Time to abolish floodlight cricket?

[nightprowler10]

Run chases just don't seem right in the daytime.

Yup, there seems to be so much more drama at night.

 

[nightprowler10]

Just on that WC final 96 I was quite embarrassed to be an Aussie when I heard that the Waugh brothers refused to sign any of the Sri Lankan players bats ect

Never heard that before. Any reason, or were they just pissed?

 

[Sanz]

They only batted first against the Windies in the Semi, I think they played NZ in the Qtr final and batted 2nd, but I could be wrong. It should be remembered that the dew does not effect all matches in India

Mohali and Lahore both have dew problems and If I am not wrong, so does Chennai. And Australia won two of those three, one while batting second, the other while batting first. So if there was any complain about the Dew, it should have come before that and not after losing.

 

[Great Birtannia]

There may be a case for continuing in Australia but even there the stats are heavily in favour of the team batting first.

Have you got the stats at hand? It is something people bring up a lot but I would like to know if it has any factual basis behind it. A lot of teams that come to Australia win the toss and bowl because they prefer to chase, New Zealand and Sri Lanka are two that do it quiet often IIRC, while in Australian conditions if Ponting wins the toss Australia will bat 95 times out of 100. That's got to skew the stats a bit as well.

 

[Fratboy]

IMO, the moths troubled the players more than any dew today.

 

[steds]

I would like to see a totally floodlit game, just to see what happens. Maybe a Twenty20 game starting at midnight or something like that.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I would like to see a totally floodlit game, just to see what happens. Maybe a Twenty20 game starting at midnight or something like that.

It would be quite fun actually, apart from the fact that there'd be no people there.

 

[Dick Rockett]

It probably comes down more to Mark Waugh failing, losing our way after a good second wicket stand (which we often used to do batting first in those days), and Healy dropping De Silva.

So.... because Sri Lanka was a better team?

 

[Pratters]

Harbajahan doesn't seem to have any problems gripping the ball tonight

Dravid has said there was a bit of due but not as much as in some other games.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

It would be quite fun actually, apart from the fact that there'd be no people there.

Depends where it was: I reckon you could do it in the subcontinent. IIRC Barcelona once played a home game at midnight, due to some fixture overload or something, and got a packed house.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Depends where it was: I reckon you could do it in the subcontinent. IIRC Barcelona once played a home game at midnight, due to some fixture overload or something, and got a packed house.

Yeah, but in Spain they're used to 10pm kickoffs.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

True, but wouldn't a 10pm kick-off over here be regarded as a totally different concept?

 

[archie mac]

Never heard that before. Any reason, or were they just pissed?

Just bad losers

 

[archie mac]

Mohali and Lahore both have dew problems and If I am not wrong, so does Chennai. And Australia won two of those three, one while batting second, the other while batting first. So if there was any complain about the Dew, it should have come before that and not after losing.

Yes I agree, too good a side to be complaining. I thought the better side won, they came up with the new tactics and deserved to win

 

[Slow Love™]

So.... because Sri Lanka was a better team?

The comment was in the context of conditions being blamed for poor performances (and it was a pretty poor performance - I was just identifying the actual source of the poorness).

I don't actually think Sri Lanka was a better team (do you?) but they certainly outplayed us on the night and deserved their win.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I don't actually think Sri Lanka was a better team (do you?) but they certainly outplayed us on the night and deserved their win.

Although Australia are always very good, I do think SL were better in those days.

 

[nightprowler10]

Although Australia are always very good, I do think SL were better in those days.

They were that night, and that's all it takes.

 

[Slow Love™]

Although Australia are always very good, I do think SL were better in those days.

Really? Fair enough. I definitely felt we were better - we'd won our way into the final, and they'd benefitted from two forfeits. And just previous to the WC, we'd beaten them 4 times out of six, including a 2-zip finals result.

 

[Slow Love™]

They were that night, and that's all it takes.

Yep. And they were.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Really? Fair enough. I definitely felt we were better - we'd won our way into the final, and they'd benefitted from two forfeits. And just previous to the WC, we'd beaten them 4 times out of six, including a 2-zip finals result.

At the time I just felt like they had that unstoppable feel to them. I don't really think the forfeits made any difference. Certainly not saying that Australia were poor or anything, but that tournament's one of the few times I was certain about a result. One other that springs to mind was Michael Schumacher's entire career...