In the wake of his record-breaking 157^th Test appearance, Steve Waugh made headlines. Not for his performance, which was respectable, nor for leading Australia to a solid 9-wicket win in the Test in which he became the most-capped player. Instead, Waugh garnered attention for his defence of umpires Rudi Koertzen and Asoka de Silva, the latter having had a particularly bad game in a match marred by umpiring mistakes.

Now, by all accounts Waugh is a pretty straight shooter at press conferences. He speaks his mind, and if that occasionally offends someone, too bad, a rare but welcome trait among elite sportspeople. When it came to the officiating in the first Australia-West Indies Test, however -- one of several talking points to arise from the game -- Waugh was uncharacteristically mealy-mouthed. He played the straightest of bats to a half-volley he would normally despatch to the boundary.

"You don't want to end up with robots out there," Waugh was quoted as saying by Reuters in reference to the umpires. "We don't want the sport to be Americanised. We want to have controversy and we want to have something to talk about. That's why cricket is unique. I don't want to be too critical of umpires, we all make mistakes."

This was Waugh's view. It may well be that he was deliberately attempting to ensure the awful umpiring did not take the gloss off his team's win, which is understandable enough from the skipper. But the facts must still be faced.

By unofficial count, there were at least nine outright bad decisions in the first Test, seven of which went against West Indies. One hesitates to say Waugh would have had a different perspective had the count been similarly against Australia, but given the way Lara and Chanderpaul batted in the first innings, West Indies can justly feel aggrieved.

More to the point, however, is that the game should feel aggrieved. It should not matter whether the decisions went against West Indies or Australia. Umpiring of the standard exhibited chiefly by Asoka de Silva is unacceptable, whoever it affects, and captains should be honest enough to call it as such when it is warranted.

During TV commentary, former West Indies quick Michael Holding did not mince words. When de Silva gave Wavell Hinds out padding up to a MacGill leg-break in the second innings, after he had earlier turned down a plumb lbw appeal off Lee, Holding was incensed. "This is ridiculous. The ICC must take a look at this. I'm getting a little bit emotional here but this is ridiculous. Mr Asoka, wake up."

The ball had pitched on off, and had already reached leg by the time it struck Hinds, well forward.

What is disturbing about Waugh's comments is the intimation that bad umpiring is an intrinsic, desirable part of the game. It is not, any more than deficient footwork or overstepping the crease in delivery is an ineradicable part of the game. They are flaws which can be analysed and corrected. Perfection will never be attained, and it is not demanded, but the objective is to strive for the best possible standard. Umpires are in no way exempt from this.

Controversy and bad officiating should not be what makes cricket unique. It is a mistaken view which does the sport a serious disservice. Waugh should not think that Chanderpaul, Lara, Ponting, Langer, Gillespie and himself provided us with so few points of interests that we need to discuss poor officiating. If cricket needs blatantly poor or arbitrary umpiring to be unique, then it is in trouble, because it is not the sign of a healthy sport. Waugh should appreciate as well as anyone that cricket is not that impoverished.

On day one, West Indies lost four of their first eight wickets to objectionable decisions. Debutant Devon Smith was adjudged leg-before by Rudi Koertzen inside-edging onto his pad; Lara was given lbw to Bichel, after an interminable delay, by de Silva to a ball missing off; Chanderpaul was fired lbw to a Bichel delivery pitching outside leg; and Merv Dillon was given lbw, sweeping MacGill, to a ball that pitched well outside off and was turning further away. And this was just day one.

Given the way Chanderpaul, Lara and Smith batted, it is reasonable to suggest these decisions played a role in the result. And when players turn in below-par, result-affecting performances, they are duly critiqued for it. Umpires are no less accountable. If Waugh himself batted dreadfully, or one of his bowlers delivered an awful spell, he would probably acknowledge it as an unacceptable performance. So why should umpires be treated any differently?

The same logic applies to selection. Asoka de Silva is probably the worst umpire on the elite panel. Before the series, however, he and Rudi Koertzen were guaranteed to officiate in the first two Tests, and David Shepherd and Srinivas Venkataraghavan in the last two. In other words, they were assured of selection irrespective of form in the preceding match.

While it is harsh to drop anyone after one match, players nevertheless possess no such guarantees, and if someone performed as badly as badly as de Silva did in the first Test, he would surely be axed. At the moment, for umpires, this doesn't apply. Without being reactionary, they too should be assessed on a match-by-match basis and, in extreme cases like this, possibly stood down until their decision-making processes are corrected.

Waugh, though, seems to believe that since human error will never be eradicated, we should not strive for improved methods of officiating. Waugh doesn't want umpires to be "robots," as we don't want the sport to be "Americanised".

This is an interesting viewpoint, considering Waugh has such a thoroughly professional approach to his own cricket. If Americanisation means developing (possibly non-traditional) methods of becoming better, then is it not also Americanisation that players analyse themselves and their opponents on video? Is it not Americanisation that they are well-paid for their efforts?

Most would call this professionalism, what is to be expected of elite-level sportsmen, which makes one wonder if Waugh used "Americanisation" pejoratively to justify decisions that, this time, happened to go mainly in his team's favour.

What we don't want is for the world to be colonised by an America with openly imperial ambitions. On the other hand, what cricket should welcome is umpires being held to the same professional standards as the players.