Test cricket, white balls, and artificial lighting

[Tricia McMillan]

No, I'm not here to try and push my opinion in this thread. In light of the suspensions for bad light in the Australia vs. New Zealand test, I was simply chatting with a friend about the prospects of ever playing test cricket with anything other than a red ball and natural daylight.

I said that I wouldn't mind the idea of all test cricket being played with a white ball, but was told that I was in the minority with that opinion. I didn't necessarily disagree, but was just curious to ask as many cricket fans as possible about it, and the only large gathering of cricket fans I know is CricketWeb, so I came here to start a poll, basically.

Also, apologies in advance if the topic's been done before, I just feel like it's more of an opinion poll to see what the results are rather than trying to argue in favor of one of the options.

 

[silentstriker]

Whichever gets most people watching the game. I heard pink balls might be better, and that's fine too. It might be a little harder at first, but as Rahul Dravid said after playing with it, it's not an impossible adjustment.

And boo hoo if they find it a little difficult to bat under lights. The increase in people watching and coming to watch Test cricket would be well worth it. Considering it has to be played during the weekdays, it'd be nice to go watch a half (or more) of a day of Test cricket on the TV or at the stadium of cricket after getting off from work.

 

[Athlai]

They can barely get a white ball to last 30 overs, can't see it ever getting to 80.

 

[Prince EWS]

They can barely get a white ball to last 30 overs, can't see it ever getting to 80.

Yeah, white ball is a no go unless we let the bowling side take a new ball every 40 overs, or play with a new ball from each end.

 

[Daemon]

White balls lose their shine a lot easier iirc.

 

[salman85]

Red Balls and Natural Lighting only.

Tweak everything you want in the other formats,but i would never want Test Cricket being played with white balls.It's a very difficult idea to digest.

 

[Noble One]

The white ball would be a struggle to implement with players in white cricket outfits.

 

[keeper]

Red ball only. Would be nice if Umpires followed the laws of the game which state (I believe) that potential physical harm and not the risk of getting out is the criteria for stopping play. After all, they don't go off when there's morning dew on the pitch. If there is risk of physical harm I don't mind the use of floodlights.

Would support the use of pink/hi-vis balls in UK junior cricket where too much cricket is played in crap evening light.

 

[Garson007]

White ball winning the poll.

Red ball only. I did however vote that I wouldn't have a problem with night play if they could simulate sunlight - which is unlikely. It just won't be so good for cricketers' sleeping hours. Anything above 100 overs a day would be ridiculous.

 

[Furball]

White ball winning the poll.

Red ball only. I did however vote that I wouldn't have a problem with night play if they could simulate sunlight - which is unlikely. It just won't be so good for cricketers' sleeping hours. Anything above 100 overs a day would be ridiculous.

If they were playing Tests at night, then they'd start later.

 

[Garson007]

If they were playing Tests at night, then they'd start later.

Yeah. I'm just making sure we're all on the same page by mentioning the amount of overs bowled in a day.

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm not going to say red ball only because they might come up with another solution to bad light or day/night Tests (the pink ball experiment seems promising atm), but the white balls are poor, I'd much rather have red balls in ODIs than vice versa.

 

[Garson007]

I'm not going to say red ball only because they might come up with another solution to bad light or day/night Tests (the pink ball experiment seems promising atm), but the white balls are poor, I'd much rather have red balls in ODIs than vice versa.

I'd rather focus on fixing the lighting than the cricket ball. The one relies on changing an important part of the game of cricket, the other does not.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Tricia McMillan]

Yeah. I'm just making sure we're all on the same page by mentioning the amount of overs bowled in a day.

Yeah, I am too. Day/night/ball color/whatever, 6 hours of play broken into 2-hour sessions over 5 days with the applied standard being 90 overs minimum per day isn't something that should be messed with.

I'm personally all for simulating the intensity and hue of natural daylight as being the best option, but with current technology, for an area as large as a cricket stadium, it's either impossible or prohibitively expensive.

 

[Ruckus]

Red Balls and Natural Lighting only.

Tweak everything you want in the other formats,but i would never want Test Cricket being played with white balls.It's a very difficult idea to digest.

Yeah I tend to agree. I'm a massive conservative when it comes to something like this. As long as the ICC can get their act together about the overly sensitive light rules, then I don't have any problem with how everything is currently.

 

[Tricia McMillan]

What I suppose I mainly had a problem with was that the teams didn't even look like they were being consulted when the umpires called off play for bad light. I'm admittedly nowhere near a cricket fanatic, so I don't understand the light rules. I know the meter readings for the decision to suspend play were 9.1 on day one and 8.8 on day two. I don't know what unit it is, but based on what I know about illumination, it's more than likely either exposure value or kilolux. In any case, let's say 9 EV or klux is the "cutoff" point for suspending play for bad light, though I propose the following rules, some or all of which may or may not already be in place:

1) It is up to the batting captain to ask the umpires if there is enough light to continue play, and will take a light reading
2) If that value is 9.0 EV/klux or higher, play will continue
3) If that value is lower than 9.0 EV/klux, then the batting captain has the option to continue playing with the agreement of the fielding captain, or the option to pull his players off and suspend play.

 

[vic_orthdox]

As long as it's about making the contest better, then it's fine. You're not going to attract people to a sport they don't otherwise enjoy that lasts five days just because it's played at night, or because it's with a multi-coloured gobstopper.

 

[Ruckus]

I propose the following rules, some or all of which may or may not already be in place:

1) It is up to the batting captain to ask the umpires if there is enough light to continue play, and will take a light reading
2) If that value is 9.0 EV/klux or higher, play will continue
3) If that value is lower than 9.0 EV/klux, then the batting captain has the option to continue playing with the agreement of the fielding captain, or the option to pull his players off and suspend play.

Yeah sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I like how it puts the responsbility in the batsmen's hands (or eyes!) as well, because different players are always going to have slightly different vision and sensitivities to light etc. So why let the umpire decide for someone else even if they aren't having any difficulties out there?

 

[uvelocity]

Red ball and daylight, agree with the similar sentiments.

Only thing to add is that this topic only exists because the ICC changed a rule that didn't need changing.