At the Adelaide Oval yesterday we once again heard commentators bemoaning the fact that the umpires would not resume play after a break because it was lightly drizzling.
It is a protest heard every cricket season around the globe.
However it is the dismay of the fans that should be more concerning to the authorities than the bleatings of the media.
>>FOLLOW THE LIVE SCORES OF THE AUSTRALIA VS INDIA TEST MATCH
In a lot of countries, attending an international cricket fixture is a costly affair.
And if you happen to be a family the costs multiply significantly.
Every new stadium built nowadays provides the spectator with a greater level of comfort than its predecessors although in some sub-continental countries the fan experience has not been enhanced greatly over the years.
In the end the more comfortable seat and upgraded toilets are not why the fans are there.
Their primary interest and the driver behind their attendance is the game itself.
Too often the antiquated laws and playing conditions rob them of the pleasure of watching what they paid for.
How often do we hear the comment, “if the players were out there and it was drizzling like this they would not have come off but because it is drizzling play won’t restart”?
It is a case of preciousness.
Nobody is suggesting that play continues when it is bucketing down but surely a group of grown men can cop the odd shower.
Man may argue that the pitch needs to be protected yet up until the mid-to-late 1960s that was not the case.
That was the era when pitches began to be covered.
Prior to that batsmen were asked to bat on what was often called a ‘sticky’ – a wet pitch that is exposed to the sun and as a result becomes tacky.
Many a Test match was played out on such pitches.
In the MCG Test of the 1936-37 Ashes series, on just such a surface, Australia pretty much reversed its batting order in the second innings with numbers 9 and 11 (Bill O’Reilly and Les Fleetwood-Smith) opening the batting.
The idea was to protect the specialist batsmen while the pitch was hardening up.
It paid dividends as a bloke by the name of Bradman came in at number seven and made 270 as Australia rollicked to a 365-run win.
The match was no doubt entertaining, although times have changed and a pitch like that is no longer palatable.
Other sports are not alone in aiming for better playing surfaces.
Any fan of Australian Football over the age of 40 will clearly remember the mud heaps and puddles on VFL venues such as Moorabbin, Windy Hill, and at times, even the MCG.
Changes in technology, especially in the area of drainage, have made those sights pretty much the domain of old videotape.
The sport is a better spectacle as a result.
A return to the era of uncovered pitches is something few fans would want but staying out in light rain is not going to change the nature of a pitch too dramatically. And if it does, so be it – the fans should come first.
Some will say that a team could receive an unfair advantage depending on the state of the game and when the ‘rain’ arrives.
To counter that I would argue that in places like India a lot of the advantage is gained before the game actually starts.
Losing the toss and batting last on a day four or five pitch over there is a nightmare and more often than not a recipe for defeat.
Others will claim that is likely to make the game more dangerous and provide too greater advantage to the fast bowlers.
That is not really accurate.
In the old days the bowlers most suited by damp wickets were actually the spinners, not the quicks.
Cricket’s sage, Richie Benaud has actually stated that the changes to the playing conditions since the 1960s has actually aided the decline of spin bowling in a place like England, as the modest medium pacer on a green pitch is more threatening.
Another area where the fans are robbed is the bad light issue.
Umpires pretty much terminate play when they can see multiple player shadows which indicates that the natural sunlight has been overtaken by artificial light.
Yet, surely the bottom line should be player safety and I have been at many a ground when play has been suspended for bad light where I could never be convinced that the participants’ well-being was in question.
We keep hearing, rightly, that big sport is big business.
It needs to be remembered by the authorities that it is also entertainment.
And with every year, the number of forms of entertainment for the public is increasing.
Cricket fans, like everyone else, have myriad choices on which to spend their ‘entertainment dollar’.
It is surely the mandate of any sporting body to endeavour to maximise its crowd support.
Cricket jeopardises that by continuing to allow a few drops of rain to fall on a pitch or for the light to be a little dim.
Let’s get out there and let’s sometimes stay out there a bit longer.
It is time to abandon the preciousness.
Gareth Kidd
Roar Guru
I think you're missing one element here. These pitches get so much use these days that playing on in those conditions will create much more wear to the square than you anticipate. Light is a different one. I think at the end of the day you have to make sure that the batsman is safe. Floodlights work well with the white ball, but do nothing for a red ball as many commentators on this article don't quite get. Maybe if the pink ball gets passed...
Bluebag
Guest
Interesting article Glenn but I think they probably had player safety as their main concern after the Phil Hughes tragedy. The vagaries of weather can be an enormous frustration at times but, as noted by others here in the discussion, the only solution would be a stadium with a roof..
