Why aren't Floodlights used for Test Matches?

[Ollie_H]

This is something that has generally bemused me? Why if the floodlights are available, why are we not using them? It's just when you see the days cricket shortened and about 20 overs are lost due to bad light why not use the floodlights that are available to them?

The only reason I can think of them not being used is the fact that you may not be able to see the red ball under the floodlights? Anyone know?

 

[Burnsy1]

They've talked about it many times have Cricket pundits. Having evening sessions under the floodlights for a couple of hours bringing in some fans on their way home from work and what not. It probably would be a good idea but it would be a question of whether the players could handle playing 20 extra overs each day.

 

[Kev]

The only reason I can think of them not being used is the fact that you may not be able to see the red ball under the floodlights? Anyone know?

This seems to be the general consensus. It has been tested (not in a Test) and no satisfactory solution has been found. Go watch some cricket live and you can tell the difference from the stands, its bloody hard to see the red ball when the light is low compared to the white.

 

[Aoun13]

I have hear some thing about this topic on T.V.they were saying that ICC wants ti have Floodlights in Test Matches.They will try it as soon as possible may be after Ashes.

 

[Ollie_H]

This seems to be the general consensus. It has been tested (not in a Test) and no satisfactory solution has been found. Go watch some cricket live and you can tell the difference from the stands, its bloody hard to see the red ball when the light is low compared to the white.

I do go to live cricket although admittedly not that much, but surely with the white ball underfloodlights it may got lost in the glare? but the red ball would be easier to see? It must have to do with the white being the complete contrast to the black of the sky.

 

[Skater]

This seems to be the general consensus. It has been tested (not in a Test) and no satisfactory solution has been found. Go watch some cricket live and you can tell the difference from the stands, its bloody hard to see the red ball when the light is low compared to the white.

In my experience it's not easy to see the red ball even in good light.

 

[Kev]

I have hear some thing about this topic on T.V.they were saying that ICC wants ti have Floodlights in Test Matches.They will try it as soon as possible may be after Ashes.

It's unconfirmed but there could well be a Day/Night test at Lord's next year (Eng vs Bangladesh). Don't know what ball they'll use - the MCC trials with the Pink ball seem to have reached a dead end, haven't heard anything about them in ages. Interested to see if the players turn out in Whites or Colours too.

 

[Precambrian]

It's a good idea, but the solution is still some years away. I think it will give be a dose of viagra for the limp format that test cricket has become as far as fan following is concerned.

Major issues include :

1. Balls which can last atleast 70 overs. (90 is unrealistic imho)
2. Specific problems associated with venues like dew, fog, etc, esp in the subcontinent
3. Fans' acceptance of the new format - Nobody wants to come home after a tiring day and watch Dravid teeing off 10 from 96 balls.
4. Cricketers' willingness to play day night cricket consecutively for 5 days. DN cricket is definitely more extracting than day cricket because it cuts into natural rest hours for the body.

My solutions would include :

1. Using pink balls, already in beta.
2. Limit the total no. of overs per day to about 75. This would reduce the load on players a lot.
3. Ensure new balls are taken after 70 overs.
4. Implement 75 overs X 5 days rule for a full season in domestic cricket of India, SA, Eng and Aus.
5. Limit the maximum no. of overs in the first innings to 100. This would ensure that we can see outright wins in more matches.
6. Take out the concept of draws and replace that with the rule that the team which scored more in the first innings as victor.
2.

 

[Kev]

My solutions would include :

1. Using pink balls, already in beta.
2. Limit the total no. of overs per day to about 75. This would reduce the load on players a lot.
3. Ensure new balls are taken after 70 overs.
4. Implement 75 overs X 5 days rule for a full season in domestic cricket of India, SA, Eng and Aus.
5. Limit the maximum no. of overs in the first innings to 100. This would ensure that we can see outright wins in more matches.
6. Take out the concept of draws and replace that with the rule that the team which scored more in the first innings as victor.
2.

No No No No No NO!

