So floodlit Test cricket is about to hit the schedules. Excited? Non-plussed? Curious? Apathetic?
Whatever your stance, it is a development that was coming one way or the other with the timescale the only variable.
With the Sheffield Shield playing the very same thing and the English season opener, for the past few years, consisting of an MCC versus champion county encounter in the UAE as opposed to at Lord’s, the introduction of day/night cricket at the highest level has been on the agenda for some time.
Give that the first game in Abu Dhabi was in 2010, the only real surprise should be that it’s taken so long to move up to the five-day format.
It won’t be to everyone’s tastes – change rarely is – and a straw poll of any debate around the subject will confirm this. But I’m not sure there’s a credible reason for it not to go ahead. In fact, it comes down to a simple enough question: what is there to lose?
A solitary game, in the climate best suited to such a move, has far more positive aspects than negative and it has to be worth a try.
After all, if it doesn’t work as both a sporting contest and a spectacle then cut the losses and don’t do it again. Nothing ventured, nothing gained as the old adage goes.
Those who choose to complain about the viability of Test cricket in the 21st century can’t bemoan the fact that nothing is being done to make it more attractive to spectators and sponsors alike.
And those who will, inevitably, whinge about the integrity of the game itself need to adopt a more enlightened outlook for a short period of time.
It’s been confirmed, it’s going to go ahead and so reserve the judgement until after the event.
From a playing perspective, the main bone of contention will be the ball used. Pink cricket balls, going from personal experience (albeit in daylight hours), can be seen clearly. While swing is unlikely to be a dominant factor, if the pitch does suit seam, bowlers aren’t going to be unfairly nullified.
In previous outings, batsman have mentioned that the seam of the ball can be hard to pick up and the early evening period can often be tricky for sighting regardless of the colour of ball used. But to expect an absence of teething problems may be pushing it a little.
Another concern will be that the game itself isn’t compromised. Batsman want to be able to play as they normally do, bowlers the same and fielders, especially those in the outfield, expect to be able to pick the ball up.
Adequate practice beforehand should be a given for both sets of players, and the provision of such will alleviate, it is hoped, any lingering doubts.
A dramatic change in conditions when night falls won’t count in the format’s favour but if dew doesn’t generally play a major role in day/night fixtures, then it shouldn’t be a worry.
What is clear is a willingness on behalf of the administrators to make the concept work.
An obvious factor behind the continued success of the Twenty20 format is that it’s played at a time to suit those who want to go along. This is merely sound business sense and to adopt this principle is straightforward thinking.
Use a pricing structure to match and the encouragement of those who fancy some time at the cricket but usually can’t get along could be achieved.
Add to the mix the novelty value – who didn’t want to watch floodlit cricket when it first came along? – which will be in evidence initially, and you have another mark in favour.
It is unlikely to be perfect but that isn’t the expectation. Not all change is for the best but sometimes you reach a point where to resist change for the sake of it is foolhardy.
Australia versus New Zealand in Adelaide, under lights at the Adelaide Oval, will be well worth watching.
It could be the start of a new chapter in Test history. Give it a chance.
Hayley
Guest
I feel like NZ only agreed to it because they wanted to have more series in the future against Aus and this way they were able to negotiate that.
Brendon
Guest
You've got it wrong. 'True Cricket' is the way cricket was when I started watching it and if anyone wants to change anything from that point you will have to fight my nostalgia and my narrow minded way of looking at the game.
Bobbo7
Guest
Agreed,NZ are a good side but they never get proper series against the big sides. If fear this format might go against NZ who have no experience with the pink ball. But that aside I think it is worth a try.
Blake Standfield
Roar Guru
I would have preferred it was played against the windies as it's a shame that the result of the long anticipated Australia, New Zealand series will now be compromised.
b
Guest
Yes, the game will always change and evolve. Some of the changes you mentioned came about because of emerging technology, some because of player safety, some to improve the quality of the game. The problem with night tests is they aren't being pushed by player safety, or by improving the standard of the game, or by improvements in technology, it's all about tv ratings. That shouldn't be a good enough reason to radically alter the game. I can see in a few years time having the new ball reduced to 60, or 40, overs because the pink ball can't handle the distance. Teams being bowled out in the night session, so basically an innings a day, and tests being reduced to 4 days. A longer version of hit and giggle, with the high points being the fireworks and dancing girls.
mattyb
Guest
Points well made matth,I was going to mention the covered pitches and no ball rule but you've gone much better.On another positive it might add a new strategic element to the game that already holds some terrific strategic elements.
