³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Welcome back Umpire Hair! You are one of the best umpires ever - like umpire Beller, and Bicky Bird. Be nice to enthusiastic players (Monty and others) but firm in addressing them. I for one look forward to some good decisions, after a couple of dodgey seasons. Boston, USA

Good to see Hair back.

For the next couple of games we seem to have been very lucky with umpires. I can't think of a better set than Taufel, Bucknor and Hair at the moment.

Maybe the advantage of certain countries being allowed to veto umpires like Hair and Bucknor is that we will see more of them.

On Old Trafford not staging an Ashes test - fully justified in my view. I've been watching tests there for the past few years and it really needs a shake up - just as Headingley did 10 years ago. The facilities aren't up to scratch, so I welcome a new venue on the circuit.

If any test venue should be dropped it should be the Oval. Why oh why do we insist on having two tests in London??

The Cardiff venue is best kept for the Zimbabwe and Bangladesh fixtures. Small time county....small time matches.

It's not suprising Monty kept appealing its because he kept hitting the pads in front of the stumps! He didn't appeal for anything that was missing by along way and had alot hit the bat and pad together which whilst they probably shouldn't be given out are certainly worth appealing for, he doesn't appeal in an aggressive fashion (I don't think he could be intimidating if he tried!)

Old Trafford will be missed for it's pitch, but not for the facilities, the empty seats, or the Boddingtons (which is nasty anywhere and has also moved to Wales).

If, as it looks, there is going to be some rain, then I hope our top order bat with some urgency that a restricted game would require to win. I can't see it somehow.

It is disappointing to see Monty Panesar get away with it every time. Poor Bucknor turned away every time Monty appealed, shook his head... but still Monty kept on appealing! In Sri Lanka, Monty ran all the way to backward short leg in celebration, without bothering to appeal. Aleem Dar merely gestured Monty back to his bowling crease.

Asad Rauf got several decisions wrong against the Windies last year, specially off Monty - he failed to reckon that the bounce would've taken the ball over the stumps; as shown by HawkEye. Will Hair have the guts to dock Monty a few games and put him in his place? Time will tell.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I would like to agree with an earlier blooger - what is Monte supposed to do if he hits pads in front of the wicket? He was denied one plumb LBW and 99% of other appeals were well worth a shout.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Aggers, England's record at Old Trafford may not have been taken into account, but perhaps Australia's record at Sophia Gardens was: played three, lost two, including of course Bangladesh in 2005.

hazwoz - I've nothing against having two Tests in London, as long as they're at different grounds. Now that England (and Wales) has more grounds than the traditional six capable of staging Test matches, why does the ECB insist on sticking to the idea that Lord's has some sort of divine right to two Tests each summer? It might have the old fogeys of the MCC spluttering into their beer, but it's time to drag them into the 21st century. They might protest that many players dream of appearing in a Test at "the home of cricket", and in some cases they may be right - but any player good enough to hold down a place in his country's team for more than a couple of years will almost certainly tour England at least twice, so there's no reason why every series needs to include a Test at Lord's.

I welcome Hair's return, and question why he needed to be relieved of his duties in the first place. He and Doctrove may or may not have been correct in their accusation that the Pakistan players had altered the condition of the ball in a manner not permitted by the Laws, but they were entirely correct in their actions thereafter: Pakistan refused to return to the field, and therefore forfeited the match, a decision which could not be reversed by their later willingness to do so (there was a mistake made, though, in the lack of communication; most of the crowd hadn't a clue what was going on). I don't see why an umpire should be sent on a "man-management" course - "man-management" is the job of the captains, to get the best out of each of their players. The umpires' job is to apply the Laws equally to all players - not to consider that a team might wish to protest against their decision and allow them the leeway to do so; nor, indeed, to accept that a particular player has a habit of overenthusiastic appealing and allow him to get away with it. Nor can a team be allowed to dictate which officials should or should not stand in its matches; if it fits best with the ICC's scheduling to appoint Hair to a match involving Pakistan, they should do so, and rule the match to be forfeited if Pakistan consequently refuse to play.

