Night Tests - pro or con?
The latest noises from Cricket Australia are the possibility of staging night Test matches. Mike Coward speaks against the concept:
Test cricket is sacred because it has stood apart from all its mutations and from all other sport for 130 years. This makes it unique. The moment it does not stand apart is the moment it will be despoiled and doomed.
And, of course, playing under lights is only the start. The colour of the ball will need to change. The colour of the sightscreens will need to change. In all probability the colour of clothing will need to change. And all for the sake of unnatural light and, perhaps, a few more quid and television rating points a beautiful sporting culture will be lost. Once it is defiled there can be no turning back. The governors need to remember that.
On the other hand, Peter Roebuck is all for the idea:
CRICKET cannot turn up its lip at the prospect of night Test matches. To the contrary, it is exactly the sort of radical proposal the game needs. Movies, plays and concerts all take place long after the sun has set, and, inevitably, the same applies to most sporting events, including cricket. And the reason is simple: after a day at work or school, people transport themselves into whichever world they choose in the evening. And the customer is always right.
Objectors will point out that dew arrives in the evening, upsetting the balance of the game. Tough. Players must take it into account. Already, openers often find themselves batting on fresh morning surfaces. Critics may complain that white balls fall apart easily, forgetting that red balls have never been entirely reliable. In any case, a game cannot be held back by trifles of this sort. The trouble with conservatives is that they love not wisely but too well.
Statisticians will observe that past figures will be rendered redundant whereupon their lives will become meaningless. Statisticians, taxi drivers and Paris Hilton have altogether too much to say. Anyhow, figures have always reflected their period. Batsmen used to encounter wet pitches; modern players encounter dry surfaces and weak attacks.
My first reaction was "noooooooo"! Twenty20 is already prostituting the game to the point where it has practically no dignity left. Juggling clowns and water dunking? Do what you want with the limited overs stuff but leave the 5 day game pure and unmolested.
However, upon reflection, I'm reconsidering. Test cricket can change so long as the important stuff is left the same. The colour of the ball isn't the be all and end all. Who cares about the sight screen. But the clothing should always be white to distinguish itself from limited overs. And one of the most annoying elements of Test cricket will be eliminated - stopping for bad light.
| Posted by JC on Tue 18 Dec |  19 comments |
Its a difficult question really. I am happy to reconisder as well, which obviously imply that there are initial relectancies. Few issues:
- Certain pitches and grounds behave differently in day and night, would it be fair?
- The balls on certain gorund become slippry at night, we see spinners finding it hard to grip at night. In test cricket, are we going to remove the glory of spin bowling? (I think in ODIs, spinners are already half shot. Tey dont get a chance to build rythom. Neither Murali nor Warne nor Kumble really built that power as they did in Tests)
- for 5 consective days, isnt sleeping patterns of both players and spectators seriously affected?
These are a few that came to my head,,,may be others can come up with few more.
But still, I see why we need to think out of the box.
Posted by Edward on 2007-12-18 15:32:39
- Certain pitches and grounds behave differently in day and night, would it be fair?
- The balls on certain gorund become slippry at night, we see spinners finding it hard to grip at night. In test cricket, are we going to remove the glory of spin bowling? (I think in ODIs, spinners are already half shot. Tey dont get a chance to build rythom. Neither Murali nor Warne nor Kumble really built that power as they did in Tests)
- for 5 consective days, isnt sleeping patterns of both players and spectators seriously affected?
These are a few that came to my head,,,may be others can come up with few more.
But still, I see why we need to think out of the box.
Posted by Edward on 2007-12-18 15:32:39
I see pitches behaving differently as a positive - makes the game more varied. It's the same as a pitch showing movement in the morning then flattening as the day goes on. It's up to the batsmen to adjust to the varying conditions.
The ball becoming slippery is more of a problem but again, something for the bowling side to adjust to.
Posted by JC on 2007-12-18 18:31:56
The ball becoming slippery is more of a problem but again, something for the bowling side to adjust to.
Posted by JC on 2007-12-18 18:31:56
Even the proponents of night Test matches see problems with such things as vision, moisture etc. Things that need to be sorted out well and truly beforehand.
And they admit (I heard James Sutherland on TV the other day), it is a new way to make more money. Not through increased attendances but through increased advertising revenue that night games would generate.
