Test cricket should be played in the rain

[Howe_zat]

Well why not?

You need to adapt to different conditions in Tests. It's part of the job description. You need to deal with rough building up and cloud cover coming and going. You've got to manage with how the pitch is changing, which way the crosswind is going and which side of the bed Mitchell Johnson got out of. Learning what to do when the rain comes in should just be another test of a player's skill.

Half the time it's said that it would produce bad pitches, or that batsmen wouldn't sight properly. But then half the time it's said that bowlers would be the worst affected, having to cope with the loss of grip and a soggy outfield.

So would it be a problem for the players in general? Maybe. But cricket isn't played for the benefit of the players, they're just part of the trade. It's played for the fans. Also Rupert Murdoch, but mostly the fans. And no matter what rainy cricket might be like to watch, it's better than none.

Plus it would lead to endless debate on how best to use the wet conditions. No fan worth their salt wouldn't love the chance to form more opinions after all. Eventually it'd just be another way of making things more interesting.

The way of Test cricket is that you can have a guy standing around for three and a half days who then comes in and wins you the match. Tests are broad, varied and rich and anything that goes against that is missing the point.

 

[Zohaib©]

Players will get sick , didnt you know that

 

[Howe_zat]

Uh huh.

Can a mod fix the typo in the thread title, please.

 

[weeman27bob]

I've always been told it's "dangerous" to play in the rain, but never excatly how.

I don't think anybody would want to spend a whole day getting wet though. Unless we're going to allow players to wear waterproof clothing?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Interesting.

Would the players be allowed raincoats, or would they have to make do with umbrellas? Or would they have to really harsh it out by playing au naturale?

 

[Manee]

I've always been told it's "dangerous" to play in the rain, but never excatly how.

People will slip over, the pitch will be unsafe.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Don't see why that aspect should make it any more dangerous than rugby, which is often played in the wet and with at least as much physical movement.

 

[Manee]

Don't see why that aspect should make it any more dangerous than rugby, which is often played in the wet and with at least as much physical movement.

Ever tried bowling fast on a soaking pitch?

 

[silentstriker]

Bring back sticky wickets.

 

[fredfertang]

Would discriminate against those of us who play in glasses

 

[Jarquis]

Also damage to equipment, cricket bats are made out of wood and they don't tend to hold up particularly well if left in wet conditions for any sort of prolonged period of time. But yeah, bowlers run ups would become skid-fests.

 

[fredfertang]

Isn't that Jake's point though? Bowlers would have to adapt - we might see lobs come back into fashion - or more Bishen Bedis

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

I have another suggestion. Why not convert all existing stadiums to indoor stadiums with a sliding roof that can be controlled by a lever?

In that way, the top can be kept open on most occasions. So that the temperature, humidity and air pressure add to the variables in the game. I certainly don't want to take out those factors that make bowling so interesting.

Should a downpour occur, the roof can be pulled over and the game can still be continued. I realise that this calls for a bit of investment, but the issue of rain affecting test matches can be solved for good. Without compromising on the traditional delights of test match cricket that a purist loves. Thoughts?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ever tried bowling fast on a soaking pitch?

Ever tried scrummaging* on a mudbath? Or running down the wing?

Sorry don't mean to sound rude, just trying to make a comparison










*Nope, neither have I, due to my size

 

[BlazeDragon]

I have another suggestion. Why not convert all existing stadiums to indoor stadiums with a sliding roof that can be controlled by a lever?

In that way, the top can be kept open on most occasions. So that the temperature, humidity and air pressure add to the variables in the game. I certainly don't want to take out those factors that make bowling so interesting.

Should a downpour occur, the roof can be pulled over and the game can still be continued. I realise that this calls for a bit of investment, but the issue of rain affecting test matches can be solved for good. Without compromising on the traditional delights of test match cricket that a purist loves. Thoughts?

I agree with this post they should make more stadiums with roofs on top like they have in Melbourne and Cardiff. They can also be useful during important World Cup matches so we won't have to abandon games.

 

[Manee]

Ever tried scrummaging* on a mudbath? Or running down the wing?

Sorry don't mean to sound rude, just trying to make a comparison

I don't play rugby unfortunately but surely quick bowling is on another level of dangerous to simply running. But then scrummaging may be pretty difficult, so I dunno. I just wouldn't want to see a Test pacer come off 4 paces due to conditions.

 

[Jarquis]

Ever tried scrummaging* on a mudbath? Or running down the wing?

Sorry don't mean to sound rude, just trying to make a comparison

*Nope, neither have I, due to my size

Scrummaging is difficult in crappy conditions but it's a lot slower than a bowler coming into his delivery stride due to the nature of it being 8 blokes shoving against 8 other blokes.
Running down the wing is a damn slight easier than tearing into bowl due to the fact one bloke has 8 two inch studs on each foot and the other has 5 or so tiny metal spikes to provide traction.

Have you never seen a bowler in club cricket have to put sawdust on their run up to stop them slipping? That's in the damp when they trot in and launch thunderbolts at 65mph. Completely different ball game for a Test bowler wanting to sprint in and bowl at 150 clicks in the rain.

 

[Jacknife]

Don't see why that aspect should make it any more dangerous than rugby, which is often played in the wet and with at least as much physical movement.

I've done both, scrummaged and bowled and in Rugby Union you are brought up playing in the winter time and even though there is a lot of power involved in the scrum, it's done from a stand still and even though players fight for grip when wet, it's not much more different to when it's dry. Even running down the wing and getting tackled, is not comparable to what forces a fast bowler, puts into his bowling action.
Fast bowling in the rain, would be very tricky and would almost be asking for trouble, especially at the business end of bowling, the action the follow through. Slipping and sliding on the wet grass, could cause all kinds of twists, strains and pulls, especially when fast bowlers are already prone to injury at the best of times.

 

[Daemon]

You don't even need proper roofs, a quick fix would be a huge plastic sheet covering the top with a tip so the angle would let the rain fall down into the spectators

 

[Langeveldt]

To be honest, the fact a million dollars can change hands so a mediocre player can play a few games of T20 makes it annoying that such money cant change hands to for example build a stadium with a roof.. Surely it should be a massive drawcard?

Can you imagine Shane Bond or Shaun Tait getting their fingernails muddy in the rain, or messing up their hair? Not going to happen is it..