I want to know your opinions on the 5th Ashes Test

[barmyarmy]

He certainly gave that impression

 

[whiteninness]

I can't remember the last time I watched an ODI at the Oval. Is that seriously the light power for night games? Even with a white ball, that looks bloody tough.

 

[barmyarmy]

Well I've been there for d/n games and it's fine

 

[midgetwars]

I've said before, that there needs to be consistency. Why the hell isn't there a set limit on the amount of light? The other day it was 8 and it was 5 the other.

Different test matches, but why can't there be a set universal limit on the amount of light, that way people will be annoyed consistently but it makes sense at least.

 

[cricket_icon]

well the light ruling is a combination of the umpires own decision making and the light meter. if the umpire goes off on a reading of say 8 in one test of a series, he must use that as the measuring stick for all other tests in that series. but when the umpire pulls out the meter and at what reading is it "bad light" seems a bit arbitrary. I'm sure theres a top level cut off though.

 

[sifter132]

I can't remember the exact details, but I think it was Siddle who didn't move a couple of times when the ball was hit near him. So he definitely couldn't see it, that's what I referred too.

I think this was the clincher. Was looking back through the cricinfo commentary because my recording stopped with 7 overs to go but it said:

39.2
Starc to Bell, 2 runs, full outside off, goes inside out over square cover...Siddle in the deep did not pick that up in the deep but it's only a single

Clarke having a word with the umpires

That's the first mention of Clarke and umpires. Makes sense. When the ball is flying around to all parts you need to be able to see it. If it were a finish where the batsmen were blocking everything then you could play in less light because the ball would be easy to track, but in a high scoring run chase where there are skied shots, edges going in random places etc. it could cost the fielding team the match if a catch is dropped, or a boundary let through. The concern always seems to be for the batsmen with bad light, but if anything they have one of the easiest jobs since the ball is following a fairly predictable path - easy to follow, even in lesser light.

As for the other stuff about time wasting...didn't seem to be a problem up until the last few overs. If anything Trott was taking as much time as Clarke: at least a couple of times he was marking his guard with the bowler at the top of his mark, changing his helmet, challenging his LBW decision. Once it got tighter, Clarke slowed it a bit, but I don't think it was anything you wouldn't find in the last few overs of a tight ODI. No one was calling out phantom physios, or changing their boots halfway through an over.

I'm not sure how I feel about it to be honest...some part says I'm glad a game that was always heading for a draw remained a draw - instead of a manufactured win, some part says the light issue is a pain and laws need to be changed, the other says Clarke was a little handed with his badgering of the umpires. But I don't think any of those things were egregious enough for me to have a strong opinion. It's through to the keeper from me... In fact, I'm more concerned with why the hell the England players were pissing on the pitch? Plenty of grass out there if they needed a tinkle.

 

[Owzat]

It should be about physical danger to batsman or fielders, "fair" shouldn't come into it.

And they should reduce time wastage by starting earlier (10am), forcing the sides to get through overs less slowly (right way round) and knocking drinks breaks on the head.

- early start, bit more damp in the air but spectators can easily get there an hour earlier by setting off an hour or two earlier if need be.

- over rates are a joke, field settings/changes should be made more quickly and captains made to make a decision and implement it without mucking about. Any time the over rate is slow, give the batsman choice of bowler and see if the captains don't try harder.

- drinks breaks are completely unnecessary in some English days, when it is hot you have a) batsmen who haven't necessarily been out the whole hour, b) fielders who can go to the boundary to get a drink, c) umpires who can carry a thermos for themselves and the batsmen to quickly drink between overs - if the batsman has been out there long enough to need one.

Light shouldn't then be an issue in the evening as play would be done by six in all probability, most of the time of course if the day isn't gloomy anyway.

 

[sifter132]

^My idea is to have one more drinks break a session ie. every 40 mins, but then make a blanket ban on all drink running to batsmen. It would be worth the extra 2 minute drinks break to stop all the unscheduled ones in my view.

 

[Rayr27]

With regards to the comments about the Oval light level, you have to allow for the fact that England has a very long twighlight period compared to other cricket playing nations which reduces the effect of lights.

That being said though, I strongly believe that the option to take players off for bad light when flloodlights are active should be removed from the rules.

If the light drops below a certain level the ball should be changed for one of a different colour. Bright orange ones have been used in U-19 ODIs and pink balls have been used in day/night 1s class games and all the feedback has been positive but for some reason nothing has gone forward.