1. If Pink balls are better then maybe, but I believe while the test results were mainly positive the difference was not that much.
2. Sod off, 90 is already way too few, cut out all the chit chat and get down to the game!
3. 70 is probably too few. New ball can be taken after 80 overs in County Championship and thats working ok. But bowling with an old ball is part of cricket as much as bowling with a new ball is.
4. Not ever going to happen in England I can tell you now. Counties can't get people in for 4 days, let alone 5!
5. It's Test Cricket, not Limited overs cricket!
6. What's wrong with a draw anyway?

 

[Skater]

I think floodlights should be put on in England and play to go onto 8pm. Start as normal at 11am.

 

[Precambrian]

I can understand my suggestions were quite revolting for a hardcore test cricket fan, but if it has to survive the onslaught of T20s, it goddamn adapt.

I disagree slightly on test cricket and not limited overs cricket. Well, real test cricket was when they were timeless. Now they are indeed limited to 450 overs right? Though most of them really never even reach that, including draws.

I am stating the bloody obvious when I say draws are a big turn off as far as attracting the new generation is concerned. Nobody has the time these days to watch 90 overs of cricket for 5 days consecutively and come off confused who dominated whom. Sport as such has evolved and undergone definition changes and one of them is the requirement that a definitive result is on, especially considering the investment of time that has been made.

 

[Kev]

Nobody has the time these days to watch 90 overs of cricket for 5 days consecutively and come off confused who dominated whom.

That simply isn't true.

People may not want to watch 5 days of cricket, but it is simply incorrect that they do not have the time. Does time flow faster in 2009 than it did 10, 15 or 20 years ago? Is the day only 20 hours long now? Does time flow a a different rate if you are 20 years old than if you are 40 years old? No it does not. People who don't really like Test cricket simply do not want to make time, if you like it you will make the time. Plain and simple fact here is that it doesn't really matter what you do to Test cricket, hold it at night, have topless women handing out free beer, if 5 days of cricket is not for you, it won't be for you if it's on at a slightly later time in the day.

As for a draw being confusing, thats rubbish too. Sure some tests are pretty even and don't look like they would yield a result if you kept playing past 5 days but anyone who understands cricket even a little bit can decide who they think had the upper hand throughout the twists and turns of the match, they don't need a scoreboard telling them.

 

[Ollie_H]

Cricinfo - 3rd Test: England v Australia at Manchester, Aug 11-15, 2005

Was that really a bore draw? Yes, Okay it was 4 years ago, but draws can actually be exciting. We say test cricket is boring but there are some incredible draws. There are boring games in every format, there are even boring T20 games, there are just so many of them! You get boring games in rugby, football and i'm sure most other sports, even if their are winners! They are still boring.

Everyone gives Test Cricket a hard time, but really it's an excellent format. It's mainly for the pure cricket fan. I went to a day at a test with England vs India where really the only thing that happened was Rahul Dravid getting to his double ton.

There are boring games, but Test cricket is 'the shizz'

 

[Burnsy1]

T20 is a load of crap after a few games. Personally if we had nothing but T20(like the way things seem to be heading) then after so long people will start to get bored and disinterested in cricket. Some of the best players will dissapear from cricket as not all batsmen can play T20 such as Ali Cook. We won't see wonderfull innings like in test matches. Do you see someone scoring a double century in a T20 or 300? No I didn't think so. Having only T20 would be a pile of shash if you ask me. You want to see the death of cricket then go ahead with only T20.

 

[Insomniac]

It's unconfirmed but there could well be a Day/Night test at Lord's next year (Eng vs Bangladesh). Don't know what ball they'll use - the MCC trials with the Pink ball seem to have reached a dead end, haven't heard anything about them in ages. Interested to see if the players turn out in Whites or Colours too.

I believe a Pakistan vs Australia test being a day-nighter was being circulated by Cricket Australia officials... IIRC PCB gunned that idea down and it was no more.

Although 2 of Pakistan's tests vs Australia in the winter (Australian summer) will be the Boxing Day Test and the New Year's test, so I'd rather we not mess with tradition.