The term you use, JC - "prostituting the game"
is one that has been on my lips for some time now. I'm glad I'm at an age where I won't get to see much of what will be passed off as development of the game. It will be unrecognisable in half a century, all for the search of the almighty dollar.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-12-18 18:36:36
And they admit (I heard James Sutherland on TV the other day), it is a new way to make more money. Not through increased attendances but through increased advertising revenue that night games would generate.
The term you use, JC - "prostituting the game"
is one that has been on my lips for some time now. I'm glad I'm at an age where I won't get to see much of what will be passed off as development of the game. It will be unrecognisable in half a century, all for the search of the almighty dollar.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-12-18 18:36:36
If night Tests are to work within three years, they will surely have to use the pink balls that are being trialled this season. Roebuck's comment that "Critics may complain that white balls fall apart easily, forgetting that red balls have never been entirely reliable" is just silly: white balls barely last 35 overs, whereas red balls last much longer. Other colours of ball (yellow and orange in Shield cricket) didn't work.
I hope that the pink ball trials fail miserably, so that we can forget about night Tests. I agree with Coward.
Posted by David Barry on 2007-12-18 18:40:22
I hope that the pink ball trials fail miserably, so that we can forget about night Tests. I agree with Coward.
Posted by David Barry on 2007-12-18 18:40:22
As long as the stats gets wiped it's OK I guess. That will put the likes of Murali and Bradman in a proper light. Test cricket has been around for so long now that stats are pretty meaningless unless grouped into eras (e.g Bradman) so yeah, go for it - the modern day sports watcher is so short of attention span and so naive to what the the game of cricket is actually all about that it might actually work!. Aim it at the under 25's and yer in! After all, cricket's all about the money nowadays, not the game - bugger it, I've got my memories...
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-12-18 20:36:46
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-12-18 20:36:46
Gaz, you're too cynical :-)
If you want to get real statistical nerdy, the best way to compare different periods is not batting or bowling averages but how much you deviate from the statistical average of the time. Eg - Bradman's batting average was probably something like two standard deviations off the norm. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone achieving that kind of anomaly in any other period.
Posted by JC on 2007-12-18 21:32:55
If you want to get real statistical nerdy, the best way to compare different periods is not batting or bowling averages but how much you deviate from the statistical average of the time. Eg - Bradman's batting average was probably something like two standard deviations off the norm. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone achieving that kind of anomaly in any other period.
Posted by JC on 2007-12-18 21:32:55
I've been pondering about this idea for sometime and wondering what night tests would really be like.
On the positive side there is sure to be more spectator attendance, sponsorship and the like. So now we know why a lot of businessmen want night cricket. But as hard as I try to think, this is THE only advantage of day-night tests.
On the flip side the perishing art of spin will breathe its last, you'll have batsmen complaining about visibility while facing bouncers from Brett Lee or Shoaib Akthar, and yet again the game of cricket will be left poorer.
It is here that we should stop to think. Is making money EVERYTHING? Should we choke the game itself in order to eke out the last penny from it? I definitely don't think so. Cricket is great because for the large part its remained unchanged. It's not a showpiece event, well atleast Test cricket isnt.
But with the proposed plan of night test cricket, I think an obituary for cricket is in order. T 20 fired the first shot, day-night tests stabbed it in cold blood and bundles of notes were used to hide the evidence...
What we will be left with will only be a shadow of what the great game once was...
Posted by Ajesh Nag on 2007-12-18 23:40:53
On the positive side there is sure to be more spectator attendance, sponsorship and the like. So now we know why a lot of businessmen want night cricket. But as hard as I try to think, this is THE only advantage of day-night tests.
On the flip side the perishing art of spin will breathe its last, you'll have batsmen complaining about visibility while facing bouncers from Brett Lee or Shoaib Akthar, and yet again the game of cricket will be left poorer.
It is here that we should stop to think. Is making money EVERYTHING? Should we choke the game itself in order to eke out the last penny from it? I definitely don't think so. Cricket is great because for the large part its remained unchanged. It's not a showpiece event, well atleast Test cricket isnt.
But with the proposed plan of night test cricket, I think an obituary for cricket is in order. T 20 fired the first shot, day-night tests stabbed it in cold blood and bundles of notes were used to hide the evidence...
What we will be left with will only be a shadow of what the great game once was...
Posted by Ajesh Nag on 2007-12-18 23:40:53
In my time, I have seen, atleast 4 types of cricket.