Finally - it's been far too long.

I think that Darrell Hair has been really badly treated by the ICC, although to be fair, he did do a few odd things himself.

Hopefully, now he has completed his rehabilitation course, he can get back to being one of the best umpires in the world.

Previously 4 of the six test grounds were north of a line between the wash and the Bristol channel but the majority of the population live below this line but it is of course london centric to have two London test venues.

Sorry Aggers, but I disagree that Hair should be back umpiring.

Opinion, quite simply, is deeply divided as to whether Hair is a good umpire. And not so much "good" in terms of competent, but "good" in terms of fair. And on that basis, there is a major question as to whether the ICC should have him on the panel.

I understand your point that Billy Doctrove escaped any censure for his role in the abandoned test fiasco, but Hair was the senior umpire there, and did make the call that the Pakistanis had been ball-tampering. I would however be interested to know what you think Doctrove could have in fact done, beyond questioning Hair if he was sure of his call?

Personally, I think the match referee (Mike Proctor I seem to recall) was considerably more culpable for the fact the situation got out of hand at tea and ended in the abandonment of the match. But Hair was still primarily responsible, he made the call that the Pakistanis were cheating, wrongly it seems. And whilst he has never apologised or defended himself publicly, he still wrote to Malcolm Speed or Dave Richardson asking to negotiate a severance package - which at the very least illustrates that Hair knew he was on precarious ground in terms of his future as an ICC umpire.

Leaving aside criticism by Asian cricketers of Hair - and whatever the merits of those critiques - let's not forget that no less a person than Donald Bradman said of Hair when he was calling Murali for throwing:

"This was the worst example of umpiring that I have witnessed and against everything the game stands for"

And then he went on to write in his autobiography that Murali's action was "diabolical".

And this is a man who you think should be an ICC umpire.

I'm a South African, I have no particular axe to grind, but Hair has always struck me as one of those self-important sports officials, probably living on borrowed time before his egotism cost him his professional livelihood. But the ICC is hardly an organisation that covers itself in glory, so perhaps Hair is the type of umpire they deserve representing them.

I completely disagree with anoyone who feels that Monty Panesar's appealing is inappropriate. He never appeals for anyhting that is not worth a shout, and when he does prolong his appeal in the face of umpires looking didinterested he is vindicated 9 time out of ten by hawkeye or snicko.

Also his enthusiastic appeals are of a completely different nature to the ones Shane Warne used to bellow out after the faintest of chances. He got away with glaring at umpires after every turned down appeal for years.

I'm starting to wonder whether Johnathon Agnw has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to Panesar.

i agree that Hair should not be umpiring. innocent or guilty or whatever, he simply has too much baggage. surely there are other umpires?!

Not sure its the fact that Old Trafford hasn't got the Ashes test, its the 4 year wait for another one that sticks in the throat.
As a country we play on average 7 tests per year at the following grounds:
Lords
Oval
Trent Bridge
Old Trafford
Headingly
Edgbaston
Chester Le Street
Sofia Gardens (from 2009)
Rose Bowl (I'm pretty sure this has been given Teat Status)

How can one ground miss out for 4 years?? Surely to justify that we'd require every county to have at least one test match venue!!!

hazwoz,

I think you'll find it's the England and Wales cricket board, therefore why should we not have any rights to watch the test match at Sofia Gardens, particularly if the facilities are better than a current test match ground. If we're such a small time county surely our facilites would be worse than the mightly Lancashire ground of Old trafford!!!

Oh yeah, another point on Hair's temperament.

Duncan Fletcher wrote in his autobiography that when Mike Procter called a meeting at tea, Hair lost his rag when Inzamam asked him why Pakistan was being accused of cheating.

If you ask me, umpires should be better than that, and the vast majority are.

Aggers is merely doing his best to find something interesting to say about a pretty dull England team at the moment. I wouldnt take his comments too seriously. England need a bowler who can bowl well and at 90mph not 80mph. Monty is ok really compared to most other teams appealing. What is actually interesting about this series is there does seem to be a lot of smiling and sportsmanship between the sides which is pretty good to see!!

