Day/night Test cricket

[GROTTO]

Day/Night cricket tests wont take place in the subcontinent because of the dew conditions.

Unless of course they start the game earlier, like say around 12pm.

 

[Black Diamond]

My primary concern here is with the ball they use. I don't really mind that conditions change from day to night. As it is, conditions can change from an overcast morning to a sunny and humid afternoon session before pre-storm conditions in the evening session. The lights already get turned on during the day if need be. The players will just have to deal with it.

I just hope this decision isn't being rushed though (of course it is). I was previously dead against it but now I support the idea as long as the ball is credible and the pitch is natural etc.

Regardless of what happen I think they should consider starting tests in the southern states later in the day. Why does the day have to finish at 5:30 local time? If there is enough light to play until 7:00 or 7:30 just do it and start at 11:00 am or whatever.

 

[Hellgood]

So do I. I go to sporting events on the weekends or when on holidays.

So it's not worth trying to enable the game to be more accessible on weeknights?

I too tend to prefer cricket and footy during the day, but I don't see the harm in investigating the potential of day/night test cricket - particularly for cities that don't get the benefit of having their test match over a holiday period.

 

[stmookeyj]

Because the majority of us work during the day.

More and more people than ever before work at night and it's growing....

Personally it's not needed. Just start at 12:00, the day is done by 7:30 (sun still up at that time in most parts of the nation), and there's still time for a meal in town or to get home close to a reasonable hour.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's amazing really. Test cricket has thrived since 1877, that's 137 years ... and suddenly we need to change everything so administrators can justify their bloated incomes. Not good enough people, leave the bloody game alone.

 

[The_Reaper]

It's amazing really. Test cricket has thrived since 1877, that's 137 years ... and suddenly we need to change everything so administrators can justify their bloated incomes. Not good enough people, leave the bloody game alone.

I honestly think it's the Kiwis who want this more than we do.

And we offered this as the bribe to New Zealand so they'd sell their souls and give up their voting rights at the ICC

 

[Wallaby]

It's amazing really. Test cricket has thrived since 1877, that's 137 years ... and suddenly we need to change everything so administrators can justify their bloated incomes. Not good enough people, leave the bloody game alone.

Of course Test cricket has thrived for 137 years - for 100 of those years it was the only game in town. Now there is more competition for the dollar - not just other forms of cricket. And the players want to be paid.

What's wrong with trying to make the entertainment product better? If it doesn't work - that's ok. Try something else (maybe back to status quo). If it does work - that's ok, too.

 

[Hellgood]

I honestly think it's the Kiwis who want this more than we do.

Nah CA are pretty keen.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Of course Test cricket has thrived for 137 years - for 100 of those years it was the only game in town. Now there is more competition for the dollar - not just other forms of cricket. And the players want to be paid.

What's wrong with trying to make the entertainment product better? If it doesn't work - that's ok. Try something else (maybe back to status quo). If it does work - that's ok, too.

Its Test cricket. Its not for experimenting with. It should be KNOWN that it works before being used. At least in the playing sense. For crowds and TV, experimenting is fine; that doesn't impact the game itself.

The ball is still questionable at best.
A number of grounds are unsuited due to dew or other climate reasons, yet as happened with limited overs games you can be sure over time all will be forced to play day/night games whether it suits that venue or not.

It is being rushed on the basis of no evidence that it will work. The trials so far in South Africa and Australia have not been well received by players, though the Australian players (under CA instructions?) seem a bit more positive after this season's Shield round under lights.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Of course Test cricket has thrived for 137 years - for 100 of those years it was the only game in town. Now there is more competition for the dollar - not just other forms of cricket. And the players want to be paid.

What's wrong with trying to make the entertainment product better? If it doesn't work - that's ok. Try something else (maybe back to status quo). If it does work - that's ok, too.

They have tried something different. It's called limited over cricket. Plenty of opportunities for people to see lights and pretty colours without having to stuff up Test cricket as well. Change doesn't automate improvement.

 

[The Passenger]

You guys might as well get prepared for it.

IF it works, it'll become the norm.

Quite personally, I'm looking forward to it and I really hope it works.

But if it becomes a mickey mouse game where teams battle to get to 250 and the scoring rate drops down to 2.5 an over or less, then it won't be any good. Although it would be good to throw a bit of balance back towards the bowlers for once, but it needs to be within reason.

The big thing from an administrators perspective is the scoring rates don't drop. I don't think they'll mind if the overall runs drop 5-10%, but if the scoring rate doesn't stay at its current level of around 3.2 an over, then it will be deemed a no go I reckon.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

IMHO, one of the great joys of Test cricket is having the radio on in the background while I'm working in the garden on a Saturday afternoon... particularly listening to say, Kerry O'Keefe and Harsha Bogle chewing the fat, with KOK telling frog jokes and Harsha trying to get him to eat chillis. I don't really WANT Test cricket to be hyped up and turned into a rating spectacle. That's for one-dayers and T20.

