The day panned as expected.
England bowled better lines and lengths, Australia capitulated. England then worked themselves into a fairly decent position before taking the light ( a move that I have never quite endorsed but in the context of the game, pardonable).
Day 3 beckons with Australia having to do all the running. An early start and a ball that is 36 overs old means that Australia are more or less in the same position England were in at the end of Day 1. But while England were guilty of bad bowling, the same cannot be said of Australia. Australia has to think wickets, not containment , if they have to stay in the game. And they have to do this despite Rudi Koetzen.
Which brings me to this - should 100 tests be the cut off for the life of a Test umpire? Steve Bucknor was one who went over a 100 tests and the less said about his umpiring, the better. Ditto Koetzen. And with technology becoming more integral in the game today, is it time for the ICC to expand its Elite panel by compulsorily forcing each test playing nation to volunteer atleast two Test umpires?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Test 3 Day 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Isn't there a periodic review of these intnl umps? If not, there should be one.
Doesnt amount to much Vijay. India regularly gave Bucknor low marks and yet he was persisted with.
Cheers,
The Panel definitely needs to be expanded. Do you think the is an issue with the boards?
As for cut offs, perhaps age is as relevant as number of Tests?
Jonathan,
The way I understand it, the ICC has certain qualifying criteria for Elite umpires. Each of the member nations is then expected to nominate umpires based on those criteria.
Which explains the limited nature of the Elite umpires club.
Age is relevant too- I agree.
Cheers,
Post a Comment