Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by skoo.. » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 04:01:34


Just read a brilliant article in Cricinfo. NZ umpires really screwed
Lloyd and his team over in 1980. Question for the longest time decided
opininon has been that the Pakis were the worst umpires in the world.
Kaiser Hyat, Shakoor Rana and other such thugs that were both cheats
and incompetent.  After reading the cricinfo article, it seems like NZ
was actually worse than the  Pakis.
Article below.

-SB

Shoulder barges and flying stumps

Martin Williamson

February 18, 2006

Michael Holding boils over at Dunedin ? Wisden Cricketers' Almanack
The 1979-80 tour of New Zealand by West Indies produced what was one of
the most acrimonious Test series of all time, and probably marked the
nadir in player behaviour in a year pockmarked by unsavoury incidents.

West Indies arrived after a tour of Australia during which they had won
the Test series 2-0 and also beaten England 2-0 in the inaugural final
of the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup. But from the off, things went
badly. Michael Holding recalled that the team had to carry their own
kit to the bus and were accommodated in "cramped motels" rather than
five-star hotels. And he didn't like the food provided on the grounds -
"usually sausage and beans".

Quote:
>From the start of the three-Test series in New Zealand, they displayed

remarkable petulance. Perhaps it was weariness (Viv Richards, for
example, had gone straight home after the Australian leg of the tour),
perhaps it was because they were on the back foot against opponents
they would have expected to crush. Whatever the reason, the result was
unedifying.

The trouble all started early in New Zealand's second innings at
Dunedin when Holding felt he had John Parker caught behind by
wicketkeeper Deryck Murray, but umpire John Hastie disagreed. Holding
fumed, then walked down to the striker's end and fly-hacked two of the
stumps out of the ground. The spectacular image of the kick, described
by a local paper as " a disgraceful display of back-alley behaviour",
was to provide a fitting image of the series, although Holding later
admitted it had been reproduced a bit too much for his liking. "This
was not cricket," Holding wrote, "and I didn't have to be part of it. I
was on my way to the pavilion, quite prepared not to bowl again, when
Clive Lloyd and Murray persuaded me back."

Rather than take any action, Willie Rodriguez, the West Indies manager,
gave Holding no more than a talking to, and then inflamed the situation
when he told the press that: "We got two men out and they were not
given. They were atrocious decisions." As if to underline their
manager's comments, only Desmond Haynes (who was Batsman of the Match)
attended the post-game presentations. Richard Hadlee was unimpressed,
pointing out "good sportsmanship is fundamental". All-in-all, it
overshadowed a remarkable Test which New Zealand won by one wicket
after being set 104.

Nine days later, the teams resumed battle in the second Test at
Christchurch, but any hope that the acrimony would be forgotten was
dispelled on the third afternoon, and again it was a catch at the
wicket which triggered the problems. This time, the batsman was New
Zealand's captain, Geoff Howarth, who was on 68 (he went on to get
147), the bowler Joel Garner, and the umpire Fred Goodall.

At the tea break, West Indies were almost apoplectic. Lloyd asked his
side what they wanted to do, and the unanimous decision was not to
resume. As the umpires and batsmen waited in the middle, a New Zealand
board official was told by Lloyd: "They can wait. We won't be joining
them."

Holding with Colin Croft and Joel Garner ? Getty Images
Howarth returned to the pavilion and talked to Lloyd, apparently
assuring him that he would tell his batsmen they had to walk if they
knew they had hit the ball. West Indies agreed to resume, some 12
minutes after the scheduled time. But in the first over Holding later
recalled that Howarth stood his ground "for yet another clear catch by
Murray." The final session was marred by a dreadful over rate, and at
one stage Holding bowled four successive bouncers to Howarth.

That night, West Indies packed up their kit and emptied the dressing
room. Although the next day was the rest day, they did not anticipate
returning and expected to be leaving New Zealand altogether. During a
three-hour squad meeting a vote was taken and the majority, including
Rodriguez, said they wanted to quit the tour. But when the West Indies
board was advised, it made it clear that was not an option.

