Test cricket, white balls, and artificial lighting

[Furball]

Yeah sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Nah, it shouldn't be down to the captains to go off. By all means consult with the captains with regards to whether or not it might be appropriate to check the light, but allowing the captains to decide that play is suspended is ridiculous.

 

[Ruckus]

Ah yeh sorry misread that. It should be up to the batsmen (or I guess anyone on the field who thinks their role is significantly impaired, if necessary).

 

[silentstriker]

As long as it's about making the contest better, then it's fine. You're not going to attract people to a sport they don't otherwise enjoy that lasts five days just because it's played at night, or because it's with a multi-coloured gobstopper.

But even if it doesn't (which I'm not sure is true TBF), why not make it easier for your fans (who I assume you want to keep) to come watch or watch the game at home instead of having to watch the highlights or following it on cricinfo.

Places like Australia or England get crowds still but other places don't and I think some people are being slighty short sighted. If the game dies in some of the major countries (eg subcontinent), don't think it won't have a massive effect on the others as well.

 

[Furball]

But even if it doesn't (which I'm not sure is true TBF), why not make it easier for your fans (who I assume you want to keep) to come watch or watch the game at home instead of having to watch the highlights or following it on cricinfo.

Places like Australia or England get crowds still but other places don't and I think some people are being slighty short sighted. If the game dies in some of the major countries (eg subcontinent), don't think it won't have a massive effect on the others as well.

A valid point but at the end of the day, you're still fighting against the fact that Test cricket isn't a particularly spectator friendly sport, which is why we have limited overs cricket in the first place.

I definitely agree that D/N tests in the subcontinent would be worth pursuing, as I can't imagine sitting in oppressive heat for 7 hours watching the cricket is a particularly brilliant experience, but the issues worldwide go deeper than just when the match is scheduled.

 

[Burgey]

Pink balls are healthy enough. Red balls at night are often painful.

 

[silentstriker]

A valid point but at the end of the day, you're still fighting against the fact that Test cricket isn't a particularly spectator friendly sport, which is why we have limited overs cricket in the first place.

I definitely agree that D/N tests in the subcontinent would be worth pursuing, as I can't imagine sitting in oppressive heat for 7 hours watching the cricket is a particularly brilliant experience, but the issues worldwide go deeper than just when the match is scheduled.

Well obviously it'd be up to the individual boards to schedule it based on when they think they can get most people watching or coming, so if ECB is happy with their attendance/vieweship, that's fine. I disagree regarding spectator friendly - ECB fills up stadiums all the time (though people do come in and out, which is fine). You have to make it easy for people. What's for sure is that it won't be spectator friendly if said spectator never actually get a chance to see a full game (BCCI scheduling Tests for M-F for example, during the day, which is asinine). Test cricket builds on you, you can't start watching cricket and be immediately into a five day game and it'll never happen if it's not available for you to see. And no, it may never be like ODIs but that doesn't mean we have to say 200 people showing up to a stadium in India as an acceptable status quo. If we can make it more marketable without changing the basics of what makes it so great, let's do it (and tbf it's not a major change, just some minor adjustment, which players have to make every few years depending on whatever else is new or in fashion).

Other boards may benefit, even if ECB/ACB choose not to (and TBF both of them expressed willingness to try it too) - hence I don't understand the hardline of it should never be played under night conditions.

 

[Furball]

Well obviously it'd be up to the individual boards to schedule it based on when they think they can get most people watching or coming, so if ECB is happy with their attendance/vieweship, that's fine. I disagree regarding spectator friendly - ECB fills up stadiums all the time (though people do come in and out, which is fine). You have to make it easy for people. What's for sure is that it won't be spectator friendly if said spectator never actually get a chance to see a full game (BCCI scheduling Tests for M-F for example, during the day, which is asinine).

Other boards may benefit, even if ECB/ACB choose not to (and TBF both of them expressed willingness to try it too) - hence I don't understand the hardline of it should never be played under night conditions.

