Would you support day/night test cricket ?

[thevortex]

The only thing I would mention is that there is nothing at all inherently wrong with Test cricket in and of itself. The problem lies with the authorities - the individual cricket boards and incoherent, somnolent and impotent ICC. A World Test championship is an idea that absolutely had to have been established quite a few years back. Maybe someday (and hopefully soon) there will rise up a Modi for Test match cricket. I just feel it is a shame that we are now creating divisions within the game in terms of the various formats. Each of these formats must complement each other and come together as a culmination of sorts of quality and diversity in sport. What we have now is a direction-less mish mash of different formats of cricket, quickly packaged with purely short term objectives and to be immediately arresting rather than deeply memorable.

[achilles]

Maybe someday (and hopefully soon) there will rise up a Modi for Test match cricket.

There can't. Not everyone has the luxury of watching a game over 5 long days which doesn't even yield a result at times. Instead, they prefer to watch a game that gets over in 8hrs or 3hrs. Can we criticize the general public at large? No. As for the boards and broadcasters, there is no money in Test cricket. Sad, but true. So they will prefer an ODI or a T20 series over a Test series.

I just feel it is a shame that we are now creating divisions within the game in terms of the various formats. Each of these formats must complement each other and come together as a culmination of sorts of quality and diversity in sport. What we have now is a direction-less mish mash of different formats of cricket' date=' quickly packaged with purely short term objectives and to be immediately arresting rather than deeply memorable.[/quote'] What can we do pal? England picks on India. India pwns England. Zimbabwe kicks out the CEO of the ICC, while Pakistan is busy pwning itself, just like West Indies. Australia & SA are yes man's to whichever is the stronger party, while SL & Bangladesh are India's pals. Our sport is a mess. We have heard countless times the demands from players and ex-cricketers that IPL should be given a window. Heads of various boards say it too, yet they're the first ones to block the proposal and then they keep crying about India killing test cricket. No one wants to do anything to make the situation better. Everyone is too busy pulling each other down and trying to outdo each other.

The only thing I would mention is that there is nothing at all inherently wrong with Test cricket in and of itself. The problem lies with the authorities - the individual cricket boards and incoherent, somnolent and impotent ICC. A World Test championship is an idea that absolutely had to have been established quite a few years back.

It would come as a surprise to many but England, the cricket board of which keep harping about Test cricket being the No.1 priority of cricket, is against the formation of a World Test Championship. This is one of the best things to save Test cricket. But if this doesn't get implemented, lets hope India continues to be the No.1 Test Team in the world. Coz as long as we are, BCCI will make sure we play tests very often. And if India plays Tests, we save the world :--D

[thevortex]

Achilles - it s not about the money and the number of eyeballs. Those are short term things. Once we get the action right, these will follow. Natural progression of events. See, if you are aware of the concept of 4 P's of marketing, I am wanting for cricket to focus on the Product rather than on Promotion. If we concentrate only on promotion, then who takes care of the product? Only if we encourage Tests will wholesome cricketers emerge. And wholesome cricketers will shine in all forms of the game and illuminate the game with brilliance and versatility.

[achilles]

Agree with the crux of your posts. But- 1. Do the players want to play it? Recent aussie survey shows 65% of them will retire prematurely to play in the IPL. So the choice of the younger gen is clear. 2. Do the fans prefer to watch it? Empty stadiums tell a tale, don't they? 3. Do the broadcasters prefer them over Odi's & T20s? No, coz they can't sell advertising slots. So the problem is that a generation of cricket players and fans, purists as they are called, are refusing to innovate, but are the first to criticize the onslaught of T20s. I've studied Management and the crux of every chapter I studied was - "If there is one thing constant, it is change". What is the harm in innovating? What is the harm in seeing more than a 100 odd people at a ground watching a cricket match? What is the harm if we can actually get this generation of players to play the longest format of the game by balancing T20s and giving the IPL a darn window? See the thing is, the purists are a bunch of stubborn chaps. Whatever their reasons, they refuse to accept change and keep singing the same tune. First they were harping that players won't play this shortest format. The players have replied by preferring lucrative contracts over playing county cricket. Then they said fans won't accept it and the fans showed them they like this format. See, the thing is everyone advocating test cricket is pretty cornered coz they don't constructively add anything to the discussion apart from pulling the other formats down. I think people should innovate if they want test cricket to be saved. Pink balls, tests at the night are a start. Or we will see more people talk like Chris Gayle about Test cricket.