I think its a weak argument to blame Billy Doctrove for Mr Hair's demise. Billy Doctrove was the 'junior' partner in the saga, and couldnt have done otherwise in the midst of an overbearing and lets face it an arrogant person like Hair. Hair's return to cricket is bad news for the game. If he cant officiate in certain games then what use is he? The sooner we see the last of his like, the better it will be for a fairer world. His type is now extinct, and so will those who support him.

It would be nice if umpires were more inclined to take action against Nel and Sreesanth who both seem to consistently overstep the mark when it comes to appealing and sledging. Umpires should consider the effect these two immature bully-boys have on young cricketers who observe it and adopt it in their own games. Captains should ensure that their players observe the spirit of cricket in schools cricket and even Thames Valley League division 8!!

"If he cant officiate in certain games then what use is he?"

Quite, the ICC should make it clear that teams cannot pick and choose umpires.

I think it is not before time that Old Trafford have lost a Test Match. Why is it a problem that Wales should be given a Test Match?
It is a well known trait of Jonathon Agnew that he dislikes anything to do with Glamorgan ( although I think he is a great commentator in all other respects)

We have two tests at Lord's and one at the Oval for the very simple reason that the punters actually turn up. If other grounds could match this (with over 36,000 in the ground, as will soon be the case at Lord's) then perhaps they might have a case for complaint.

As for Hair, I fear that he does lack the kind of easy-going yet forceful attitude that is necessary to control a game with a mixture of men from different countries and in front of a large crowd. It's one of those situations when knowing what is right is helpful, but knowing what is going to work is vital.

Yes, the job of ensuring the game is played properly is that of the captains, but the time to take issue with the well-established fact that they don't do that job as they should is not the middle of a day at the test.

nice joined up thinking from the MCC as usual,
take away a test from a ground where it rains a lot but at least england actually win pretty frequently. and give it to a ground where it rains even more.

while making sure that londodn gets it's unfair share of games.
then again what would you expect, the people based at lords would vote to have one of their money spinners moved somewhere else.

it stinks.

"nice joined up thinking from the MCC as usual"

The MCC?

I understand captaincarrot where you are coming from, but in fact Lancashire decided not to put Old Trafford forward for more tests after this summer. The ECB put tests out to tender for the Ashes, and Old Trafford did not bid.

Hair made one of worst errors in the history of cricket. Essentially, common sense was binned and all that mattered was Hair's ego.

I hope he has a shocking game.

(PS Why does the "moderator" keep removing anti-Hair threads?)

re blog 4:-4. At 3:01 pm on 22 May 2008, hazwoz wrote:
If any test venue should be dropped it should be the Oval. Why oh why do we insist on having two tests in London??


Have you not been to the Oval? Its far better than Lords and Old Trafford!!!! One of the best in the country.

As for the Swalec Stadium, I went last week and its great, just parking will be a big problem, but there will be no problem as far as ticket demand goes, people have been on an email notification list for 2 years now for ashes tickets, it will be awsome there, grounds should be on a fair rota thats all.

Ridiculous!
Whether Hair's decision was justified or not was subsequently decided in the court with the Pakistan team exonerated from the charges of ball tampering.
It is understood that there are laws and there are various interpretations of laws, but we hope that people officiating are reasonable as well.For instance, if a decision is referred to the third umpire, and the (suppose 2,3) available angles of action replay show that the batsman is out, the umpire would be 'unreasonable' to give that as out on the assumption that another angle might have shown differently.
The Hair fiasco culminated in the backdrop of a consistent feeling among Pakistanis, and even many English commentators, that Hair's decision-making was dubious --and awful-- against Pakistan.
A the least, Hair is a very unreasonable and incompetitive umpire, if not someone with racist tendencies or motivations.
His returning is another blimp on the ICC which just can't take a stand.

"No nonsense Australian approach". Yes, Jonathan, I can sign up to that. I'm an Oz, and I believe in saying what you think. Only thing is, if what you think is crap, there's no virtue in proclaiming it loud and long to everyone. It's not worth more respect 'cos you've said it loud and clear.