- Test
- ODIs (50 Over)
- 6 a side
- T20
Before that, they've had 60 over.
At club, state and school levels, they play 2 day, 3 day and 4 day games as well.
On top of all these, do we really need night test matches?
It just prostitutes the game, makes a mess of stats, makes cricket a business not a game. Cricket is rythomic, it shouldnt be taken away.
However, I still think, its worth to think of options, just to make sure the game can be continued in the longer run, provided commercial nature of the world today.
Posted by Edward on 2007-12-19 09:38:53
- Test
- ODIs (50 Over)
- 6 a side
- T20
Before that, they've had 60 over.
At club, state and school levels, they play 2 day, 3 day and 4 day games as well.
On top of all these, do we really need night test matches?
It just prostitutes the game, makes a mess of stats, makes cricket a business not a game. Cricket is rythomic, it shouldnt be taken away.
However, I still think, its worth to think of options, just to make sure the game can be continued in the longer run, provided commercial nature of the world today.
Posted by Edward on 2007-12-19 09:38:53
I wouldn't be that fussed about the stats. The game has always changed. Uncovered wickets, back foot no ball rule, more powerful bats, less minnow sides playing Test cricket, the pre and post Squash ball eras.
I don't care at all whether Cricket Australia make 5 billion dollars or 6 billion dollars. But I do care whether Test cricket is getting so few crowds that it could threaten the long term viability of that form of the game - or that less Test matches are scheduled because of loss of revenue. So if they can figure out a way to do night Tests where the quality of play (and cricket ball) is not compromised and it means we get more Test cricket, then bring it on!
Posted by JC on 2007-12-19 10:32:10
I don't care at all whether Cricket Australia make 5 billion dollars or 6 billion dollars. But I do care whether Test cricket is getting so few crowds that it could threaten the long term viability of that form of the game - or that less Test matches are scheduled because of loss of revenue. So if they can figure out a way to do night Tests where the quality of play (and cricket ball) is not compromised and it means we get more Test cricket, then bring it on!
Posted by JC on 2007-12-19 10:32:10
On a somewhat different note. I just hate getting rained out. Spend some money on stadium roofs.
Posted by TA on 2007-12-19 11:58:16
Posted by TA on 2007-12-19 11:58:16
The dew factor would also further hamper an already depleted conditions for a bowler... doesn't make sense... I would echo on TA's view on having maybe covered roofs to stop matches being rained out.
Posted by cricketfizz on 2007-12-19 20:12:26
Posted by cricketfizz on 2007-12-19 20:12:26
Sambit Bal hit the nail on the head...
"But Test cricket must not be tampered with lightly. It is a game that has survived the vagaries of time, and in many ways it is a miracle that it has done so. Those trying to change it must first understand why a game that seems so out of sync with the pace of modern life still manages to retain a loyal constituency. Test cricket survives despite its length, its slow pace, and the possibility of stalemates. In fact, all these are part of its appeal. Test cricket has never been and never will be "entertainment" in the traditional sense. It appeals to a band of eccentric fans who have the patience and the commitment for it. It requires a certain vision, and a grasp of the finer nuances of the game, to be able to enjoy Test cricket."
If we aren't getting crowds the fault isn't with the game itself. Dont tell me the EPL gets full houses, I could draw a seat layout for some of the stadia 'cause they are hardly ever full. Don't kill the game itself for the sake of making money, please!
Posted by Ajesh Nag on 2007-12-19 23:49:45
"But Test cricket must not be tampered with lightly. It is a game that has survived the vagaries of time, and in many ways it is a miracle that it has done so. Those trying to change it must first understand why a game that seems so out of sync with the pace of modern life still manages to retain a loyal constituency. Test cricket survives despite its length, its slow pace, and the possibility of stalemates. In fact, all these are part of its appeal. Test cricket has never been and never will be "entertainment" in the traditional sense. It appeals to a band of eccentric fans who have the patience and the commitment for it. It requires a certain vision, and a grasp of the finer nuances of the game, to be able to enjoy Test cricket."
If we aren't getting crowds the fault isn't with the game itself. Dont tell me the EPL gets full houses, I could draw a seat layout for some of the stadia 'cause they are hardly ever full. Don't kill the game itself for the sake of making money, please!
Posted by Ajesh Nag on 2007-12-19 23:49:45
I am torn.
