... but Zainub don't you think that the older generation of umpires now needs to move on? In all walks of life people retire at 60 or thereabouts, so its staggering that in professional sport, at the very highest level, we have Shepherd officiating well into his 60s! The guy is a great character and a fun umpire but is he really fit enough to carry on umpiring at his advanced age? At the very least ICC should institute regular health tests for all umpires, and have regular monitoring and review. Bucknor and Shepherd, though very experienced, may not be as good now. We say that for players and for people in all other walks of life - why is it sacrilege to suggest that for umpires?

Taufel is excellent since he reviews his performances himself regularly - one report said that every evening he watches videos of his decisions to make sure he does not make the same mistake twice and also that he consistently sets a standard. He also prepares for matches by watching recent videos of the players he is officiating on, so he can identify problem areas. This is the sort of professional, no-nonsense approach we need. The age of amiable, bumbling eccentrics is over.

I know there are many England fans on this board who love Shepherd - my aim in bringing this up is not to castigate a good person, or to offend any of my friends and fellow-posters. I simply want to highlight the apparent lack of ongoing reviews by the ICC for its Elite Panel and hear some open and honest views.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by The Great DonTalon

why wouldn't he say that to Warne?..A cricket cheat..

That is very strong Don. Warne is an eccentric, and is often very cheeky - he pushes the boundaries of what is right, sometimes, sure.

But when has he "deliberately broken the Laws of Cricket to gain an unfair advantage"? How can you classify him as a cheat?

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Maranello

That is very strong Don. Warne is an eccentric, and is often very cheeky - he pushes the boundaries of what is right, sometimes, sure.

But when has he "deliberately broken the Laws of Cricket to gain an unfair advantage"? How can you classify him as a cheat?

I think he calls him a cheat because of that drugs ban Warnie served and/or his alleged involment in match fixing, but I'm not sure, so you should wait for his response.

On your earlier point about Shep and Buck, I'm glad you've brought it up. I'll agree that that ICC needs to set a retiring age for umpires and secondly, just ask them to train, as in train wearing joggers and track suits running around in the field just like regular player. Because that's what footy referees do as well, and all of them remain very fit. Of coarse in football there job is physically a lot more challenging than in cricket, but standing for 6,7,8 hours for 4,5 consecutive days, well, that is not easy either, and I think it is hard enough to require regular physical training. That's why I like the idea Simon Taufell uses to warm up, he officites as umpires in nets while people are practicing. I think it is a good habbit other umpires should also follow.

Secondly, I wouldn't for once dare to suggest legends like Shep and Buck should be fored to retire by sacking them, that would be disgraceful, both these guys are approaching some significant mile stones and hence I'm not surprised both have decided to carry on with there careers for a little longer. I think they them selves realise that now, as they are aging, and cricket is entering a new era (where there is so much more travelling to do and there is so much more pressure then before and such much more media scrutiny and yet still ironically so much less credit for doing well a very tough job -as Don just proved in his thread by calling Dar a coward-), their task is becoming more and more difficult. I think they have been around for too long to not know or realise this themselves, and need no reminders about that.

I also think they have really not done that badly as widely beleived now-a-days, but you're right, I don't think they are as good now as they were once, where in lies a message for the ICC that they should set a retiring age for umpires. I would let Shehard and Bucknor retire on their own, rather then force them to retire them by slamming them with frequent criticism (some in very harsh terms) and reminding them of their age all the time. I think they know them selves as well that they can't be hanging around for ever, and will make the right decesions them selves some time soon. For now, we must wish them the best of the luck for the remainder of their careers and hope that the ICC wakes up and uses a bit of common sense by setting a retirement age for umpires.

[Maranello]

I agree Zainub, I am not by any means casting doubts on the efficacy or the integrity of Bucknor or Shepherd. Am only using them as an example of this phenemenon, unique amongst professions, where there are no guidelines on retirement ages.

I find it sad when people condemn good, honest umpires with harsh words. In fact, in a lengthy post (here) I strongly criticise this habit of sub-continental fans of blaming their defeats on alleged umpires' bias, and even attributing dishonest motives to eminently honest and respectable men!

In general, there should be consistent reviews of the performance of the Elite Panel members, and performance improvement porgrammes etc, alongwith strong penalties for those who question umpires' decisions. But the reviews should be thorough and professional - if someone is not good enough and fails to improve after a few series, they should be replaced. Only such a rigourous appraoch will shut those immature hotheads alleging bias.

