Umpires should be allowed to officiate home nation

In his online column, The Sunday Times cricket writer says the travel demands on umpires must be reduced. He also defends an article on the rankings system that sparked much debate and lists the year's most prolific Test batsmen

Mark Benson's inability to complete the Adelaide Test match – “for a combination of health and pressure problems,” according to David Richardson, the ICC’s general manager – is a reminder of the intense demands placed on the world’s elite umpires.

Benson flew home to England with unusual haste for a man who was said to be unwell. Such a long flight was surely not the best thing for someone with a history of heart problems and apparently suffering from stress after a bad day at the office. Surely better that he lay up in bed in his hotel room or even in hospital.

But then home is place that must hold special appeal for ICC umpires because they are very rarely there. Barred from standing in “home” Test matches for fear that they might be accused of favouring their own nation, they spend an inordinate amount of time in foreign climes.

No wonder they have been haggling with the ICC about their new contracts. No wonder they have just extracted what Richardson concedes are significantly improved terms. Even the cricketers get to play in their own country for decent chunks of time.

But however much umpires are paid, surely it is time for them to be allowed to come home. It is eight years since the elite panel was set up and the decision taken that every Test should be policed by neutral umpires.

It was always the ICC’s intention that this would be only an interim stage during which umpires could establish themselves as truly independent — umpires first and citizens of a particular country second. Once that was felt to have been achieved, a gradual return to umpires standing at home could begin.

That time has surely arrived. Simon Taufel, for example, has become widely accepted as the world’s best umpire; that reputation is not going to evaporate overnight if he were to occasionally officiate in a Test match in Sydney or Perth. Would any touring side really object if Billy Bowden was permitted to stand in a Test in New Zealand or Aleem Dar in Pakistan – if there ever is another Test match in Pakistan, that is.

The referral system, which despite the bungling of various officials charged with reviewing TV replays seems set to stay, means that there is less scope than there used to be for an official to have a harmful effect (wilfully or otherwise) on a game. “Suspect” decisions by on-field umpires are open to challenge; wrong decisions by TV officials are, as we have seen, possible but bound to attract controversy and suspicion.

If a sense of neutrality is to be maintained, though, an umpire might still be expected to stand in his own country no more often than he would in any other place. There could be no “quota” system of the sort that has been used in ODIs, where one on-field umpire is a “home” umpire and one a “foreigner”.

Apart from anything else the repatriation of ICC umpires might encourage more good men to make themselves available for the elite panel, because there have been some – such as Peter Willey– who have been put off by the excessive travel. And with the role of the third official now of so much more importance, the more good men the ICC can call on the better.

The fact that Benson has felt it necessary to set up a second home in Florida to ease his amount of travelling says a lot. ICC umpires are not so much citizens of the world, as nomads. That in itself must be stressful and, ultimately, soul-destroying.

Jealous, moi? Hardly, I know England are mediocre

The Edge cooked up a storm with its views of the ICC rankings system.

Such was the vehemence of many of the comments that came our way that some clarification is in order.

For those who feel our views were anti-India or even – much worse and completely unfounded, pro-white – it must be stated that we were never suggesting that India’s claiming of the No 1 spot was wrong, merely that the case for them being regarded as No 1 was at least open to dispute – as it would be for any other top side.

In the past, West Indies and Australia were so far ahead of the rest of the pack that no one would have argued that they were the world’s best team. That situation does not apply today. No team enjoys that luxury. South Africa missed an opportunity to cement themselves at the top by losing at home to Australia.

The “world Test championship”, such as it is, is unusually open and this makes it in our view all the more important that the ICC provides the top teams with a true test – championship play-offs if you like – to resolve which of them is truly the best. At the moment teams might get to the top simply by being better at thrashing the weaker sides at home.

Were there to be semi-final and final play-offs, India might well prove to be world champions, although given their sometimes fragile showings under pressure this is by no means guaranteed. But if they were to prove themselves top dogs in play-off matches, The Edge would be as pleased as anyone. It might even make India’s administrators schedule more Test matches.

The reason we made so much of India’s record against Australia and South Africa is that both these teams have recently been No 1, so it was at least worth examining how India had fared against them.

And as for the idea that The Edge is jealous on behalf of England that they are not the top team is simply absurd. No one who spends their life watching international cricket can seriously think England are anything other than mid-table mediocrities. That must be the expectation for them in the future – at least until they find some world-class wrist spinners and out-and-out fast men.

Boycott rant not a one-off

Geoff Boycott’s recent clanger in swearing loudly enough at the back of the BBC radio commentary box for listeners to hear him even though he was supposedly off-air will come as no surprise to those who have worked closely with him. According to Simon Hughes in Leo McKinstry’s biography of Boycott, published nine years ago, Hughes and other commentators were always amazed at the range of Boycott’s expletives off-air and were certain that one day he would slip up while broadcasting. “But he had the uncanny knack of always reverting to expletive-free speech once behind the microphone,” Hughes said. There may be worse to come, then.

THE LIST: MOST TEST RUNS IN 2009

1. Thilan Samaraweera (Sri Lanka) 1,234

2. Mahela Jayawardena (Sri Lanka) 1,194

3. Tillakaratne Dilshan (Sri Lanka) 1,097

4. Kumar Sangakkara (Sri Lanka) 1,083

5. Andrew Strauss (England) 1,071

6. Michael Clarke (Australia) 941

7. Simon Katich (Australia) 902

8. Alastair Cook (England) 815

9. Ramnaresh Sarwan (West Indies) 797

10. Ross Taylor (New Zealand) 761