• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Joel Wilson versus Kumar Dharmasena

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, nowadays I think home umpires, or 1 umpire from each of the playing nations would work fine. There's too much video scrutiny of umpiring decisions, not to mention the existence of the review system, for biased umpires to survive for long.

Watching that Bucknor video, wow. Most of those videos seem to be from the early 00's when he would've been approaching 60, was it a case of his senses going as he got older or was he always crap?
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In recent times and currently, English and Australian umpires clearly are the best though. It's not "massive arrogance", it's obvious.
 

Flem274*

123/5
dharmasena inventing runs wins him this
Then who is? It certainly ain't Dharmasena. That leaves Dar, Erasmus, Gaffney and Wilson on the elite panel. Perhaps the English and Aussie umpires are the best, not saying they're outstanding but they're probably the best on balance.

The idea of neutral umpires should have been squashed years ago, when umpiring at the elite level became fully professional. I don't think any umpire would feel any particular affinity or duty to their country in terms of decision making. Certainly there wouldn't be any more influence than a local crowd is able to exert on an umpire, neutral or local. Any umpire who is seen to be partisan wouldn't survive very long, and would lose their status and income as a result.

We had the situation where Taufel couldn't umpire a World Cup final for a decade, when he was far and away the best umpire. Let the best umpires umpire the big games. If it's the Ashes, have one from each nation. The only problem is that fools like Vaughan would then try to find an angle on bias, even though they suggested the idea in the first place.
yea this. only dar and gaffeney of the non-ashes nation umpires can be trusted to do anything useful. im sure we've had our fair share of bad aussie/english umpires, but that's just an argument for a strong drs tbh
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
There was a recent article on who gets most decisions correct. I think Wilson and Kumar were right at the top.
 

GoodAreasShane

Cricketer Of The Year
Dharmasena missing a good couple of dozen Ishant Sharma no balls here in Adelaide always springs to mind, a truly terrible effort that. Especially considering Ishant has a history of being prone to overstepping, any umpire with half a brain would know that and keep a close eye out accordingly
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There was a recent article on who gets most decisions correct. I think Wilson and Kumar were right at the top.
Assuming you mean this article?

If so it implies that Kumar is fairly solid on the whole whereas Wilson struggles, though Jo-el is perhaps not the worst.

Michael Gough's record is ****ing crazy. He's admittedly not been an umpire for that long but he has Taufel levels of talent.
 
Last edited:

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not to be a ***** but we also need to rate umps on their soft skills. Like Gould’s recent comments suggest, you need strong umpires to reign in players who keep crossing the line to prevent further nastiness.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's a reasonable, informed stance. A ***** would act like an insufferable ****wit by insisting that decision making skills don't matter much in the mysterious grand scheme of things which us plebs can't comprehend.
 

quincywagstaff

International Debutant
Canning neutral umpires is about the worst suggestion i have ever heard. As crappy as guys like Bucknor were, who screwed up series results due to ineptitude, at least he wasn't predetermining series results on purpose like 80s Pakistani umpires or 90s Australia umpire(s).
Been watching a lot of 1980s/90s cricket played in Australia recently and it struck me how bad most Australian umpires were.

Peter McConnell was probably the worst. Check out this West Indies/Pakistan 1987 ODI where he twice gives dreadful run out decisions (here and here) that were obvious with the naked eye.
.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I am pretty sure I can count a number of bad decisions Lara alone copped in the 90s in Australia. But it was all obviously home biased (maybe to different extents) everywhere back then. That is why neutral umpires is good. Should never ever be taken back IMO. Especially with DRS and more and more decisions being allowed to be referred to the replays, its better we stick with neutral umpires, to at least ensure the conversations are about the abilities of the umpire than the bias.
 

Top