Hair has made too many prattish decisions based on what seems from the outside to be innate racist assumptions to be comfortably respected as an umpire. Has he grown up ? Reformed ? Time will tell. And his treatment of Monty, who seems to be singled out in your column for no real reason (hes' a spin bowler for God's sake, and most of his shouts are going to be for lbw), may or may not shed some light on where he now is.

Mr. Hair is not a good umpair,he is down right incompetent, what happened at the Oval was a example of his stupidness because he went along with the England coaching staff who instigated the whole fiasco.He failed to make sure what he was doing was 100% right.I mean to say,that he had no proof of his own,he was going by the words of D Fltcher and co.India for one has suffered a lot every time he has umpaired their game.Let us look at Mr Bucknor,I only have one word for him , he is not going blind but he is blind,what happened in Sydney was the prime example.Now let us see the competence of Mr. Proctor he did'nt handle the Oval affair with any common sense and he did the double at Sydney, two players are having a go at each other,not a big deal Mr Bucknor the senior umpair should have steped in and nipped the whole affair in the bud but sadly he failed to do that now tell me is he good umpair.

So Hair is back, umpiring tests - but not for Pakistan - and who else? A ridiculous fudge from the authorities.

Whatever else may have contributed to the situation, the laws were at fault, with the umpire required to make a real-time judgement call about a matter which is also a disciplinary one.

If the umpire must add runs, it should be to compensate for the presumed advantage gained, since last ball inspection, from a ball which is 'excessively worn', or 'seriously damaged', or some other neutral term. After all, the ball could be tampered with by a member of the crowd, or identically useful alterations to the ball could conceivably occur due to collision with boundary hoardings etc.

If this is right, then maybe the extra runs should just be abolished - just replace the ball, as with a mis-shapen one. Any disciplinary proceedings can take place outside the game.

If neither of these alternatives is acceptable, then it should at least not be left to the umpires to determine the matter by their own estimate of probability (thats what a judgement call is in this context).

But nothing has been done about this ill-conceived law as far as I can discover.

Meanwhile, Hair is being treated as though he had been found to be (racially?) biased.

Levdavidovich - the moderator has not been removing "anti-Hair" posts; those which make a calm, reasonable and rational argument for Hair not being permitted to resume umpiring have been left, it's only those which have resorted to abuse which have been removed, in line with the rules of the boards. Your own post hardly constitutes a constructive argument - on what grounds do you make the claim that Hair made "one of the greatest errors in cricket history"? He made the decision to award penalty runs, which may or may not have been justified, but his actions thereafter (regarding the game itself - I don't mean his "Give me $500,000 and I'll resign" email, or the attempt to sue the ICC) were entirely correct.

Borrom - I'm afraid I can't agree with you that a Test match is "one of those situations when knowing what is right is helpful, but knowing what is going to work is vital". Overlooking Pakistan's refusal to play would have "worked" in that it would have allowed the match to continue, but it would also have given the impression that Inzamam could throw his toys out of the pram with impunity. If Sachin Tendulkar was plumb LBW on 99 in front of his home crowd then giving him not out would "work", but that doesn't mean it would be the right decision.

Welcome back Mr Hair you always did a good job ... for an Aussie!! Seriously welcome back you're good at what you do so just do it.
As for Monty you dont get if you dont ask and he's normally pretty close to the mark. Probaly test Hairs patience but so what.
As for dropping Old Trafford as a test venue for the next ashes ... the board wont have even looked at the past record at the ground, they're not that clever, it all politics. I reckon it was just some bloke from wales saying hang on a minute we're part of the set up too i want a game in wales (stamp of feet out with botton lip). LCCC should have been warned that if they didnt sort out the facilities after next years ashes you're off the list of test grounds. 2 tests in London always got me too ?? Lords yes Oval why?
Be interesting to see the numbers that turn out for the test in cardiff .... I bet the Aussie wouldnt drop the WACA (simalar surface simalar records)

Amusing as a New Zealander to read the English cricket writers comments.
"Weather denies England a stranglehold" "Oram frustrates England".
All written as though England had some right to a victory and NZ should have realized they were supposed to loose.Instead it was a very even game with NZ playing a little better than England. What will they write if "the great" Pieterson scores more than 3 runs in Manchester..

