How can umpring standards be improved?

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Tony Greig is a complete qunt. He knows fark all about the game, so he stirs the pot. He barely knows the batsman's name half the time. whn he's not making politically insensitive (ie racist) remarks about weddings in neighbouring parkland, he's picking holes in the player he deems most vulnerable, or in the umpires, or (failing that) the ever-available and amiable Bill Lawry. Did I mention that he's a complete qunt?

Actually I feel that Lawry is the qunt. Totally biased, especially when SA is in Aussie. Has never recovered from 1969/70.

Lawry and Ian Chappell both hate South Africa.

Some of the best commentary in the last 10 years was Lawry and Procter going toe to toe, sledge for sledge in the 1999 world cup semi final.

Indeed. Was a magnificent side light to the drama on the field. The change in fortunes in that last over was almost like Procter and Lawry taking turns punching each other in the face.

tac wrote:

Merlin wrote:

Tony Greig is a complete qunt.

They happen to be very useful.

HTF would you know, merls, you old wrister . . . . .

Bugger me britches .... caught out again!

lardbucket wrote:Can't agree with that. Lawry can be a bit of a buffoon at times, but I've never heard Greig say anything remotely balanced or intelligent.

Sorry Lardy but at times I think that you guys have been so conditioned by the biased Nein commantary that you don't realise how OTT it is at times.

Lawry is a wind-up buffoon, not to be taken seriously, but Greig and Chappelli are complete qunts.

lardbucket wrote:Lawry is a wind-up buffoon, not to be taken seriously, but Greig and Chappelli are complete qunts.

I'm not quite sure sure Phant see it that way, Agreed on the other 2.

Regarding the general topic - I don't think standards are all that bad, given that decisions have to be made with the naked eye. The real issue is not umpires being awful, but the reason we are using super slo-mo etc to make competent guys look like dills when we could be using it to help them out.

I remember Graham Thorpe writing an article after the 2001 test v Pakistan where there was controversy in which he said something to the effect that 'no batsman, myself included, has any complaints about the umpire focussing on whats going on down his end of the pitch. The question is, why are we using technology to make umpires look bad on no-ball calls when we could be using it to help them?' That we are in the same position 7 years later says something sad about the state of cricket admin.

Chappell's quite good when he doesn't harp on about how he played the game and how it should be played.

doremi wrote:Chappell's quite good when he doesn't harp on about how he played the game and how it should be played.

He's always been astute ... that doesn't negate his quntishness.

doremi wrote:Chappell's quite good when he doesn't harp on about how he played the game and how it should be played.

Channel Nein must have been at an ad break when he said that ...

Chappell is a qunt of the highest order. Not as much as Grieg, but old Tawny really does have the mantle. QUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone dissatisfied with the term 'qunt' could probably just substitute the insult 'chappelli'. Alternatively, quntishness could be measured in IMC units.

lardbucket wrote:Anyone dissatisfied with the term 'qunt' could probably just substitute the insult 'chappelli'. Alternatively, quntishness could be measured in IMC units.

One for the glossary?

Depends on general reception, use or non-use.

Yes in the sense that Laura is 5 Chapellis

How many IMC's in a tac?

0.2

lardbucket wrote:0.2

I was being kind

One fifth ...Quin is one of Five ..a qunt would be the combination ...