matth
Guest
My two points: 1. They have to make sure they pick their markets. for example it won't work at the Gabba in certain summer periods. Too many thunderstorms. 2. Those complaining that it changes the game or the quality are clutching at straws. Do you all know that none of you alive have actually watched a true game of cricket? The bowlers are bowling overarm The LBW rule has been changed twice The bats aren't even recognisable The no-ball rule was changed from back to front foot Pitches are now covered Early tests were between anything from 3 days to timeless There is a rope around the field You can get six by hitting over the rope instead of out of the ground It used to be considered unethical to hit the ball on the leg side. And that's just off the top of my head. The game has always changed and evolved and will continue to do so. Accept it.
b
Guest
It's no surprise it has taken this long for a day night test, the real surprise is it has only taken this long. Every article I have ever read about day night cricket has never made one point about how day night matches will improve the game. The ONLY point ever made about why day night cricket has to exist has been tv ratings, followed by lots of reassurances (apologies?) that the pink ball really isn't that bad. And while tv execs and CA say the pink ball and night conditions don't effect play, players constantly contradict them. I would be willing to give test cricket a chance if it had been sold to me with points on how it would be better for the game of cricket, instead of how it would be better for channel 9. Or if there was confidence in the pink ball instead of cautious hope. As it is, I hope the first game gets hit with a massive dose of Murphy's Law, and everything that can go wrong does go wrong.
b
Guest
The fact the ball did more at night is part of the problem, and was always going to be part of the problem, and is downplayed or ignored because tv ratings are more important than quality of the game.
mattyb
Guest
Really looking forward to day/night tests for both my own watching and the good of the game.I suspect this will have a huge impact on both t.v. ratings and crowds.I would suspect a huge increase in the interest of cricket which can only be a good thing.
Peter
Roar Rookie
As an east coaster, I like the idea of coming home after work in November and watching test cricket. The test season finishes by early January so I only get a serious opportunity as it is now to watch the Perth, Melbourne & Sydney tests during summer.
spruce moose
Guest
Yikes, that is clutching at straws. Rogers represents the tiniest minority of players. He's very lucky he can see the red ball to be honest. Should we no longer play cricket because the blind can't?
spruce moose
Guest
That would make sense if not for the fact that almost all major international cricket grounds in the poorer countries have lights already. It was the only way they could ensure they would attract revenue by having the ability to host D/N cricket. I think it's only in Zimbabwe and some West Indian grounds where they don't have the lights. The costs of upkeep will easily be met by gate receipts, with enough left over. I can see incredible advantages for several nations. Pakistan immediately springs to mind. Hosting day night tests in the UAE will not only draw more people to the empty stadia, but be able to be played under far more amenable conditions. In New Zealand, test attendance will increase. In South Africa, it will certainly increase. Indians might actually be bothered enough to return to watching test cricket too.
James
Guest
my biggest concern with day night tests is that it adds another cost to hosting a cricket game. this is no problem in austraila and england who have the money to spend on frivolous things like sports but it will be much harder for poorer countries to rationalize spending money on good enough lights and the upkeep etc instead of on food or security. i think day nights is a good idea for tests but i hope it is more of a fun thing that maybe happens in dead rubbers or in 2 test match series and not in the ashes or similar.
Max
Guest
I know dollars have no time for sentimentality, but what does the Australian Test team do with someone like Chris Rogers? It has been noted that some colourblind players, Rogers included, cannot distinguish the pink ball from the grass well enough to play. Does this mean if there is a 5 match tour with 2 day/night tests you have to keep swapping your opening batsmen as one is better with a red ball and the other with pink?
CT
Guest
This is all about money. More bums on seats means greater revenue. People will spew if they charge more to watch a nite game.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
I like the idea, but I am sure its more about the green than the spectacle. Night tests should mean more viewers and higher attendances. Am holding judgement till i see it.
Chris Pike
Expert
I was there for the day-night Shield match last season at the WACA and I loved it. The ball was easy to see at day and night, and people could easily come down to watch a session after work and it always has that added atmosphere playing at night. Plus the ball did a bit more at night and who doesn't think the bowlers deserve something in their favour with the way cricket has gone so far in favour of the bat? It was a huge tick for me
mds1970
Roar Guru
Professional sport lives and dies on TV rights. And the TV dollars will be much more lucrative if games are played at times when people are able to watch them. Day/night Test cricket is a reform that has to happen.