The longterm solution to the problem of bad light curtailing finishes to Test matches, despite floodlights, could be the permanent use of a different coloured ball.
Acknowledging that cricket had a “problem”, Dave Richardson, the chief executive of the ICC, told The Times that the players’ reaction to the first day-night Test in Adelaide next month would have some bearing on whether a pink or yellow ball could be used throughout games in future.
England’s push for victory in Abu Dhabi was frustrated ultimately by the umpires’ decision to come off for bad light before the scheduled end, despite the use of floodlights. No blame could be attached to the umpires, who followed the letter of the law and based their decision on the light meter reading taken the day before. England refused to apportion blame, but there is no doubt that the finish was unsatisfactory for spectators and that the game has an image problem, something that the administrators have tried to address with little effect.
Following on from similar scenes at the Kia Oval during the Ashes in 2013, the ICC tried to persuade the players and coaches of all international teams to play on in artificial light that would be far from perfect but acceptable, only to be rebuffed.
“In the past, we have tried to say that if we are using floodlights then it should be good enough,” Richardson said. “Not perfect but good enough and we should able to persuade both teams to play to the end of the game. We tried to persuade countries after the Oval Test to play on regardless but we met with resistance. Teams haven’t accepted that.
Advertisement
“Longterm we will probably end up with a pink or ‘greeny yellow’ ball so that we can play under floodlights. If the different coloured ball is good enough. We could also look to improve the quality of the floodlights. It causes trouble for the game.
“Where it doesn’t work is that the benchmark that the umpires set is for danger to the batsmen. Usually, on the second or third day, say, the batsmen are happy to come off, but then on the fifth they are not. But only one side can win the game, then, so it’s not fair to move the goalposts. I acknowledge it’s a problem and we need to strive for a solution, but we are not there yet.”
Trevor Bayliss, the England head coach, refused to blame the umpires or use bad light as an excuse for England’s failure to wrap up the Test. “It’s part of the game,” he said. “We got one more over in than the day before. Everyone is aware of what the situation is, so right from the very start we knew we might not get the full allocation. If the shoe was on the other foot we’d probably be doing the same thing. That’s the way the game is these days. You can look at that or back to the first day when we missed a few chances.”
The MCC world cricket committee, on which sit such luminaries as Steve Waugh and Mike Brearley, has long encouraged the game’s authorities to try day-night Tests with the use of a pink ball as a way of encouraging bigger crowds. To that end, the MCC and champion county have played day-night four-day games with a pink ball in the UAE since 2010 as a curtain raiser for the English season.
Next month, New Zealand and Australia are set to make history when the first day-night Test match will be played in Adelaide with a pink ball. While Richardson is not convinced that it will cure all Test cricket’s ills, and may not help crowds in the UAE necessarily, the experiment will be keenly watched to see how the players fare with a different coloured ball that will be used both during daytime and under lights.
Advertisement
When the decision was made by Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket to agree to the experiment, the head of the New Zealand players’ association, Heath Mills, recognised the uncertainties about the pink ball and the possibilities for the game: “It’s fair to say our players are nervous about the day-night Test,” he said. “It’s uncharted territory and because of that there will be uncertainty and apprehension. However the players can see the bigger picture and the greater good it brings to all levels of the game.”
For now, there is no immediate solution and the problem could occur again in Dubai this week, where the light is likely to fade even more quickly as we move into the winter months. Nor, according to Richardson, should we expect a pitch that will offer much more pace than the one witnessed in Abu Dhabi, which Richardson described as “particularly disappointing”.
Despite this, the ICC has not contemplated taking the preparation of pitches away from the home authorities and into central control. “Preparing pitches is not an exact science and we have often seen some very good pitches in Abu Dhabi,” Richardson said.
“I’m more worried about the Dubai pitch coming up, to be honest, because no matter what the groundsman does he struggles to get pace into it because of the type of clay he has to contend with. Sometimes he leaves grass on it, but then the seamers have a field day and it is unlikely that Pakistan will want that.
“We have tried to define what we regard as a good pitch at a curator’s conference. We are trying to encourage a balance and avoid a pitch that is good for nobody, where you can’t time the ball and the bowlers struggle to get wickets.”
Advertisement
Q&A
What is the process for determining bad light?
Under Law 3.8 the umpires call a halt if they think “it would be dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place”. They then take a reading on the light meter, which becomes the critical measurement for the rest of the game. In this case, as soon as light faded on Saturday to the point that forced an early finish the day before, they had to go off.
Shouldn’t the batsmen decide whether conditions are fit?
That is how it used to be. But regulations changed in 2010 to bring consistency across the five days and stop batsmen coming off for tactical reasons. MCC, the custodians of the Laws, say the new way leads to more time on the field.
Weren’t the floodlights on three days ago?
Yes, but they are not effective with a red ball during twilight. They are designed for full night cricket with a white ball against a dark background. In Abu Dhabi they were useful for 20 minutes at most.
What did England think?
They were disappointed rather than angry. Alastair Cook, the captain, questioned whether the light was dangerous for batsmen. Trevor Bayliss, the head coach, was philosophical yesterday and admitted that England too would have slowed down the game.
So were they hard-done by?
Not really. Play went on until 5.46pm on Saturday, nine minutes later than Friday. Bayliss even thought that the umpires might have called time one over earlier.
Advertisement