Ball'n'all
Guest
The main reason they don't play in the rain is because the ball is not waterproof. Have you ever bowled with a saturated cricket ball? You have very little control. It's not safe. Spinners can't grip the seam to spin it. The game is tipped in the favour of batsmen as it is. Lets not relegate bowlers to serving up 'nudies' so batsmen can smash them to all parts in the rain.
Stellenbosched
Guest
Hi Glenn, Thanks for the good read. I agree with what you have said completely. There will be serious challenges ahead for those managing professional sport. There is so much competition for ones time and money these days, and what is more worrying is the attitude of many younger people. They seem to flit in and out of several sports, just picking the highlights of each and then moving on to the next 'massive' final.
Ball'n'all
Guest
As you would know Chris, constant drizzle turns the ball into a piece of soap, making it extremely difficult to have normal control when bowling. Hello beamers? They would have to allow for regular ball changes if they were to play in light rain.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
doe it matter where they are from?
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
I was about to comment but it has started to sprinkle.....I'm off.
Silver Sovereign
Roar Rookie
I agree with all here
Will Sinclair
Roar Guru
I believe Richie Benaud was a key part of the TV coverage of cricket in England for decades...
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Great piece Glenn and totally agree. On another note, isn't the Adelaide Oval a magnificent venue now, pity there aren't many in the stands at present.
Chui
Guest
I hope the bowler who bowled the no ball was ashamed to have contributed such a large percentage to the innings in sundries. Come on Monday, it was you wasn't it. :)
Chui
Guest
I think it was Ian Gould who would have taken the light option first after the flat bat shot from Smith :) Really good points about the other variables that go together to make cricket so unique and variable.
Andrew
Guest
I like warnie commenting, the rest....so, so! They have an Englishman doing the intro and also commenting! Do channel 9 have Australians who could do a similar job?
Monday's Expert
Guest
It's a bit of a shame that the sticky wicket is a thing of the past. In high school we used to play on a local club's turf pitch that their groundsman would water on Wednesday morning in prep for the weekend - unfortunately we used to play on it every second Wednesday afternoon... Great stuff really and important to win the toss. We rolled one side for 25, their captain made 23, another bloke got a single and there was one no ball.
Kev
Guest
Oh good I wasn't aware of that. Boneheaded rule to start with. If batsmen are offered the chance to finish play early so that they avoid losing their wicket, of course they would take that every time.
sheek
Roar Guru
Glenn - Absolutely agree.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I thought they could take early breaks during the rain? Totes Ridic yesterday. And get out there in light rain. And the light thing last night was silly. The Umpires should have said to the Indians that they were staying out there and they were bowling spinners.
Michael Mills
Guest
Kev, at the moment the decision is solely in the hands of the umpires. The players are no longer offered the option of leaving the field. I'm not sure if this is a change to the laws of the game or international playing conditions.
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
It's not so much whether or not play resumes when there is light rain, in my opinion, but the shockingly inadequate attempts that are made to make up for lost time. You have the instances referred to above where everyone sits around while it rains, then lunch is called and the weather clears is one type. The other is the inability to make up time on subsequent days. Yesterday we lost 60 overs. In response we'll have play start half an hour early. There is no way anything close to that 60 overs is going to be made up over the next three days. We need to move to a model that allows for significant extra time to be played following rain/light delays. I would suggest that there is an allowance for up to 120 overs to be played in a day following time lost, perhaps with a rider that one team is only required to bowl a maximum 105 overs in a day (although they would retain the option to bowl on if in their interest). This would provide much more scope for lost time to be reclaimed, results to be achieved and punters' to get their money's worth when attending the game.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
When Steve Smith is flat batting a 147km/h ball back over the bowlers head you can hardly say that the light is too bad to be safe for play. And the quality of lighting in these venues mean they should be able to play under the lights, as long as there is still some light from the sky. Against a fully black sky a red-ball can be hard to pick up, but with good sight screens and good lighting they should be able to continue. I also agree about the drizzle rule. I've played many a game through drizzle, and it's not fun, but you do it. It has always seemed a bit silly when you won't go out to play in weather that you'd continue to play through if you were already out there. And as pointed out, it's not an excuse to argue that it can unfairly advantage one of the teams, cricket is played in conditions like that all the time. So many conditions the randomness of the toss can have a big say on the result, be it a pitch that's a road at the start and a minefield at the end. Day/Night ODI's so often provide very different conditions. One team fields in the heat of the afternoon and the other in the cool of the evening. Sometimes you might get more swing in the evening making it a better time to bowl, other times you get dew that kills the ball and makes it very difficult to win a game batting first in those conditions. There is always luck in cricket. Just as much as where one batsman is out to a freak catch for single figures and another is dropped 3 times before they reach 10 and go on to score a hundred.