- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
I returned from holidaying interstate last weekend (had a great time, thanks for asking) to find cricket discussion on The Roar being dominated by complaints over the similarity of Australia and Pakistan’s one-day strips. With two months of the domestic cricket summer still to come, this was proof, surely, that in-depth cricket discussion had reached the end.
Fortunately, while I sat there head-in-hands bemoaning the new lows being attained, some kind soul put the discussion to bed by mentioning that similar playing attire hasn’t caused too many troubles in nearly 135 years of Test cricket.
Thankfully, some topics worthy of actual discussion have emerged since then.
Cricket administrators and television broadcasters alike have been wetting their pants in anticipation of the first trials of a new pink cricket ball, which were conducted in a couple of Future’s League matches in Adelaide and Brisbane last week.
The idea of the pink ball is that in the future, sometime, somewhere, Test cricket will be played in the hours of the day more accustomed to day-night One Day Internationals. This idea, of course, has very little to do with cricket and everything to do with the broadcasters being able to show Test Matches in prime time.
And so, all eyes turned to Adelaide, particularly, to see just how the pink ball would go under lights in the match between South Australia and Western Australia.
Well, the reaction was underwhelming.
It turns out that that in both games, a new pink rock was being used from each end, which means we’re still no closer to getting a ball of any colour other than red that will last 80 overs. And even with the pink balls needing only to last 40 overs, there were still complaints about the paint coming off as it pitched, or as it came into contact with willow.
Players noted that both the Kookaburra ball (as used in Adelaide under lights), and the British-made Duke (as used in Brisbane in daytime hours) were quite easy to see out of the bowlers hand. Worryingly though, Umpire Andrew Collins noted that the pink ball was difficult to pick when standing at square-leg in Adelaide.
The big test however, for mine anyway, was how well it showed up on television.
Now admittedly, I didn’t see anything more than brief snippets shown on the various news bulletins, and slightly extended vision on Sports Tonight on ONE HD, but the reaction from four different sets of eyes (of varying ages) in my lounge room at the time was the same: the pink ball doesn’t show up real well at all.
We could see the ball, eventually, but it took longer than expected to pick it up than does a red or white ball.
And if it’s difficult to pick up a pink ball on television – the whole motivation for the trial in the first place – then it’s hard to see how it can progress any further.
Already reports suggest that pink balls have failed the test, and so it would seem Kookaburra and Duke will go back to the colour palette and the drawing board at the same time. Either way, I’d imagine Test cricket under lights is no closer.
Of bigger concern for Kookaburra though, is that the white ball has suddenly developed a favourable taste, so much so that acting Pakistan captain Shahid Afridi had several bites at the cherry, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Afridi sinking his teeth into the reconditioned ball was easily one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen watching or playing cricket. What’s more, I can’t recall a more deliberate and brazen attempt to tamper with the ball in such an openly visible situation.
Sadly, that he only has to sit out two token T20Is as punishment is a bigger indictment than the crime itself. I do note, however, that the Pakistan Cricket Board will include the now-infamous Afridi appetite in its full review of their tour of Australia.
It’s not clear whether the PCB may apply further sanctions of their own; we can but hope the PCB will do what the ICC wouldn’t, and come down harder again on their enigmatic all-rounder.
Meanwhile, it was Hallelujahs all round late last week, when a team-mate sent me the comments of Stuart Robertson, who was part of the English Cricket Board marketing outfit that brought Twenty20 into the cricketing world back in 2000.
For I-don’t-know-how-long now, I’ve been telling team-mates, Roarers, whoever will listen frankly, that there is no place or need in the global cricketing calendar for Twenty20 Internationals.
Last week, Robertson told AAP (and which then appeared on The Roar, CricInfo, and in most other decent sports media):
“Twenty20 was always designed as a game for counties or states or provinces and it was devised to address the declining audiences at domestic level. I don’t mind Twenty20s being used as a curtain-raiser for an international series, to have one or two to whet the appetite for more cricket coming up, so long as they don’t overdo it. If nothing else gives there is a risk of there being too much Twenty20.”
Amen to that.
The ridiculousness of Twenty20 being used as an international cash-cow is that the next ICC World Twenty20 will be played in the Caribbean from 30 April to 16 May this year, barely 11 months since the last WT20 was played in England. There’s too much of it, and there’s just no need.
So, for neither the first nor the last time, I’ll say this again. Scrap Twenty20 Internationals completely. Forget about the WT20.
Leave Twenty20 cricket to the domain of domestic and franchise competitions, and if the pinnacle of this form of the game is to win the Champions League Twenty20, and all the riches that come with it – as New South Wales did last October – then so be it.
Quite simply, we currently have way too much of a good thing, and if we keep playing T20Is with this current illogical regularity, the whole format will suffer. Consolidation has to be the key to both longevity and relevance at all levels.