It would be close to impossible to play a Test under night conditions in England anyway.

What I meant by spectator unfriendly is the effort it takes to watch an entire Test compared with other sports, or even other formats of cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

I agree with you, it's not going to be a T20. But I think even a lot of very committed fans don't watch every ball of every game (CW die hards excluded, but we're addicted). But it's nice to be able to if you want - maybe go to the stadium for a few hours post work, or sit at home and watch the last session of a Test match. I think that's how you build people's interest.

Again, I am not claiming we can make it T20, I am just saying that playing at night is a very reasonable option to try to make it more accessible than it is now.

 

[Furball]

I agree with you, it's not going to be a T20. But I think even a lot of very committed fans don't watch every ball of every game (CW die hards excluded, but we're addicted). But it's nice to be able to if you want - maybe go to the stadium for a few hours post work, or sit at home and watch the last session of a Test match. I think that's how you build people's interest.

Again, I am not claiming we can make it T20, I am just saying that playing at night is a very reasonable option to try to make it more accessible than it is now.

I agree with you, I'm a big fan of the idea of D/N cricket.

 

[benchmark00]

Can't play cricket at night with a red ball for two reasons: slightly more difficult for batsmen... but impossible to see for fielders and spectators beyond the sightscreens.


Can't play cricket with white ball because it gets too dirty and white gets knocked off it. Pink gets too dull also.

We're day gaming or nothing. Fact.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Instinctively I'm a traditionalist on this issue. Obviously in England we're talking from a position of strength inasmuch as test cricket is doing very nicely here, ta very much. The gold standard will always be red balls, whites and daylight.

However, if other countries want to experiment with night tests I don't necessarily see it being a massive problem. The playing conditions would have to be amended, but clearly with the ongoing UDRS situation tests aren't played on a level playing field across the globe anyway. The main problem seems to be the discolouring of the balls, so why not just allow new ball to be taken after (say) 20 or 30 overs rather than 80? The ball isn't going to age to the same extent, but then it doesn't in the abbreviated formats anyway and spinners still play important roles in them.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't necessarily have a problem with a bit of artificial light, but apart from that nothing should change

 

[Daemon]

Lots of blue balls going round in CW aws

 

[slowfinger]

Whatever gets the viewers and lasts, right?

How about the new ball at thge start of the innings is red, but when the lights come on (around about new-ball time ((60 overs))) they swap over to white, win win? or will they be unable to adjust from red to white?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Would need to be a pink ball for me. Couldn't have a white ball with the players wearing their whites and test cricket in pyjamas is a step too far.

 

[Daemon]

Whatever gets the viewers and lasts, right?

How about the new ball at thge start of the innings is red, but when the lights come on (around about new-ball time ((60 overs))) they swap over to white, win win? or will they be unable to adjust from red to white?

Except for the fact that not every innings starts in the morning/afternoon?

 

[silentstriker]

Can't play cricket at night with a red ball for two reasons: slightly more difficult for batsmen... but impossible to see for fielders and spectators beyond the sightscreens.


Can't play cricket with white ball because it gets too dirty and white gets knocked off it. Pink gets too dull also.

We're day gaming or nothing. Fact.

MCC news: Rahul Dravid backs day/night Test cricket | Cricket News | Marylebone Cricket Club | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[benchmark00]

MCC news: Rahul Dravid backs day/night Test cricket | Cricket News | Marylebone Cricket Club | ESPN Cricinfo

What's your point exactly?

 

[silentstriker]

What's your point exactly?

That a Test batsman who has played with it doesn't think it's all that bad.

 

[benchmark00]

That a Test batsman who has played with it doesn't think it's all that bad.

That's a real swell story.

I dare say I would have used a pink cricket ball at night more times than Rahul Dravid has, and I think you'll find the pink Kookaburra balls they currently have aren't good enough for night test cricket.

Never mind the players, it's bloody horrible for the spectators trying to pick up a grey ball against a black sky.