Extras

Floodlit Test cricket – angry or amazed?

Posted by
< 1 minute read

There are worse ways to spend an evening

Amazed.

While looking for an image to accompany this post, we discovered that we’d already covered this subject once before. Still, that never normally stops us, so let’s plough on.

Give the people what they want

That seems a sensible way to market your sport.

In England, people don’t particularly want night matches. They want a day in the sun/permafrost, so give them that.

In other countries, they want to watch cricket in the evenings when it’s cooler, so give them that.

The other argument against day-night Test cricket is that conditions change when the lights go on, but really that’s the point of Test cricket. It’s about adapting to different conditions, whether result from the pitch, the sky, the continent or the time of day.

At some grounds, dew will be too much of a factor. So don’t play day-night matches there.

SIGN UP FOR THE KING CRICKET EMAIL!

Or WG Grace and Billy Murdoch will be forced to come round your house and...

... do things...

Similar deliveries:

Default ThumbnailCricket returns to terrestrial television Default ThumbnailLalit Modi’s thoughts on Test cricket Default ThumbnailDay night Test cricket Default ThumbnailThe angry exchange between Ishant Sharma and Ravindra Jadeja basically just ends up comical once it’s been translated

11 comments

    1. I thought I cared enough to reply to this comment.

      On reflection, I was wrong.

  2. The only real problem is that the pink balls are made by Kookaburra, which are designed so as only Warne and McGrath are good enough to take wickets.

  3. It will take bad light out of the equation. I am intrigued to know whether ‘bad light’ has traditionally been our friend or enemy.

    1. In the olden days (the year before last) bad light was offered to the batsman, thus making it a decision that could be ballsed up. Therefore it was to England’s disadvantage, as any decision that could be ballsed up invariably was.

      Since all these new-fangled rules have come in, it’s all changed. Firstly, there used to be a lot more fields around here, now it’s all just houses. Secondly, bad light is now something for the umpires to invariably get wrong, so it’s pretty much 50/50 for and against England (if you are an optimist, that is).

  6. Fuck it schedule the game for whatever prime time on the subcontinent is then make a packet from the tv rights. If that means you start under lights and go through until noon so be it.

  7. The problem with cricket is “adapting to conditions” has become rather boring because the conditions the players have to adapt to are rather mundane. We can make the game way more interesting by say, asking the batsman bat around a ring of fire, so he has to think twice before attempting the quick single. Or there is always the old classic of the strategically placed quicksand in the deep midwicket area. That’ll teach the fielder who wants to stop the boundary.

    Why does it always have to be bad light, pitch, and the weather?

    1. A pit being dug into the middle of the pitch – so as batsmen taking a run must leap over it en route – may help with this.

      It could be used to the home team’s advantage based on what they think the opposition batsmen most fear – perhaps snakes, vicious honey badgers, or hippies.

      This would also improve bowling standards, as any rank-half trackers would be required to be fetched out of the deathpit by the bowler himself.

    2. I love the death pit. Also, it doesn’t have to be all gory -the home team can use this to their advantage if they field chubby cricketers. An apple pie at the non-striker’s end would make the Keys and the Ryders want to rotate strike.

Comments are closed.