I love the idea of seeing more test cricket because i would be working during less of it,BUT...
Even if they sort out the practical issues like the ball i am concerned that in order to get the prime time tv advertising they are going to "pimp it out" with all the bells and whistles. Previously, commercial networks have passed up the opportunity to show tests like the ashes in England because they would be going to air during prime time in Australia.
Alternatively, it will just be on pay tv and i will finally relent and get foxtel. This would be a real shame for the culture of the sport though as it cuts out a large portion of people from stumbling on to the game especially the kiddies.
And another thing, there's all this talk about having to make changes to cricket to keep it marketable. Meanwhile, the players and administrators are making oodles more money than they used to. Plus, have many more options to cash in on their careers after they retire. If numbers are down, how about they cut their salaries and make it cheaper to attend a match. Alternatively, some of the existing sponsorship could be used this way.
Posted by Trent Lane on 2007-12-20 08:39:21
I love the idea of seeing more test cricket because i would be working during less of it,BUT...
Even if they sort out the practical issues like the ball i am concerned that in order to get the prime time tv advertising they are going to "pimp it out" with all the bells and whistles. Previously, commercial networks have passed up the opportunity to show tests like the ashes in England because they would be going to air during prime time in Australia.
Alternatively, it will just be on pay tv and i will finally relent and get foxtel. This would be a real shame for the culture of the sport though as it cuts out a large portion of people from stumbling on to the game especially the kiddies.
And another thing, there's all this talk about having to make changes to cricket to keep it marketable. Meanwhile, the players and administrators are making oodles more money than they used to. Plus, have many more options to cash in on their careers after they retire. If numbers are down, how about they cut their salaries and make it cheaper to attend a match. Alternatively, some of the existing sponsorship could be used this way.
Posted by Trent Lane on 2007-12-20 08:39:21
Ajesh, excellent post of Sambit Bal (who is he/she?). Forgive my ignorance.
That's a far more articulate way of making the point than I can achieve. Test cricket has been around for so long now that, as pointed out, it's basically from another time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "name me another sport where you play for five days and it's still a draw!"...
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-12-20 18:03:38
That's a far more articulate way of making the point than I can achieve. Test cricket has been around for so long now that, as pointed out, it's basically from another time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "name me another sport where you play for five days and it's still a draw!"...
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-12-20 18:03:38
Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo and was the founding editor of the now-dead Wisden Asia Cricket.
Posted by David Barry on 2007-12-20 20:15:35
Posted by David Barry on 2007-12-20 20:15:35
"test cricket appeals to a band of eccentric fans who have the patience and the commitment for it."so very rite.day-night test matches is going 2 steps back in trying to bring the best out of the game.Test cricket is the real test for any cricketer bowler or batsman.deeming it to be the most boring form of cricket is ignorance about the game.As ajesh pointed out spinners and real good fast bowlers are fast diminishing.A move to night test matches will tip the scales even more in favour of the batsman.The due factor decays the ball and banishes the spinners from the game after about half the game.BUT in a real test match thats when they get involved as the ball gets old the spinners go about spinning their wily tricks.
Also the fast bowlers would loose the little swing they use to extract from the ball.Even if they do manage an edge i pity the devout slip fielders who will really feel the ball(which is really heavy by this time) coming in hard at them.
many other reasons have been highlighted by the article and also by the comments.But there was a point i spotted.yes play cannot be suspended by bad light.yes plsy will not be stopped because of bad light but no it would be DELAYED because theres too much due in out field.
Posted by vishnu on 2007-12-21 03:53:57
Also the fast bowlers would loose the little swing they use to extract from the ball.Even if they do manage an edge i pity the devout slip fielders who will really feel the ball(which is really heavy by this time) coming in hard at them.
many other reasons have been highlighted by the article and also by the comments.But there was a point i spotted.yes play cannot be suspended by bad light.yes plsy will not be stopped because of bad light but no it would be DELAYED because theres too much due in out field.
Posted by vishnu on 2007-12-21 03:53:57
messed up the last part in the above comment was in a hurry.anyway just wanted to put forward to you that the players will come of the field till the super sopper or whatever they use to remove water from the field eradicates the dew if there is an awful lot of it.but if they persist to play in those condition the balls will last as long just as vaas fleming encounters.
