GIVEN its unique Bermudian flavour, carnival spirit, festive atmosphere and everything else that makes Cup Match what it is, the annual summer classic might be considered almost beyond criticism.

Yet that's not to say it can't be improved.

Indeed, there were sufficient issues before, during and after this year's game to suggest the two clubs might want to sit down long before the 102nd edition in 2004 and take a careful look at where changes might be made.

Certainly there are a number of questions that need to be asked.

Such as:

Why was the decision to appoint both umpires - integral figures of the game - left so ridiculously late? If selection of the players can be be made almost a week in advance, there's no reason why similar or even more notice can't be given to the officials.

And how was it that two days before the match, umpire Stephen West was informed he had been selected only to be told less than 24 hours later that he'd been replaced?

Perhaps the most obvious question is why on earth are the two clubs involved in the selection of umpires in the first place? Rightly or wrongly, it leaves them wide open to accusations of manipulation.

Surely it's a decision that should be taken out of the club's hands and left to Bermuda Cricket Umpires Association.

Another question.

Given the huge controversy surrounding selection of the game's Most Valuable Player last year and the subsequent withdrawal of sponsors Camel, why is it that nothing much has changed. A week after the game concluded the public are still no wiser as to the choice of MVP.

In contrast, the Safe Hands Award for the top fielder was announced immediately after the match and Janeiro Tucker has already this week received an array of attractive prizes - far more attractive, it should be pointed out, than the eventual MVP can hope to acquire.

In Test matches, one-day internationals and nearly all other major cricket games around the world, the MVP is announced immediately after the game.

Why does Cup Match have to be so different? It wasn't a particularly difficult decision. At the very most this year's contest could be narrowed down to three players - Saleem Mukuddem, Clay Smith or Charlie Marshall.

As for this year's game itself, can somebody explain why the pitch was dyed bright green?

Was it purely for aesthetic purposes or was it to conceal something more sinister? Whatever the case, it wasn't very attractive. Indeed, it just wasn't cricket.

Nor for that matter were those gaudy advertising logos splashed across the outfield.

That might be the way international one-day cricket is heading but it flies in the face of Cup Match tradition.

As a contest, this year's game was as good as over almost before it had started.

Yes, there were some marvellous individual performances and runs aplenty, thanks to the aforementioned Mukuddem, Marshall and Smith.

But at the end of the day cricket isn't an individual event, it's about two teams battling for a positive result.

This year, due to an unusually benign pitch, that was never on the cards. Shortly after lunch on the first day, there was never much possibility of any result other than a draw.

Is that what Cup Match fans want?

While nobody likes to tinker with tradition, there might now be grounds on which to launch debate on how the format might be changed.

Limiting the number of overs in each innings, or even setting a limit on the amount of time teams can bat during the first innings might be worth consideration.

Such discussions are nothing new, but a fresh look at the format wouldn't do any harm.

Regardless, Cup Match will always remain exclusively Bermudian and two extraordinarily special days on the sporting calendar.

But that's still not to say it couldn't be better.

- ADRIAN ROBSON