[putrevus]

Endangered species my A*ss, this scumbag cannot see India being center of cricking world, why were no articles like this written when Bigbash in Australia was going on or whatever 20-20 tournament they have in england.When IPL is on every tom dick and harry wants to say his piece. Scumbags like him and Gideon Haigh from Australia and England simply cannot fathom how BCCI is getting away with IPL and making money.Pretending to be purists of the game they spew lot of venom against India. If BCCI allows to make more sporting wickets and plays in traditional cities rather than this absurd rotation policy test cricket is very much alive in India.

[bharathh]

Not really sure why ppl keep harping about Test cricket dying. We play a lot more of it more sure! I made this breakdown of tests being played from the 70s to the 00s(innermost 70s - outermost 00s). Seeing the number of tests being played now... why do ppl keep harping about it dying? Here's a tabular breakdown No code has to be inserted here. http://www.cricforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15498

[achilles]

Endangered species my A*ss, this scumbag cannot see India being center of cricking world, why were no articles like this written when Bigbash in Australia was going on or whatever 20-20 tournament they have in england.When IPL is on every tom dick and harry wants to say his piece. Scumbags like him and Gideon Haigh from Australia and England simply cannot fathom how BCCI is getting away with IPL and making money.Pretending to be purists of the game they spew lot of venom against India.

Can't agree more, mate. No one speaks against the Big Bash, Standard Bank Pro 20 or the English T20 cup. Actually, no purist SAID A FRIGGIN WORD when SA & England dumped the 50 over format in their domestic structures for a more lucrative 40 over format. Apparently, that is NOT killing cricket. Playing a league in India for 7 weeks is. Idiots!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Agree with the crux of your posts. But- 1. Do the players want to play it? Recent aussie survey shows 65% of them will retire prematurely to play in the IPL. So the choice of the younger gen is clear. 2. Do the fans prefer to watch it? Empty stadiums tell a tale, don't they? 3. Do the broadcasters prefer them over Odi's & T20s? No, coz they can't sell advertising slots. So the problem is that a generation of cricket players and fans, purists as they are called, are refusing to innovate, but are the first to criticize the onslaught of T20s. I've studied Management and the crux of every chapter I studied was - "If there is one thing constant, it is change". What is the harm in innovating? What is the harm in seeing more than a 100 odd people at a ground watching a cricket match? What is the harm if we can actually get this generation of players to play the longest format of the game by balancing T20s and giving the IPL a darn window? See the thing is, the purists are a bunch of stubborn chaps. Whatever their reasons, they refuse to accept change and keep singing the same tune. First they were harping that players won't play this shortest format. The players have replied by preferring lucrative contracts over playing county cricket. Then they said fans won't accept it and the fans showed them they like this format. See, the thing is everyone advocating test cricket is pretty cornered coz they don't constructively add anything to the discussion apart from pulling the other formats down. I think people should innovate if they want test cricket to be saved. Pink balls, tests at the night are a start. Or we will see more people talk like Chris Gayle about Test cricket.

I might come across as one of those purists you mention, Achilles. But I also do watch T20 cricket and have nothing against it as long as people dont go around calling it the best thing since parathas and curd :). I also unequivocally hold the opinion that Test cricket is way ahead of all other forms of the game as far as both being a spectacle and being a true test of the players' skill is concerned. I am also not against change. Just advocating that a similar change needs to happen on the Test match front. You talk of empty stadiums, players' willingness, monetary benefits etc. But think about it. These are all problems created by the authorities. Schedule Test matches in centres such as Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata. See how the crowd pours in. That Test match at Mohali where there was hardly a soul as Tendulkar raised his bat after breaking a most momentous batting record was a national disgrace. The timing of the schedule is also important - weekends and festivals must figure in this respect. That apart I am for raising the player fees and contract amount payable for the players featuring in Test cricket. If money is what speaks loudest then one has got to use it for the benefit of the game and not for short term monetary gains for the board or oneself. Change the dynamics of player earnings and see where things go. You cannot gloss over the fact that a Test match century or even an ODI century is much more "timeless" than a T20 innings. How many remember Manish Pandey's century in the last IPL? If the administrators want to do good by the game, they can. It just takes a bit of gumption and a bit of vision. Things that the current breed of administrators simply lack. Lastly night Test cricket and all that is not realistic right now. Modi has given away that he does not really understand the dynamics of the game with his comments. Cricket is not at a stage to experiment with Test matches at night - pure and simple. And even if it were, I would not want to do that as it would take the spinners out of the equation. It is simplistic to assume that people would expect the same things out of Test cricket as they do out of T20. You need bowlers to shine in that form of the game. And that is what must be encouraged.

