Neutral umpires are fine but...

Sunil Gavaskar, one of the most respected batsmen of yesteryears and a terrific commentator, has said that the system of neutral umpires will continue despite some questionable decisions as ''If a third country umpire makes a (questionable) decision, it won't be as acrimonious as if a home umpire made that decision.''

http://cricket.indiatimes.com/ICC_to_stick_to_neutral_umpires/articleshow/2674004.cms

Fair enough arguments made by Sunil Gavaskar in the article above. In fact, if India could draw the series in Australia in 2003-04, win in Pakistan in 2004, and Australia could beat India in India in 2004, it was also mainly due to the presence of neutral umpires.

But this system can be streamlined by having a system of CHALLENGES as in Tennis, and by ensuring that if one team has grievances against a particular umpire, he should not be standing in the series involving that team. That will ensure that some umpires are not blatantly biased.

Then the panel of neutral umpires supervising tests can also be doubled, and it should not be difficult considering there should be hundreds of umpires with better calibre/skills than the likes of Bucknor.

Unless these steps are taken, the very purpose of neutrality will be defeated and ugly instances of unfair behaviour continue to raise their head.