I know people keep saying that Test cricket needs to evolve to survive. But if you change the game, to the point it isn't really the same game anymore... it hasn't really survived, has it?

 

[Kyptastic]

It's amazing really. Test cricket has thrived since 1877, that's 137 years ... and suddenly we need to change everything so administrators can justify their bloated incomes. Not good enough people, leave the bloody game alone.

* me, test cricket's changed heaps in that time. From 4 to 6 to 8 and back to six ball overs, uncovered pitches, the ever changing lbw law, no longer having to hit the ball out of the ground for a six, tests being five days instead of 3, changing the ball at 80 overs, fielding restrictions behind square, video reviews - test cricket has been extremely adaptable. It'll survive day/night tests - hell, it'll probably even thrive.

 

[The Speaker]

Four years on, CA will be hoping that Sri Lanka don't get the chance to bowl with the new ball under lights, because their seamers have a habit of doing well when the going is good, but doing poorly once conditions become unhelpful.

To date, day/night matches have been a lottery in which you need to win the toss to take advantage of the pink ball in the right conditions. It hoops around for a few overs, then does nothing, then the next new ball under lights does even more than it did during the day. In that sense, it's like the sticky wickets of old, with one crucial difference: rain is random. The pink ball is not. The pink ball is a condition of every match played as a pink ball Test match, and the formula for every match is exactly the same.

 

[Scotland]

I like the added element of the night session spicing things up. The Boxing Day test for example was dull AF for the first two days and would have been much more interesting if there was an evening period on day 1 where the ball zipped around a bit.

Going to be pretty embarrassing if we can't keep the lights on, though.

 

[Gough]

I wonder if the experience of preparing pitches for day night Test left Damian Hough with a bit more confidence to leave a bit of grass on the pitch for traditional day Test that we had this year.

 

[The Speaker]

I like the added element of the night session spicing things up. The Boxing Day test for example was dull AF for the first two days and would have been much more interesting if there was an evening period on day 1 where the ball zipped around a bit.

Going to be pretty embarrassing if we can't keep the lights on, though.

Sure, I'd like sticky wickets to return for that reason.

But, as I said, the problem with the pink ball 'spiciness' is that there's no element of randomness to it. The pattern is set in stone, and the players just have to play it out. It basically defeats the purpose.

 

[Scotland]

There are still variations based on the conditions. A low bouncing pitch might swing or seam a bit more, and the evening could be dry or humid depending where you are.

It might be predictable but it's better than 5 days of the same which is what we tend to see these days. If you win the toss and bat you go in with the knowledge that you will have to see off the new ball then conditions should be good for 30-40 overs say then you'll have another period which will be difficult. Say you are 280 ahead approaching sunset on day 4 it throws a new element into the mix on when to declare also.

 

[The Speaker]

There are still variations based on the conditions. A low bouncing pitch might swing or seam a bit more, and the evening could be dry or humid depending where you are.

It might be predictable but it's better than 5 days of the same which is what we tend to see these days. If you win the toss and bat you go in with the knowledge that you will have to see off the new ball then conditions should be good for 30-40 overs say then you'll have another period which will be difficult. Say you are 280 ahead approaching sunset on day 4 it throws a new element into the mix on when to declare also.

Which means it's just fixing a problem of their own creation, while creating new problems to go with it.

 

[Scotland]

Which means it's just fixing a problem of their own creation, while creating new problems to go with it.

You must be new to sports admin.

 

[The Speaker]

You must be new to sports admin.

I think I've said before that it's very AFL-esque. But that doesn't make it good.

 

[The Speaker]

To date, day/night matches have been a lottery in which you need to win the toss to take advantage of the pink ball in the right conditions. It hoops around for a few overs, then does nothing, then the next new ball under lights does even more than it did during the day. In that sense, it's like the sticky wickets of old, with one crucial difference: rain is random. The pink ball is not. The pink ball is a condition of every match played as a pink ball Test match, and the formula for every match is exactly the same.

word

 

[The Speaker]

word

Seriously, it's so predictable. Old pink ball? Middle of the day? Watch it do less than nothing for the bowlers.

I'm astonished how little attention this has gotten. Maybe people have short memories and don't pay attention to the fact that the same matches with the same innings shapes are getting played over and over again.

 

[Kram]

Seriously, it's so predictable. Old pink ball? Middle of the day? Watch it do less than nothing for the bowlers.

I'm astonished how little attention this has gotten. Maybe people have short memories and don't pay attention to the fact that the same matches with the same innings shapes are getting played over and over again.

I hope you don't bore people with this stuff at parties.

 

[The Speaker]

I hope you don't bore people with this stuff at parties.

What's a party?