Time to abolish floodlight cricket?

[Lillian Thomson]

In England it just doesn't get dark enough early enough in summer to make it worthwhile, if it is dark enough it's probably raining. The current ICC matches are a farce because of the dew. There may be a case for continuing in Australia but even there the stats are heavily in favour of the team batting first. The one and only reason for One-Day International Cricket being played in England is because the TV companies want it.

 

[silentstriker]

No. I like night cricket. The dew factor is overrated.

And I love the current ICC matches because its not a given that you can plonk your front food down and score sixes every other ball. And its still possible to score a great innings, as Fleming showed today.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Yeah, the dew factor seems to be overexaggerated. It's probably countered by the general feeling that batting under lights is more difficult anyway. The lights at the 2003 World Cup did affect results though: anyone remember Ashish Nehra swinging it sideways in Cape Town?

 

[Fratboy]

In England it just doesn't get dark enough early enough in summer to make it worthwhile, if it is dark enough it's probably raining. The current ICC matches are a farce because of the dew. There may be a case for continuing in Australia but even there the stats are heavily in favour of the team batting first. The one and only reason for One-Day International Cricket being played in England is because the TV companies want it.

As far as the current ICC event is concerned, only one game has been affected by the dew - the SL-Pak one. This event is far from a farce.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

We cant go back on what we started. We have to wait untill the time is right. Besides, all the goth kids can come and watch and keep their cream exterior

 

[open365]

No. I like night cricket. The dew factor is overrated.

And I love the current ICC matches because its not a given that you can plonk your front food down and score sixes every other ball. And its still possible to score a great innings, as Fleming showed today.

Agreed, it's refreshing to see one dayers where the batsmen really have to work hard for their runs.

 

[archie mac]

Aust. hinted that they lost the 96 WC because of the dew. I think it would be fairer to play four 25 over innings, so as both teams have similar conditions.

 

[Goughy]

Change the 'floodlight' in the question to 'ODI' and I would say yes.

and Im only half joking

 

[Pratters]

The dew factor makes it unfair for one team and where it exists or cannot be eliminated considerably, flood lit cricket has to stop till a way to reduce the due factor can be found out.

There are two arguments which can come up against this:

1. The test matches also have advantage for one team. The difference is, test cricket is played over 5 days and each team has 2 innings to bat. So, most of it evens out in the end and even for matches where it doesn't it is not necessary team batting first will have the considerable advantage as over cast conditions can lead to advantage for the team batting second. Also, at times, there is more juice in the pitch early on in the game and the pitch flattens out later and so the team batting second can have a greater advantage. Also, there are two innings and a chance for it evening out for the teams and teams coming back - not so in a consoderably smaller version of the game which one day cricket is.

2. Floodlit cricket is a great spectacle. You have to stop commercialisation where it starts harming the game and commercialisation at the cost of the game is not the way to go.

 

[open365]

Prove the due factor acctualy benefits one side more than the other and give reasons why.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I don't think it's really fair to have one innings in normal light, then the other innings in floodlights, dew etc.

There should only be floodlit cricket if *both* innings are played under floodlights in my opinion, but given the length of games that's probably not realistic most of the time. Of course this isn't a problem at all for Twenty20 cricket.

 

[Pratters]

Prove the due factor acctualy benefits one side more than the other and give reasons why.

It effects the team bowling second considerably when the ball is wet and it is difficult to grip the ball. Especially for spinners in the subcontinent where spin is such a crucial factor more often than not, the team batting second gets big advantage.

 

[open365]

It effects the team bowling second considerably when the ball is wet and it is difficult to grip the ball. Especially for spinners in the subcontinent where spin is such a crucial factor more often than not, the team batting second gets big advantage.

Then howcome 11 sides who've batted first out of 15 games in the CT have won?

 

[Goughy]

Prove the due factor acctualy benefits one side more than the other and give reasons why.

Im sure there is evidence, and there is a difference though I think it is generally exagerated.

I think a simple and fair point on the matter is to look at how scientific experiments are conducted.

In a fair and unbiased experiment here sould only be one variable ( in this case the teams). If there are other variables between the experiments (ie the innings of each team) such as ground conditions and the nature of the available light then the experiment would not be considered valid and the result comprimised.

We are not taliking about changing conditions that cannot be predicted. We are looking at dew and artificial light that means the teams bat and bowl in different conditions which weakens the game as a 'true experiment' to determine the best team.

It doesnt bother me that much as I don't really care for ODI cricket but I can understand why some have a concern.

 

[open365]

But isn't that so in test cricket aswell? The team batting last has to bat on a waring pitch which is often extremely conducive for spin bowling

 

[Pratters]

Then howcome 11 sides who've batted first out of 15 games in the CT have won?

That is too small a sample size. It is also a slightly skewed stat because the earlier matches involved Bangladesh/Zimbabwe v Sri Lanka/West Indies.

 

[marc71178]

That is too small a sample size. It is also a slightly skewed stat because the earlier matches involved Bangladesh/Zimbabwe v Sri Lanka/West Indies.

Yes, but 2 of the sides to win batting second have done so against England, which counteracts that.

 

[Pratters]

Again, it is still a small sample size.

 

[open365]

Again, it is still a small sample size.

But is the dew factor really that big in anywhere apart from Inidia?

It doesn't happen that much in England from my experience

 

[Dick Rockett]

It's not a problem here, AFAIK.