[Chandan]

Schedule Test matches in centres such as Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata. See how the crowd pours in. That Test match at Mohali where there was hardly a soul as Tendulkar raised his bat after breaking a most momentous batting record was a national disgrace. The timing of the schedule is also important - weekends and festivals must figure in this respect.

I agree. How about having a fixed Holi and Diwali test in every season at fixed venues say Kolkata and Mumbai respectively, so that people can plan in advance? This was Dravid's idea.

That apart I am for raising the player fees and contract amount payable for the players featuring in Test cricket. If money is what speaks loudest then one has got to use it for the benefit of the game and not for short term monetary gains for the board or oneself. Change the dynamics of player earnings and see where things go.

I don't think any Indian player has a problem. But it is certainly not possible for other boards, especially the cash strapped boards like SL, Pak, NZ, BD etc. I'm not even very sure about the money paid by SA board, though Australians and English players receive good money for international cricket. Even then, few players looking for shortcuts like Dirk Nannes, might find IPL more prifitable as they earn good money by bowling just 4 overs in a match.

You cannot gloss over the fact that a Test match century or even an ODI century is much more "timeless" than a T20 innings. How many remember Manish Pandey's century in the last IPL? If the administrators want to do good by the game, they can. It just takes a bit of gumption and a bit of vision. Things that the current breed of administrators simply lack.

But why would BCCI work with a vision? It is earning enough money and who cares in the set-up for international cricket, forget about domestic cricket which is a breeding place for players? These guys don't love cricket. They love only money. As long as they can milk cricket mad India, it is okay. The day cricket stops becoming lucrative in India, these guys will leave it there and go back to their careers which is either some business or politics.

Lastly night Test cricket and all that is not realistic right now. Modi has given away that he does not really understand the dynamics of the game with his comments. Cricket is not at a stage to experiment with Test matches at night - pure and simple. And even if it were, I would not want to do that as it would take the spinners out of the equation. It is simplistic to assume that people would expect the same things out of Test cricket as they do out of T20. You need bowlers to shine in that form of the game. And that is what must be encouraged.