But the fourth day contained the most unpleasant incident of all. Colin
Croft, who was repeatedly jeered by the crowd for dawdling back to his
mark, appealed - belatedly - for a catch behind when Hadlee swished at
a bouncer and again Goodall turned it down. Croft reacted with a
four-letter salvo at Goodall, and both then umpires spoke to West
Indies' captain, Lloyd. It had little effect.

In his next over, Croft slammed a series of bouncers at Hadlee, and
when Goodall no-balled him, Croft deliberately knocked the bails off as
he walked back past the stumps. As he ran in to bowl his next ball (he
did so from almost directly behind the umpire) he deliberately
shoulder-charged him. "It hurt for a while," Goodall said. "I told
Lloyd I have taken some treatment from players in my time, but it has
always been verbal."

Both umpires again talked at length with Lloyd (who would not budge
from where he was standing in the slips and made them walk all the way
over to him) but he refused to remove Croft from the attack. He must
have wished he had as in his next over Croft again peppered Hadlee with
bouncers, one flying high over Murray for four byes, conceding 15 runs.
Croft was taken off and spent the rest of the day sulking on the
boundary, showing almost no interest in proceedings.

Fortunately, the third Test was less eventful, but not before West
Indies had withdrawn a protest against the appointment of Goodall to
stand in the match. The tour still ended on a sour note when four
senior West Indies players indicated they had flights arranged to take
them home which would mean them leaving at lunch on the final day. They
explained that substitute fielders could take their place. Fortunately,
they were talked out of a last act of petulance.

"Our bowlers appealed ump*** times," Lloyd shrugged at the
end-of-series press conference . "But it got to the ridiculous stage
when they weren't even appealing. They knew they wouldn't get the
decision." Murray estimated that as many as 20 decisions went against
West Indies.

Clive Lloyd: failed to control his side ... but that did stop him
becoming an ICC match referee ? Getty Images
Wisden summed up the situation as follows: "The main complaint in New
Zealand was about the umpiring, and in retrospect there is little doubt
that if both sides suffered from difficult, debatable decisions, more
went against West Indies than against New Zealand. Both Rodriguez and
Lloyd said there should be neutral umpires in Test matches. Such
complaints by touring teams are by no means uncommon; they have been
made in every cricketing country for years. But Rodriguez, after
stating at a press conference in Christchurch that he did not think the
umpiring was biased, only incompetent, claimed after his departure that
the West Indians had had to get batsmen out nine times before getting a
decision. And his allegations went well beyond the bounds of acceptable
comment when he claimed the West Indians were `set up; that there was
no way we could win a Test'."

But once back in the Caribbean, Lloyd admitted that he should have
taken a firmer line with his players and that he was to blame for
incidents that "were not in the best interests of the game". For the
tour of England which followed, Rodriguez was replaced by the more
diplomatic Clyde Walcott, and all the squad signed a contract which
included a penalty clause covering bad behaviour.

Martin Williamson is managing editor of Cricinfo.

 
 
 

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by Dean Bedfor » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 04:22:01

I'm not a great fan of trying to class the ability of umpires by race.
But the article doesn't include any comparisons between New Zealand and
Pakistan umpires, nor does it include any assessments of the umpiring
apart from those from the West Indian side.

I remember the season well. Some context. At the time the New Zealand
side was internationally a team of no-names. Richard Hadlee had not
achieved the international regard he was to within the following few
years. Glenn Turner was the only other respected name - and he spent
the series in the commentary box. Internationally NZ was held in about
the same respect as the Zimbabwe team is now.

In comparison the West Indies had spent most of the past five seasons
thrashing everyone. They had just arrived from Australia having won
everyting in sight. Viv Richards did not tour - but of those players
that did, about eight or nine would have been contenders for a world XI
at the time.

It was humiliating for them that New Zealand was competitive with them.
The previous season an understrength Pakistan team had toyed with NZ in
the NZ season. WI expected to win the games easily. In fact NZ won the
first test by just one wicket - the other two tests were even and
drawn.

None of this is to suggest that every umpiring decision was correct.
But let's remember the context of the abysmally bad behaviour.