Not sure if I agree about your thoughts on milestones though - Test cricket is not someone's plaything, and the ICC should not indulge people just because they are approaching personal milestones. The Elite Panel is not an ego trip for its members - it should be a highly respected body of excellent umpires who are decent and honourable men (and it is, for me anyway)! Venkatraghavan retired when still a good umpire and others can do well to follow his lead. In any case, you suggest a retirement age - so if any of the current chaps are above that age already, wouldn't that be forcing them into retirement, something you are averse to?

[Zainub]

I'd agree strongly with your views on how you think umpires should be reviewed and assessed on a consistent basis, and I also agree on how sub-continental fans need to do a lot of growing up with respect to reacting to defeats. And that link you provide, has some excellent comments made by you. Especially on how you think cricket differs from football, so there is no room for post match finger pointing at any officials, umpires or curators, or weather even, because I'm a really strong beleiver in the fact that no one but the team is responsible for a loss.

When speaking about mile stones I don't think I meant the ICC should be considering them, what I meant was that on a personal level I think these guys (Shep and Buck) might be looking at those milestone, it was just a catch phrase, I'm not even sure if they are aware of the milestones they are nearing. I'm saying that perhaps there is a chance they are slightly just slightly delaying the inevitable stigma of retirement in the hope to get to their milestones.

I also don't think ICC should be bothered about milestones, generally speaking they should be bothered about weather the elite umpires are doing a good service to the game by consistently making good decesions. What I just meant was that because these two have done a big, big service to the game, ICC should wait till these two retire to make any laws regarding retirement ages, how long can these two go on for anway, 1 year, 2 years at the most, ultimately they will retire them selves, I think it would make no difference to wait until then, or would it in your opinion?

I think we must wait as a matter of respect, and appreciation for all the services they have rendered to the game, it's not a matter of having respect for them as individuals, you are right about the game being bigger than individuals, but Shep and Buck have done things for the game, they've hardly achived anything for themselves, I mean relative to cricketers they haven't achieved that much money, not achieved that much fame, although a lot of love and respect, but ultimately we'll be honoring them for their services to cricket -the game- in general.

For the future though this is a lesson, if the ICC had already set retirement ages before, we wouldn't have to wait for anyone to pass any milestones or wait for anything for that matter because Buck and Shep would have already respectably retired a good time before age really started affecting their fitness levels and any could have questioned their crudentials.

At least we can hope that good umpires like Dar, very good umpires like Hair and excellent umpires like Taufel will not be officiating well into their 60s and henceforth be saved from the ignomy of being labelled "biased" by a certain group of irrashional fans.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

When speaking about mile stones I don't think I meant the ICC should be considering them, what I meant was that on a personal level I think these guys (Shep and Buck) might be looking at those milestone, it was just a catch phrase, I'm not even sure if they are aware of the milestones they are nearing. I'm saying that perhaps there is a chance they are slightly just slightly delaying the inevitable stigma of retirement in the hope to get to their milestones.

Good points as always ZR. Maybe a trifle too sentimental for me, especially in suggesting that we delay making a good rule to suit individuals.

I am a great believer that laws should not be made to suit one-off or individual events, and should not be modified on pressure from one lobby group - whether its a ban on handguns after Dunblane, or changing the law on chucking just to suit one person (which I believe is not ICC's motive, hence my ambivalence for the rule changes and not being against them).

Similarly, if an umpires' retirement age rule is a good law and needs to be brought in, it should be now - individual circumstances should not impact on the promulgation of group laws. On the other hand, if its not a good rule, it should never be brought it. In principle, to modify laws, or to not modify laws, simply to accomodate one-off aberrations is a slippery slope and I think contrary to natural justice.

However I do empathise with your views, which are based on a generous and sentimental desire to respect these gentlemen - nothing wrong with that per se, I do not have a problem with a chap's worse vice being sentimentality. :-)

As a slightly trivial aside - am a bit concerned about the "stigma of retirement" comment. I know you are 17 and retirement is a good 4 decades off for you, but well... there are others who are nearer to that milestone than that you know!

Good thing you don't live in the UK or Age Concern would be leafletting your neighbours about your ageist views! :-) There is no stigma in retirement, I am sure you didn't mean it that way in any case. :-)