Lalit Modi has no idea about tests or in fact cricket and he doesn't even care. He himself has said on CI that he hasn't even watched a T20 match completely. After all this there is one Gidion Haigh who has the following view: Bring on the controversy The five-day game has been rendered dull by wall-to-wall tours and context-less competition. A little scandal occasionally wouldn't go amiss Gideon Haigh March 15, 2010 If only a Test cricket viewership survey had been taken in January 2008, Indians could well have been seen to be more interested in the form Test cricket is in trouble. I know. I read it in the papers, saw it on television and heard on radio. It's all over the internet too. That modern zeitgeist-o-meter, the Google search, reveals a panoply of greats past and present opining about the eclipse of the five-day format: Sachin Tendulkar, Kumar Sangakkara, Greg Chappell, Shane Warne, Ricky Ponting, Rahul Dravid, Matthew Hayden, Richard Hadlee, Gary Kirsten, Michael Vaughan. Not to mention Chris Gayle, for whom, of course, it's no biggie: he is more concerned about his next haircut. Oh, and there's a survey too, on which the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald went to town last November. Commissioned by the Marylebone Cricket Club, which not so long ago would have solicited public opinion by offering whisky sours all round at White's or the Athenaeum, it sought the views of fans in India, New Zealand and South Africa on their preferred forms of the game. There were horror-struck responses to its statistics. "The results do not make for pretty reading," said Peter Roebuck, beneath the sober and restrained headline "The truest form of the game is on the brink of extinction". "Only 7% of Indians, 19% of Kiwis and 12% of South Africans put Test cricket above its peers. Most Indians favour Twenty20, while Kiwis like ODIs." Well, yes, kind of: 58% of Indian respondents did indeed nominate Twenty20 internationals as their preferred form of the game. But this was downright weird: since the first in December 2006, India have played just 20 such games. Meanwhile, only 4% of Indians professed consuming adoration for the Indian Premier League, which we're constantly being told is all about the fans, has changed the game irrevocably, and is to Test cricket as Godzilla is to Tokyo. It would have been just as factually correct to present the headline "Test cricket still more popular than IPL". In the case of India, furthermore, the poll was conducted in a year without a home Test until the end of November - a lack which invited the question: if Test cricket has become a minority interest in India, how much does that have to do with visibility and access? At a time in which so much cricket of such variety is being played, views are susceptible to all manner of short-term influences. How different would the results have been had the poll been held after: a) the 2007 World Twenty20; b) the first IPL; c) the India-Sri Lanka Tests after which India ranked No. 1 on the ICC World Test Championship table? Let's be blunt: this survey was dodgier than a double-breasted suit from Arthur Daley's lock-up. The conclusion was based on the views of 500 fans in each country, which in India amounts to 0.000417% of the population. According to MCC's Tony Lewis, cricket "would be foolish if we didn't think it was universal", but really the opposite was true. Here was a classic case of evidence from which the preconceived was extracted (dwindling support for Test cricket), the unexpected ignored (the insignificant interest in IPL), and grounds for doubt overlooked (the statistical insignificance of the sample). Cricket is meant to be a game full of stattos, but where were they when we needed them? Worse, the interpretation indulged a widening streak of masochism among cricket's elites, its top players, senior administrators and commentariat, about Test cricket. For after the West Indian capitulation at the Gabba, the Murdoch press took up the theme of the imminent death of the five-day format with necrophilial gusto, star columnist Shane Warne leading the way. Beneath another cool and dispassionate headline, "Don't let Test cricket die", Warne offered the helpful advice: "Test cricket needs an injection of something to capture the fans across the world." An "injection of something"? At least he's moved on from diuretics, you might say, but he hasn't become much more discriminating. And there was much more besides, with hectares of print devoted to tiered championships, night Tests, field-restriction circles and the like, accompanied by exhortations to "Have your say: Vote in our online poll on what can be done." Welcome to Cricket Idol. Sure, this is a debate worth having, for it is true: five days to decide anything these days seems an extraordinary, maybe even anachronistic, luxury. But plus ça change. It was in a famous interview with the Murdoch press in January 1982 that Kerry Packer's factotum Lynton Taylor, then charged with promoting cricket in Australia, said he'd basically given up on the long-form game: "The game of Test cricket as it's presently constituted is archaic… I don't know that Test cricket can be saved". And truth be told, Test cricket is as prone to spasms of hand-wringing as the English public, in Macaulay's droll judgement, to periodic fits of morality. Ask any journalist, around for more than five minutes, how many times he has written the "death of Test cricket" piece. It's the modern equivalent of the Bradman obituary - something to keep at the ready, just in case. Amazingly, too, the torrents of dross evaporated the moment West Indies fought back at Adelaide Oval, which shows how phoney was the concern for Test cricket, and how pants were most of the mooted innovations, in the first place. Or actually, not so amazingly, for herein may lie some of Test cricket's malaise, which has nothing to do with Twenty20, IPL, the global hegemony of the BCCI or the gradual marginalisation of the ICC, but rather the general insufficiency of "news". Think about it. Ten years ago, to choose a season at random, the Australian summer was reverberating not just to the heroics of Adam Gilchrist and Justin Langer at Bellerive and Shane Warne's pursuit of Dennis Lillee's wicket-taking record but Shoaib Akhtar's sudden rehabilitation, Joe the Cameraman's abrupt unmasking, and Darrell Hair's latest showdown with recalcitrant touring teams. Hansie Cronje was about to be unmasked as a cheat, joining Mohammad Azharuddin and Saleem Malik in purdah. Perhaps it is age, perhaps it is a journalist's fondness for scandal-mongering, but a few such stories today would be a relief from the modern monotony of non-stop touring and context-less competition. In a typically shrewd piece for the 1973 edition of Wisden, Richie Benaud summed up the Ashes series of 1970-71 and 1972, with their combination of skilful cricket and space-grabbing controversy, from England's walk-off in Sydney to Australia's piss-off at Headingley. At the time, Benaud had an unusual dual perspective, being both commentator for the matronly BBC and columnist for nubile News of the World; he wrote accordingly. Everyone will have their own ideas on this question of whether or not controversy harms cricket, but over the past two series between Australia and England, I think the game has come out of it very well. The type of controversy which I believe harms the game is where the cricketers are providing poor fare for the spectators, whether that be at the ground or on the television screens…That sort of controversy I feel does harm in the game because it will be written up or talked about by the media and agreed with - as it should be by the cricket follower… Personally I think the last two series between these two countries have provided the best cricket of any dual series since the war… I believe a great deal of this is due to the fact that in both series the cricket has been very good and the teams roughly equal in strength and intent on providing good entertainment. In addition they have provided their share of controversy - or had it provided for them - and I regard that as a contributing factor to the success of the last eleven Test match between England and Australia. Gods or flannelled fools? Voiceless robots or men of character, willing and able to express their feelings? Well, you can take your pick, but I am inclined, having been both in the centre and in the press and television boxes, to prefer the latter any day. Benaud was writing before cricket controversies involved revelations of corruption and became proxies for racial tensions and religious squabbles. But his argument is not redundant. Test cricket still commands phenomenal hours of airtime and hectarages of space; it is faltering not just because of exogenous factors like Twenty20, but because it is not providing the dramas, the dilemmas, the raw meat of scandal for a ravening media and a public craving thrills and spills, sin and redemption. Had the MCC held its precious survey two years ago in the wake of Bhajjigate, when Indians were incinerating Steve Bucknor in effigy and fuming about Harbhajan Singh's martyrdom, would only 7% of them have given a monkey's about Test cricket? Is Test cricket, then, with its corset-tight Code of Conduct, its pre-modern puritanism about "the spirit of the game", its post-modern obsession with technology, its abiding ambivalence about aggression, its very contemporary paranoia about "damaging the brand", caught in a trap of its making, as well as a potential victim of market forces? Because for as long as it fails to provide grist for the media's mill, it will be at risk of becoming that grist itself. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well?