Posted by vishnu on 2007-12-21 04:16:18
Posted by vishnu on 2007-12-21 04:16:18
In case some of you dint know,test match under lights had been trialled once before actually.Here's Peter English about the topic
"The first match was played in November 1994 between Queensland and Western Australia and Victoria and New South Wales also hosted games that season. They started at 2.30pm and were over by 9.30pm if everything went to schedule. Rain and slow over-rates dragged stumps past the late news and one night in Brisbane did not finish until 11.10pm.
No batsman reached a century in the inaugural match, but Dean Jones (324 not out) and Darren Lehmann (202 not out) turned the third game at the MCG into the only contest under lights in which the batsmen truly dominated. A crowd of 7000 attended one day and it was a larger attendance than the totals for each of the first two contests, which were hampered by poor weather. "Those who were there complained that the yellow ball was virtually impossible to see," the Almanack reported. "[But] at least the players continued to dress in their traditional whites."
The administrators saw enough potential to continue the trial and each of the six states was due to play two day-night fixtures for the following season in 1995-96. It didn't quite go to plan and one match at Adelaide was cancelled when the retractable lights did not work in time, leaving only four games on the calendar."
Here's something more to think about
"Dean Jones was batting in Perth the following summer and was so upset with the visibility that he had the white sightscreen moved to the side at the Northern End.
"He preferred to watch the ball come out of the bowler's hand against a background of dark-green shadecloth, beige seats and the windows of the bar," the West Australian reported. It helped Jones a bit - he made 32 and 75 - but Michael Hussey and Damien Martyn didn't have much trouble, scoring centuries in the seven-wicket defeat of Victoria.
Mostly the matches suited the bowlers, although gripping the ball on dewy evenings didn't help them or the fielders, and the 1998-99 season signalled the end of the testing. "The ball 'behaved differently' as players observed," Allan's Australian Cricket Annual reported. "That was seen to interfere with the skills that were being promoted in the Shield as a nursery for Test cricket." "
In short it was not the most successful endeavor for the future
Posted by vishnu on 2007-12-21 17:42:59
"The first match was played in November 1994 between Queensland and Western Australia and Victoria and New South Wales also hosted games that season. They started at 2.30pm and were over by 9.30pm if everything went to schedule. Rain and slow over-rates dragged stumps past the late news and one night in Brisbane did not finish until 11.10pm.
No batsman reached a century in the inaugural match, but Dean Jones (324 not out) and Darren Lehmann (202 not out) turned the third game at the MCG into the only contest under lights in which the batsmen truly dominated. A crowd of 7000 attended one day and it was a larger attendance than the totals for each of the first two contests, which were hampered by poor weather. "Those who were there complained that the yellow ball was virtually impossible to see," the Almanack reported. "[But] at least the players continued to dress in their traditional whites."
The administrators saw enough potential to continue the trial and each of the six states was due to play two day-night fixtures for the following season in 1995-96. It didn't quite go to plan and one match at Adelaide was cancelled when the retractable lights did not work in time, leaving only four games on the calendar."
Here's something more to think about
"Dean Jones was batting in Perth the following summer and was so upset with the visibility that he had the white sightscreen moved to the side at the Northern End.
"He preferred to watch the ball come out of the bowler's hand against a background of dark-green shadecloth, beige seats and the windows of the bar," the West Australian reported. It helped Jones a bit - he made 32 and 75 - but Michael Hussey and Damien Martyn didn't have much trouble, scoring centuries in the seven-wicket defeat of Victoria.
Mostly the matches suited the bowlers, although gripping the ball on dewy evenings didn't help them or the fielders, and the 1998-99 season signalled the end of the testing. "The ball 'behaved differently' as players observed," Allan's Australian Cricket Annual reported. "That was seen to interfere with the skills that were being promoted in the Shield as a nursery for Test cricket." "
In short it was not the most successful endeavor for the future
Posted by vishnu on 2007-12-21 17:42:59
It was also done at the end of the 4th day of NZ v a particularly whiny England in 2002.
NZ were batting; needed runs to declare and batted on, despite Poms bowling 10 overs an hour.
Details here:http://www.sportsfreak.co.nz/show-column.asp?ID=335
Posted by sportsfreak on 2007-12-21 18:09:06
NZ were batting; needed runs to declare and batted on, despite Poms bowling 10 overs an hour.
Details here:http://www.sportsfreak.co.nz/show-column.asp?ID=335
Posted by sportsfreak on 2007-12-21 18:09:06
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