I'm trying in vain to determine Hair's current nationality, and hours of searching on Google have been futile. According to a message-board posting in yahoo groups, Hair's British pasport was featured in the Daily News of 25th Aug., 2006.

And according to another, Hair still retains his Australian passport, and lives and works as a 'foreigner' in England. Which of these versions is correct? Given that Hair has expressed his liking for the English lifestyle, is it acceptable that he can officiate England Tests, even if he hasn't acquired a passport yet?

someone yesterday mentioned the fact that there is a lot of smiling going on between the two teams, that is simply because England expect to, and should win this series against what the media say is an inferior NZ team. there is no pressure on them to perform, but after the drawn first test shall we see if the same spirit applies. if i was Peter Moores i'd be banging a few heads together on the England team telling to get their game heads on or face the axe. they are professional sportsman paid to win games of cricket, by all means celebrate after but not during. when was the last time you saw one of the Aussie cricketers laughing and smiling with the opposition during a match? doesn't happen, they have the mind set to go for the win at all costs and enjoy it after, thats why they win so much, and they are better than most!!
i'm not bitter, come on you Black Caps!!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Re: the debate about Old Trafford losing out on Test matches.

It is a matter of public record that Jim Coombes (LCCC Chief Exec) turned down the opportunity to bid for future Test matches bearing in mind the escalating costs the ECB are demanding for doing so. Cardiff have reputedly paid around £3 million for next years Ashes Test and Coombes refused to put the long term future of LCCC in jepoardy by paying out such outrageous sums for a game which is entirely weather-dependent.

I for one think he was quite right to do so. Cardiff has much wetter weather than Manchester and if you also take that into account that the game could easily be over well inside four days the club hosting the match stands to lose a massive and potentially very serious amount of cash.

Of course Old Trafford has its issues as a venue, like many other Test grounds, but its big plus is the hard fast pitch and quick outfield which virtually guarantees very watchable and enjoyable cricket. International cricket will continue to be played there in some form and quite rightly so.

In fact, of all the grounds in England, Lords scores the lowest in terms of spectator-freindliness (e.g. prices charged, ease of access, transport links, sightlines for players on the pitch) but there's no way it will ever lose a Test match, and of course every player wants to play there and it is a fabulous venue to watch a game at (once you're in).

Erm...I'd like to know why that comment was removed? Im sorry moderator, but you obviously have strong opinions on this matter, as demonstrated in your previous post, but you may have to accept that not everyone has the same opinion as you! *Awaiting a head masters telling off, in which a few words from my very long post will be taken completely out of context*

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"The Cardiff venue is best kept for the Zimbabwe and Bangladesh fixtures. Small time county....small time matches." - Post 4

The Cardiff stadium is brand new with a capacity of 16000. The governing body is called the England AND Wales Cricket Board so why shouldn't there be a test venue in Wales? Surely a city such as Cardiff deserves to hold high-profile test matches, which the ECB has deemed a worthy choice.

Dropping Old Trafford will allow the stadium to be improved, which is good for the profile of cricket, supporters and everyone involved.

bringbackakram,

if the previous, removed post, contained similar sentiments to the most recent I would imagine the problem is that you are defaming Mr Hair with your accusations.

Also what was the 'whole saga with India'. I was aware that Hair had had his problems with Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and South Africa, but what happened with India?

RedRedRobin,

By calling him a racist? The fact is that I believe, as do the discerning of the posters on this board, that he had racist sentiments. Aggers brought up the race issue, by bringing Doctrove into the argument (who i incidentally think is an awful umpire), and implying that Hair was dismissed because of his skin colour. Well then if Aggers believes Hair was judged on the colour of his skin, then I think it is more than reasonable for me to say that Hair judged others on skin colour!