 
 
 

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by shineythin » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:57:48

Quote:

> Just read a brilliant article in Cricinfo. NZ umpires really screwed
> Lloyd and his team over in 1980. Question for the longest time decided
> opininon has been that the Pakis were the worst umpires in the world.
> Kaiser Hyat, Shakoor Rana and other such thugs that were both cheats
> and incompetent.  After reading the cricinfo article, it seems like NZ
> was actually worse than the  Pakis.
> Article below.

You need to read the article again.  What it actually does is confirm -
again - that the WI team of that era were a disgrace to cricket.
Arrogant, ***, and an over-inflated sense of their own importance
are just a few of the more polite terms I would use to describe them.
And their style of cricket was insufferably boring as well.

That particular tour started with an improbable NZ ODI win at Lancaster
Park.  From that point on, the WI decided they would use umpiring as a
smokescreen for their own inability to adapt to NZ conditions.

In fact, they got two rough decisions in the first two tests.  Parker
was given not out in the second innings at Dunedin when he gloved a
catch to the keeper.  On 0 at the time, he went on to get (from memory)
the grand total of 1.  Then Hadlee was given not out to a catch down
the leg side at Chch - it was obviously out to me as I was sitting
behind the batsman at time, but the umpire didn't have that luxury.
Otherwise, the reason they couldn't get anybody out was because Holding
et al insisted on bowling halfway down the track, a tactic that was
never going to trouble anybody on low, seaming NZ wickets.

The umpire who was the particular target of their abuse - Fred Goodall
- had stood at international level for a number of years prior to the
tour (and, incidentally, was still going 6-7 years later when the WI
next toured NZ), none of them marked by any particular dispute or
controversy.  Ironically, a year or two before all this, a study came
out that showed that, over the entire history of test cricket, NZ was
the only country where visiting bowlers had obtained more LBW
dismissals than the locals.  In that sense, NZ umpires were indeed
'worse' than Pakistan's - and everybody else's as well...

Lloyd, Holding and Croft should have been banned for life following
that tour.  Certainly it should be impossible for anyone to take them
seriously as match referees and commentators.  I've never attended a WI
match since, and even now I can't find a shred of sympathy for their
current travails.

 
 
 

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by skoo.. » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:26:38

Quote:
> What it actually does is confirm -
> again - that the WI team of that era were a disgrace to cricket.
> Arrogant, ***, and an over-inflated sense of their own importance

Let's see. You put a visiting team from a test playing nation - and
world champions at that and regarded by many as the greatest side ever
- in motels. Would you dare to put visitng Aussies and English sides in
a motel? Not even poor countries like Bangladesh puts visiting teams in
motel and on cusine that the boat people wouldn't touch.

That was a cheap and dirty insult for which NZ should have been banned
from test cricket for a five year period.

Quote:
>And their style of cricket was insufferably boring as well.

Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Mike Holding, Garner, Crioft, Murray, Haynes
and Greenidge boring? This was perhaps the most spectaculalry watchable
team of all time.  I can't beleive this - Boring? - these guys played
the most attacking brand of cricket of all time.

What would you call exciting cricket? Glen Turner, Burgess, Howarth and
other such world dominaitng heroes. Perhaps you prefer the dashing
stroke play of Boycott, Gavaskar and Steve Waugh.

-SB

 
 
 

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by dodo » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:25:58

Quote:

> Just read a brilliant article in Cricinfo. NZ umpires really screwed
> Lloyd and his team over in 1980.

Gavaskar in Sunny Days talks of a visit there in the mid 70s. He
relates the following incident: Prasanna had several lbws and close-in
catches turned down. Finally he bowled the batsman out. He then
appealed wildly. The umpire said that there was no need to appeal since
the batsman was bowled. To which Pras replied "I know he is bowled, but
is he out?"

When the Indian's batted any pad was given out as lbw, and only
Vishwanath was able to completely avoid the ball or play it with the
bat.

Questioning obvious shockers was met with "home rules, boys"

 
 
 

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by Mad Hamis » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:49:24



Quote:
>I'm not a great fan of trying to class the ability of umpires by race.
>But the article doesn't include any comparisons between New Zealand and
>Pakistan umpires, nor does it include any assessments of the umpiring
>apart from those from the West Indian side.

>I remember the season well. Some context. At the time the New Zealand
>side was internationally a team of no-names. Richard Hadlee had not
>achieved the international regard he was to within the following few
>years.

