Failing the grade

In the midst of all its riches, here's a story of utter poverty for Indian cricket. Since Srinivas Venkataraghavan, a veteran of 73 Tests, retired from umpiring in January 2004, Indian umpires' participation in Test cricket has been limited to two matches out of 116. It is a damning, embarrassing statistic for a country that aspires to global cricket supremacy, but even the most ardent conspiracy theorist would struggle to detect a plot. After all, Sunil Gavaskar is an influential member of the ICC committee that picks the panel of elite umpires.

It was hardly a surprise that no Indian featured on the panel when it was announced early last month. The truth, however unpalatable, is that none was good enough. Ehsan Mani, the ICC President, minced no words: "Right from the time I became the ICC President three years ago, I've been telling the BCCI to do something to raise the quality of its umpires. The Indian umpires [nominated by the BCCI] are not good enough to get into the Elite Panel; they are a long way off."

Good umpires, invariably, are the product of a good system. It's no surprise that Australia have three representatives on the Elite Panel. They have a central umpire officer and six umpiring coaches (one for each state) to groom and develop umpires. The coaches mentor, train and assess the umpires contracted to Cricket Australia. They watch every ball in domestic cricket, and use video footage to maintain a log of every decision taken.

In India, the system exists mainly on paper. To qualify for the basic level, which currently comprises 108 umpires (down from 130 due to retirements), candidates have to pass an entrance test, both written and oral. Twenty of the umpires thus selected then qualify for the Indian Elite panel, members of which are entitled to umpire in major domestic matches, and also get a shot at making it to the panel of six who officiate as TV umpires and stand in ODIs in the country.

It is in the implementation that the cracks appear. Ranji Trophy matches are usually awarded in an ad hoc manner - by the joint secretary of the cricket board, based on assessments made during previous matches. Two former Test players, Maninder Singh and Yashpal Sharma, who took the trouble of taking the exams to qualify, left disillusioned. Maninder says he couldn't be bothered to "butter up" board officials to get games. "Umpires shouldn't be left at the mercy of board officials who don't know anything about umpiring."

As for the mode of assessment, it is inherently flawed: there is no independent evaluation of the umpires' performance. They are judged on the basis of the captains' and the match-referees' reports. This means that umpires are often more worried about being on the right side of captains than in making tough decisions, says Shikhar Choudhary, who has stood in internationals and quit umpiring two years ago. This, in part, also explains the dismal over-rates in Indian domestic cricket.

In contrast, Pakistan, who had no elite umpires on the ICC panel till 2004, but now have two, Aleem Dar and Asad Rauf, have former umpires in supervisory roles at the domestic level. They also have a unique system where an umpire gets a bonus mark if he has been given a rating of less than 50 per cent by a losing captain, and loses a mark if a winning captain has given him a full six on six.

On average, Indian umpires each get to stand in only three to four matches every year - hardly the kind of exposure that will produce international umpires. But because the domestic season is spread over only four months, having fewer umpires would raise posting problems. It is almost a chicken-and-egg situation, but all the more reason for the BCCI to be more vigorous and to adopt the system - however unoriginal - of having an umpire officer and coaches. There are no alternatives to professional supervision, independent and transparent assessment, and perhaps, a contract system.