Day-night Tests

[Richard]

You're only looking at it from a crowds perspective though. Ratings, however are really the most important thing, especially on a national basis.

Oh yeah, of course they are. Generally, though, you'd suspect that there's a correlation between the two things, even if TV is free-to-air. Isn't Nine still barred from showing a Test in the ground's home state until it's half-full or something?

Also, there's little evidence to suggest new security measures in Australian grounds are having much, if any of an impact on crowd numbers.

It's not so much the security measures, as the anti-fun ones. I've no objection to tight entrance rules and bans of things like Mexican waves, but there's certainly plenty in this country that's plain OTT and no-one seriously doubts it's a disincentive, if not yet a major one.

 

[pup11]

It behaves a little differently, but if we can work that out, I've no problem.

Not only the fact that the way it behaves is a bit of a problem, but the white ball hardly even lasts for 35 overs in ODI cricket, so how can one expect it to last for 80 overs, the second thing is if the red ball is properly taken care of it assists good bowlers right through the 80 overs and sometimes for even longer, but that's something that can't be said about the white ball.

 

[Richard]

Test cricket cannot be played with a white ball, I've said that before and I'll say it again. It simply discolours far too quickly.

If day\night 80-overs-per-new-ball cricket is to be played, we must use an orange or pink ball. Orange balls are rejected by TV companies as they don't show-up well on the black-and-white monitors used in production (does no-one have the capability to change those to colour then?) so pink seems the next good thing to try.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO they should use a black ball at night.

 

[pup11]

IMO they should use a black ball at night.

Stanford might try that tbh....

 

[Goughy]

We have to be proactive, we shouldn't wait until that point. By that time, if people have lost all interest, no one will care if they don't watch at night or don't watch during the day.

There is a difference between proactive and reckless.

The danger would be that the nature of Test cricket would change and possibly devalue the format whilst getting very little in material gains.

The risk/reward ratio isnt right currently.

 

[NUFAN]

Could always just have a test to see if it works.

 

[readie]

I'd be supportive of a change to this definitely. The accessibility of twenty 20 and ODI cricket to an extent is what has helped rocket them to acceptance and success. Night tests could also be a great way to turn new 20/20 fans into test cricket lovers IMO which is one of the few benefits of having twenty20 AFAIC

 

[Johnners]

Most certainly for it, if, as has been said, they can solve the ball visibility issue. Night cricket is easily far more accessible to the general public, not to mention the added possiblity of the bowlers getting a bit more assistance from the night-time conditions, even on flat decks.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Have to admit I'm instinctively anti, but mainly for old bastard & little Englander reasons. Tests have rubbed along quite nicely for over 130 years without using nights and, as anyone who has bought a ticket for a test in England recently can tell you, the demand is such the prices are an absolute piss-take, so we're doing quite nicely there, ta very much.

I do think that it's probably inevitable tho and having Australasian tests on at a reasonable hour would be a welcome change.

 

[NUFAN]

A couple of anti night cricket things...

* TV stations reluctance to miss high rating news and current affair programs.

* Waiting all day for the cricket to start.

* The fact that some countries might not have the same facilities, so there will be people on Test debut having never played a first class match under lights.

 

[pup11]

A couple of anti night cricket things...

* TV stations reluctance to miss high rating news and current affair programs.

* Waiting all day for the cricket to start.

* The fact that some countries might not have the same facilities, so there will be people on Test debut having never played a first class match under lights.

I think every test playing nation have flood lights in there main venues so it won't be much of a problem in that regard.

 

[Goughy]

I think every test playing nation have flood lights in there main venues so it won't be much of a problem in that regard.

IIRC, Lords doesnt as it is a residential area.

Other English grounds often use temp floodlights and they can be of very variable quality. Certainly not up to Test standard in some cases.

 

[ozone]

Generally think it would be a good idea, but personally I wouldn't like to see test cricket played in colour clothing.

Also, would the ball be changed halfway through the innings? For example, if the test starts at 4:00pm, would the first session say, be played with a normal red ball and then switched to a pink one? Having played league cricket with a pink ball as a trial last season, it is sometimes quite difficult to pick up in normal light and so wouldn't neccessarily be possible to use.

 

[four_or_six]

Great idea. I currently watch more ODI/T20 cricket for home England matches. Why? Because they're often still on after work. I'd like to watch tests more but instead of live cricket we just have to watch some inane Bob Willis/Charles Colville highlights package which is never going to be great because you already know the score.

So yes... sort out the balls and then get on with trialling it somewhere. Perhaps women's cricket would be a good place to trial it for starters, they have already been trialling the pink balls for ODIs.

 

[pup11]

IIRC, Lords doesnt as it is a residential area.

Other English grounds often use temp floodlights and they can be of very variable quality. Certainly not up to Test standard in some cases.

These English players have played ODI' and T20' under lights pretty often haven't they and once day-night tests are officially launched, then obviously ECB would too start installing better flood lights across all the major grounds through UK.

 

[four_or_six]

These English players have played ODI' and T20' under lights pretty often haven't they and once day-night tests are officially launched, then obviously ECB would too start installing better flood lights across all the major grounds through UK.

Yes, I think they are slowly getting there. I think the Oval has now got planning permission for permanent lights, and they look quite impressive at Trent Bridge now.

 

[pup11]

Great idea. I currently watch more ODI/T20 cricket for home England matches. Why? Because they're often still on after work. I'd like to watch tests more but instead of live cricket we just have to watch some inane Bob Willis/Charles Colville highlights package which is never going to be great because you already know the score.

So yes... sort out the balls and then get on with trialling it somewhere. Perhaps women's cricket would be a good place to trial it for starters, they have already been trialling the pink balls for ODIs.

I have heard views of a few players regarding the pink ball and its not been very good, iirc one of those players was Greg Blewett, and he during a commentary stint in a Ford Ranger cup game said that when he played in a game where the pink ball was used, it was very hard for all the players to pick the ball, the seam position, the shine, and he wasn't very happy with it.

Its kind of annoying that with all the technology around we still are still to find a way to keep a white ball white for long enough, or come up with a ball that could be viewed better under lights in order to play day-night tests.

 

[silentstriker]

A couple of anti night cricket things...

* TV stations reluctance to miss high rating news and current affair programs.

TV stations are some of the biggest supporters of day-night cricket.

 

[NUFAN]

TV stations are some of the biggest supporters of day-night cricket.

Not local TV stations in Australia, not always.