True, but here are the series leading up to this one
England in New Zealand, 1977/78 [Series]
-     3    971   371  15  6/26  10/100  24.73  2.29  64.7  1  1
New Zealand in England, 1978 [Series]
Eng     3    727   270  13  5/84   7/115  20.76  2.22  55.9  1  0
Pakistan in New Zealand, 1978/79 [Series]
Pak     3    942   414  18  5/62   8/145  23.00  2.63  52.3  2  0

going to
West Indies in New Zealand, 1979/80 [Series]
NZ     3    969   361  19  6/68  11/102  19.00  2.23  51.0  2  1

so it looks likely that Hadlee had made the jump in class over the
previous couple of years

Quote:
>Glenn Turner was the only other respected name - and he spent
>the series in the commentary box. Internationally NZ was held in about
>the same respect as the Zimbabwe team is now.

>In comparison the West Indies had spent most of the past five seasons
>thrashing everyone. They had just arrived from Australia having won
>everyting in sight. Viv Richards did not tour - but of those players
>that did, about eight or nine would have been contenders for a world XI
>at the time.

>It was humiliating for them that New Zealand was competitive with them.
>The previous season an understrength Pakistan team had toyed with NZ in
>the NZ season. WI expected to win the games easily. In fact NZ won the
>first test by just one wicket - the other two tests were even and
>drawn.

>None of this is to suggest that every umpiring decision was correct.
>But let's remember the context of the abysmally bad behaviour.

I fail to see any way that mitigates ***ing an umpire, kicking
down stumps, staging sit-in protests and not getting back onto the
field in time.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

 
 
 

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by JM » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:22:10

Quote:

> When the Indian's batted any pad was given out as lbw, and only
> Vishwanath was able to completely avoid the ball or play it with the
> bat.

Was that the 3 match 75/6 tour? I count about 5 LBW's a piece, NZ bowlers
didn't hit the pads very often then.
 
 
 

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:54:28


Quote:


> > Just read a brilliant article in Cricinfo. NZ umpires really screwed
> > Lloyd and his team over in 1980.

> Gavaskar in Sunny Days talks of a visit there in the mid 70s. He
> relates the following incident: Prasanna had several lbws and close-in
> catches turned down. Finally he bowled the batsman out. He then
> appealed wildly. The umpire said that there was no need to appeal since
> the batsman was bowled. To which Pras replied "I know he is bowled, but
> is he out?"

> When the Indian's batted any pad was given out as lbw, and only
> Vishwanath was able to completely avoid the ball or play it with the
> bat.

> Questioning obvious shockers was met with "home rules, boys"

As JM mentioned, one might expect at least some of this to be reflected in
the scorecards.  Not the number of appeals turned down against the Indian
bowlers, but at least something in the number of lbws given out, which were
five against each team in the series.

It's worth noting (as I have done previously) that Goodall was not
originally appointed to stand in the Christchurch Test of 1979/80, being
called in only because WI preferred him to John Hastie, about whom they'd
complained after the first Test.

Andrew

 
 
 

Are New Zeland umpires worse than Paki umpires

Post by Paul Galvi » Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:23:02

                       (snip)

Quote:
>West Indies arrived after a tour of Australia during which they had won
>the Test series 2-0 and also beaten England 2-0 in the inaugural final
>of the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup. But from the off, things went
>badly. Michael Holding recalled that the team had to carry their own
>kit to the bus and were accommodated in "cramped motels" rather than
>five-star hotels. And he didn't like the food provided on the grounds -
>"usually sausage and beans".

That's bullshit. They were accomodated in tents and fed leftovers.

Quote:
>The trouble all started early in New Zealand's second innings at
>Dunedin when Holding felt he had John Parker caught behind by
>wicketkeeper Deryck Murray, but umpire John Hastie disagreed.

So everything was fine until halfway through the final day of the first
test, when it looked like they might lose...

Oh Hang on, just noticed you can't actually spell New Zealand. Also, I
believe that the way you refer to the Pakistanis can cause offence. I'll
just correct the header for you and leave it at that I think. Nice troll.

   (all snipped)
--
Paul.