Where is the 'best' umpire?

Beginning tomorrow, India and Australia will get down to some serious cricket business in the most eagerly awaited series which has already been termed as more 'important' than the Ashes and the Indo-Pak duels.

This is true to a great extent given the changing trend and pecking order of Test nations. The Ashes was one-way traffic for more than a decade, a series steeped in tradition and seriously in danger of losing its charm.

A scintillating series in which England regained the Ashes may have revived interest, but even the most ardent fan will have to admit that the old magic is still missing. The same is the case with Indo-Pak rivalry. Too much cricket between these two traditional rivals has robbed it of its cutting edge.

The West Indies are at the other end of the table. A few decades ago, any series involving them was a money-spinner even though most of it ended embarrassingly one-sided. Sri Lanka, by contrast, has no traditional rivalry with any nation though they have played some top class Test cricket in recent times.

On the other hand, series involving New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are mostly forgettable affairs that merely complete the cricket calendar.

Thus it is left to India and Australia to spark the imagination of true connoisseurs of Test cricket. The present series in particular is of paramount interest as it comes following the hugely successful Indian Premier League.

The merits of the two sides and their strengths and weaknesses have already been discussed minutely. The stars to watch, the statistics to follow and the sort of pitches being prepared too have been adequately highlighted. All seems to be in place for the most exciting Test series in recent times.

But to me one issue is striking a discordant note - the lack of importance being attached to umpiring. If this is expected to be the best series in a long, long time, isn't it logical to have the best umpires officiating in it? But the talk is still of neutrality and the stress is on not getting the best but the most convenient and least controversial.

The notion of neutral umpires has long changed since it was first introduced on the insistence of former Pakistan captain Imran Khan. That was in the 80s, when television was still in its infancy and words like 'super slow motion' and 'stump vision' were unheard of. Nevertheless, it was ground-breaking and refreshingly different.

Times have changed and today every single decision by any umpire is scrutinised minutely and judged instantly. There is absolutely no room for doubt and hence no margin for error. The question of bias therefore does not arise.

And in case it still does, the concerned umpire will have as much space to hide as a pole dancer in a seedy nightclub. He will be exposed in no time and banished forever. In the TV era, umpires cannot afford to be partial or biased. And they know it more than anybody else. It is a well-paid profession and rewards for a job well done are good and worthy.

But that doesn't mean cricket won't have its moments of unrest like the one triggered by Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson earlier this year involving the same Indian and Australian teams. It was a volatile period no doubt, but also a time for calm introspection with regard to issues concerning umpires and umpiring.

Since then many new ideas have been put forth to improve the situation. Suggestions like reducing the work load of umpires, cutting travel time and increasing remuneration have been made. The umpires too have complained about being away from their families and the stress of the job affecting their health.

I discussed these topics with C K Nandan, a former classmate of mine who is also a former Ranji Trophy cricketer and now a respected umpire on the fringes of gaining an international 'cap', while on holiday recently.

"Umpiring is a tough job, but today it is also well paid. So no umpire would want to jeopardise his career by being biased or making a deliberate mistake. It is like batting or bowling, the more time you spend doing your job, the better you get," said my friend.

Very true. Former Sri Lanka captain Arjuna Ranatunga said something similar during an interview. But he added one more interesting point.

Ranatunga has a very simple solution to the present problem - allow local umpires to officiate. After all, they know the pitches best, understand the local conditions better and are more comfortable with the crowds than a neutral umpire from a foreign land. This way there is no stress of long travel and being away from the family, according to him.

I liked this suggestion. Draw a list of the best umpires in each country and review it every year with experts and excerpts from TV coverage. The best keep their places while the others get the boot. It may not be so simple, but certainly worth a serious look.

One final point. What's the point of handing over the 'Best Umpire' award every year when the best umpire is not used for the 'best' Test. By the by, umpire Simon Taufel won this award for the fifth straight year last month, and he happens to be an Australian.