No, but we might have had the full 90 overs (or as many as could be bowled if not for the crap over rate) if there was better drainage.There's a decent chance of rain anywhere in England, but no-one can ever predict the amount of rain we've had this year since June.
The water-table is absurdly high. No amount of drainage can change that.
I don't think anybody would dispute that, but what it has to do with Trent Bridge's drainage system is perhaps less immediately obvious.And many things suffer far, far worse than those of us who lose some cricket.
I don't see how they are causally linked at all tho; no one's suggesting that any money destined for relief to the flood victims should be spent on Trent Bridge's drainage system. What was obvious tho is that Lords' system is light years ahead.It's loosely linked - the point is, it'd be rather more prudent to spend money on flood-defences than drainage at a cricket ground.
However, neither have ever been required, and nor did we have any reason to expect them to be, because before now we've never experienced rainfall and the knock-on effects that have been caused by the urbanisation like we have in June and July 2007.
That's my point exactly tho: Lords is ahead of everyone else. Not just in drainage either, it holds more people too. &, regardless of this being the wettest summer since Noah entered the arc-building world, Lords' system wasn't accidentally installed, was it? Foresightedness I'd call it.Is Trent Bridge any different to anywhere else, though?
I presume Lord's is simply a fair bit ahead of everyone else in the drainage department. However, there's no reason the other grounds should have been up to said speed, because before now, there's never been any need to be.