"Pakistan are well within their rights to do this"

Regarding Hair - there seem to be 3 questions:

1. Whether he is racist?

2. Whether he is a competent umpire?

3. Whether he has good judgement?

I do not know the answer to the first as I do not know the man and so, I cannot comment on that. On the second, there seems to be a general feeling that he understands the letter of the cricketing laws well and is not afraid to apply them

I have an issue with him on judgement. I believe that being a 'straight talking' guy is great but one needs to exercise judgement if one is in the role that he is. Otherwise, we would let Hawkeye do everything. It is the difference between being clever and wise.

On the issue of ball tampering, I believe that if he felt that there was an issue, he could have called Inzamam and told him that he did not like it and that he was changing the ball. Also, if it happened again, he would have to penalise Pakistan. His judgement was further exposed when he demanded money to quit!

A good judge will try and diffuse a situation, not create a potentially explosive one.

Finally, to let his ego get the better of him when all around him were trying to resolve the situation, is again, not an appropriate quality in an umpire.

A bit of good humour and common sense instead of a slavish interpretation of the laws would have got a much better outcome.

However, he is back now and all those who did not want him, should give him a chance to redeem himself. Everyone deserves another chance.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Losing the Ashes Test to Cardiff thankfully forced a decision by the Lancs committee whether to improve Old Trafford or move to a greenfield site. Indecision has starved Old Trafford of investment in recent years. Now it will be upgraded to match any Test arena in the country - and hopefully home to the county champions for the first time in my 51 years.

Aggers may like to ask Baroness Amos this lunchtime whether she remembers agreeing in the early hours of 15 September 2007 (admittedly rather late at night in the bar of the Ritz after we had had a few drinks watching the England-South Africa RWC game, and after my mate Mac had out-argued her on the subject of "is there as difference between morality and moral philosophy?" with the immortal line of "Valerie, you're talking rubbish and you know you are") that she would attend, and perhaps bowl the first ball at, a memorial cricket match at the famously picturesque Tilford Cricket Club Surrey. Tilford is well known to CMJ I think, and home to the earliest cricketing superstar Siver Billy Beldham. The game is on 31 August. We would love to have her there and promise to be more sober this time. The game is in memory of well known local cricketer Martin Pryce who sadly died of cancer last year.

Dear Allkiwisrule. Just because the Aussies do not smile, does not make it the right thing to do. So what if they win games. Sport is primarily about enjoyment and cricket embodies all that is good about human nature. We would not have all the issues with Ponting, Symonds, Hayden, Harbhajan, Sreenath etc if we were civil to opponents. I do not believe in sledging at all. If you have to resort to unpleasantness to win, then you might as well take performance enhancing substances. They also enhance perforamance. At least they do not offend!

I think it is really nice to see the English and Kiwis getting on so well and playing well with each other. I have always admired the Kiwis as gentlemen. I hope I never have to change my views about them

am i the only one disturbed by the unquestioning support for Daryl Hair. I or one have questioned his attitude to certain teams ever since his no-balling of Murilitharan.

as for Agnew and his apparent downer on Monty......it should not be taken seriously just a bit of envy i suggest !

ChileNoseJam - My dear old thing, I think you must have misunderstood (I trust not mendaciously) what I meant by what will 'work'.

I was thinking only of situations like that at The Oval, when the umpire is required to add a bit of what might be called 'man-management' skills to enable the spirit of the law to be done, even if, on occasion, this means sitting light to the strict letter. Obviously, this has nothing to do with the fact that correct decisions on matters like lbw should always be given.

My more serious point was that, if captains are not doing their job, of ensuring that play is conducted at all times within the 'Spirit and traditions of the game' (as required by the Laws) on a regular, even systematic, basis, then an international stage, where politics are inevitably involved (whatever we might like) is not the place to air the problem. If an umpire is unhappy with the prevailing orthodoxy amongst players, this should surely be addressed in the appropriate corridors of power, rather than in a quick bit of Captain Manneringism (have I just invented a word there?) in view of the whole world.

Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to respond to my post: no-one's ever done that before!

