The long anticipated Adelaide Test has come and gone, and now for the first time in cricket history, we can reflect on a non-red-ball Test match.
Before the Test you fell into three categories: those willing to move with the times and accept the pink ball (we can call these people ‘the sell outs’), those who preferred to keep the red ball and day Test cricket (‘the traditionalists’), and those who weren’t sure (‘the fence sitters’).
The sell outs claim that exposure to the masses is the way forward for cricket. The sport needs to grow its audience, and change is the one inevitability in life.
It’s essential to take cricket to the wider public. Grow the game. Expose cricket to the masses!
The traditionalists argue that some things are worth preserving, that Test cricket has its following and people enjoy it for what it is. A battle over five days between bat and ball with that beautiful 138-year-old cherry. Just like in life, there are various colours of cherries, but would you really want a cherry that isn’t red?
The fence sitters were willing to take the ‘wait and see’ approach so often associated with those with high levels of common sense, and splinters in their backside.
The cricket provided was the best of the three Tests. New Zealand, with an excellent approach to cricket that the West Indies could learn from, never gave up right to the end. This too after some terrible umpiring from the man upstairs on Day 2.
The pink ball appeared to pass the test, however that is all we really know in the short term. The ball is only a few years old, and has only been involved in one Test.
One issue that may arise is if the pink ball continues to produce low-scoring Tests, are we going to break stats into ‘red ball’ and ‘pink ball’? I’m sure someone is working on that one already.
Day-night cricket also needs to worry about influential cricketers. If the modern-day Ian Chappell decides he doesn’t like it – let’s call this anonymous player ‘David’ – his opinion may sway others.
Crowds were great. Ratings were strong too. Things that are new tend to excite people – even the Adelaide Rams drew some good crowds when they started. However, 18 years later a lot of people will need to google ‘Adelaide Rams’ to have an idea who they were.
Regardless of whether you are in the camp for change and growth, or want to preserve Test cricket and value what it stands for, you would have watched the pink-ball Test with interest.
You will also watch the next pink-ball Test. It’s intriguing to see what will happen both short and long term. And hopefully with a bit of luck, this gimmick will fade faster than the Adelaide Rams.
Beardan
Roar Guru
Great to hear from you mate. Hazelwood is tall and when bowling the right length is proving to be a decent quality bowler. Send me your contact details or get back on fb for a bit of cricket banter!
TommyH
Guest
Went off it ages ago mate. Need another contact for you. Yeah it went well. It was good to see ball not dominating bat for a change....something the capitalists will not want though as games wont go the full 5 days or even 4 days. For all Australia did to mainly dominate the series, the one decision of Nathan Lyon should have levelled the series for NZ. At no point did Australia close that series down. Hazlewood looks a good prospect, but thats all he is atm lets be honest.
Beardan
Roar Guru
Hey mate! You no longer on fb? whats your take on day night test?
TommyH
Guest
Good article mate. Hows tricks ? Long time no speak !
fp11
Guest
Real stench actually!
spruce moose
Guest
Just a hint?
fp11
Guest
Do I sense a hint of sarcasm on your part?
spruce moose
Guest
Thank heavens you're here to clarify that for us
fp11
Guest
I think he means 'flaws'.
Gus Paella
Guest
Immediate Floors...Maybe he means a drop-in deck?
spruce moose
Guest
Floors?
Rellum
Roar Guru
They put up a table during the broadcast that basically showed and even spread of wickets at least over all the sessions.
davros
Guest
And they used to get decent crowds to the one day domestic games played there as well Rellum...
Ash
Guest
Quote : "In this case the people are – in the main – getting what they want." The same can be said about T20 cricket too. Ultimately it will be the free market forces that will decide what the masses want & they'll get it irrespective of the traditionalists liking it or not.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
"The fence sitters were willing to take the ‘wait and see’ approach so often associated with those with high levels of common sense, and splinters in their backside." And the people who dismiss it as a "sellout" will be the ones removing the said splinters with the tweezers. Also if we replace "Adelaide Rams" with "Adelaide Strikers" the analogy you provide would have the opposite meaning from what you intended.
josh
Roar Rookie
Agree stats are broken down to detail, and this detail can be added, as a subset of existing stats. Not as a new category.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Sorry, I misread the table. There were 14 wickets in the night session, and 13 in the afternoon; but the afternoon session was the lightest on in terms of runs.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
I'm not so sure re the night sessions being responsible for the length of the game. Cricket Australia's digital guys pulled the numbers and found the afternoon session (ie played in full sunlight) saw the most wickets and least runs. And in fact, there was very little difference between wickets and runs in any of the sessions. http://www.cricket.com.au/news/pink-ball-day-night-test-batting-at-night-no-more-difficult-than-during-the-day/2015-12-01 Its a sample size of three night sessions, so I'm not as willing as they are to call the pink ball/night theory "debunked", but it gives pause to any thoughts that the night sessions were particularly influential in this match.
Perry Bridge
Guest
Ah gee - I remember when T.W.Wills was lambasted for raising his arm above shoulder height when bowling..... Cricket is interesting isn't it - I feel that T20 is further removed from Test cricket than is Rugby League from Rugby Union. And yet 'cricket' is all the one game and Union and League fiercely claim difference. Even in AFL people feel it's only footy on an oval with 18 players a side - so, seemingly a given point in time becomes the benchmark to which rigid adherence may in fact amount to loving the game to death. So - pink ball, day night tests. No concerns about going off for bad light anymore or having to bowl the spinners. Rain is still an issue but 4 day tests become a far greater possibility which in itself would allow greater freedom in scheduling - and all together provides far greater scope than anything else in recent times for the progression to a realistic Test Championship. And interesting to note the sudden up surge of interest internationally - test cricket might not be in a managed death dive. The patient may yet be looking at returning to rude health. And that's good for cricket.
Rellum
Roar Guru
SA still gets some decent crowds to shield games.