For those who come to Cardiff will be in for a big surprise, a quality modern ground in the heart of a quality modern city

Shane Warne bowled The Flipper. Muttiah Muralitharan bowls The Dhoozra. Is Monty Panesar's faster delivery The Monty Zoomer?

anthonyagain

Yes.

Any idea when tickets go on sale, no doubt people from Bristol and the West will need to pad it out to sell out but only time will tell.

:)

"It is a matter of public record that Jim Coombes (LCCC Chief Exec) turned down the opportunity to bid for future Test matches bearing in mind the escalating costs the ECB are demanding for doing so. Cardiff have reputedly paid around £3 million for next years Ashes Test and Coombes refused to put the long term future of LCCC in jepoardy by paying out such outrageous sums for a game which is entirely weather-dependent." - Scorebox

Berluddy hell, is that right? Seriously? The ECB gets paid a boatload for the TV rights and then grounds have to pay them millions to host the matches too? No wonder ticket prices are astronomical in this country!

Those who claim Hair has displayed bias against subcontinental teams have got their way, as it looks like he won't be umpiring in relevant matches any more (or so I hear..?). It's quite a fudge, as there's been no official complaint or finding on the matter.

There undoubtedly is bias, racial or otherwise, around in the world. But in eradicating or neutralising it, we mustn't get into a witchhunt - where accusations are made and validated behind the scenes.

Transparency in such matters is vital. If the perception arises that false accusations are being acted on, the 'boy who cried wolf' effect could kick in, with genuine complaints being viewed with scepticism.

An example from the wider world is the very aggressive approach of the Anti-Defamation League, some of whose accusations of anti-semitism seem far-fatched or exaggerated, and who risk damaging the cause of combating genuine anti-semitism as a result.

Truth and reconciliation, my friends, truth and reconciliation.

reply to post 60, fluterg

Sir or madam - yes this is seriously right and that is indeed the situation.

LCCC, having the biggest membership of any county and consistently good patronage for all levels of cricket, were under pressure to explain themselves following the announcement of this loss of Test cricket, and Jim Coombes appeared on local ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ TV News programmes to explain what had happened.

I believe I am right in saying that the Welsh tourist board were as much behind the decision to outbid other grounds and try to make Cardiff a serious player in hosting international cricket. With an Ashes Test up for grabs there were no problems attracting other 'partners' to help raise the cash.

The problem, as Angus Fraser mentioned during a TMS stinit before lunch yesterday, is sustainability. Cardiff has gone for a high risk strategy to attain its dream but when less attractive international opponents are touring will the amount of money they have spent be justifiable or will it roll over and crush them?

For example, Durham started at the other end of the scale with hosting international cricket and made sure everything worked. The pitch was good, facilities and logistics have worked, and evn it was Eng vs Zimbabwe or a weak W.Indies, they have proved they can cope. Cardiff are starting at the other end of the scale - a brave and bold move, but incredibly risky for a game which, like I said, is entirely weather dependent.

Will the pitch behave? Will the transport and other infrastructure cope - or will they have a PR disaster like at the Rose Bowl when thousands were stranded after an international game? Will the game last longer than four days (given England's inconsistency, by no means assured)?

I have no problem with Cardiff hosting a Test ahead of Old Trafford but Coombes and co have, for my money, made a smart move. Lancs will continue to field a strong team and challenge in every domestic competition, thus generating more revenue; the excellent 20-20 spectator offers Lancs do (including a guaranteed 20,000 sell-out for the Yorks game) increase revenue further; international cricket will still be played there; and Lancs can still host pop concerts to add another 'revenue stream'.

Compare this to Cardiff's options with a poor Glamorgan side and the other major venues in Cardiff itself which will make a stronger case for investment than a cricket ground that will spend almost all of its time barely used, and generally poorly attended.

LCCC will develop OT and it will in time return to hosting Test cricket. The current money-motivated allocation of games I don't believe to be sustainable and I hope that Cardiff doesn't crash badly in future years and will still prove capable of hosting international cricket.


Yesterday on TMS Angus Fraser

Oops, sorry everyone. The spelling is of course Captain Mainwaring, not Mannering.

Mind you, I still think I may have invented a new word with Mainwaringism.