[thevortex]

Chandan - our views are similar. I read this Haigh piece as being sarcastic through and through. I dont think he was all that serious about Test cricket and controversies. Let me see if I can dig up something I wrote about suggested payment policies that can do something to help the situation.

[putrevus]

Can't agree more, mate. No one speaks against the Big Bash, Standard Bank Pro 20 or the English T20 cup. Actually, no purist SAID A FRIGGIN WORD when SA & England dumped the 50 over format in their domestic structures for a more lucrative 40 over format. Apparently, that is NOT killing cricket. Playing a league in India for 7 weeks is. Idiots!

It is simple economics from BCCI, since world cup 1983 it has been cashing in on odis and since 2007 it is cashing on t20s.One has to remember the boom for both odis and t20s started only after India won anything substantial internationally. BCCI was going for more Odis for simple fact India had a chance to win on any given day unlike test matches where they knew their chances of winning were slim who would watch a non winning product on TV. As long as India is number 1 or a very good side in test matches we will see more test matches played by India because it is a winning product which people will watch. England plays more tests than odis for simple fact they have been putrid side in Odis and in tests they have held their own at least at home.In fact they might be the only major cricketing nation which has never won any major tournament.No wonder they want to play more tests. Aussies simply dont have enough population to support more matches no matter what they win they have reached their peak in terms on revenue.Sometimes I think losing might be good for them so more people are interested in series for longer periods, their winning I think has hurt them more.

[Feed]

England's slow show against Bangladesh prolongs Test agony In a melodramatic declaration this weekend a stark warning was issued about the irreversible demise of Test cricket – and it became clear yesterday what the England and Wales Cricket Board was getting at. More... England's slow show prolongs Test agony Bangladesh 419 England 171-3 By Stephen Brenkley at Sher-e-Bangla Stadium Monday, 22 March 2010 In a melodramatic declaration this weekend a stark warning was issued about the irreversible demise of Test cricket – and it became clear yesterday what the England and Wales Cricket Board was getting at. Much more of the sort of stuff on offer during most of the second day of the second Test here in Dhaka and the longer game will sacrifice itself on the altar of tedium with nobody watching or caring. The ECB was referring to the intention to show future Ashes series on free-to-air television which, it claims, will cost the game £143m in broadcasting rights from Sky and lead to catastrophe. But it would hardly matter if Test cricket was shown on every channel and closed-circuit screen in the country if England approach matches as they did in the Sher-e-Bangla Stadium. Viewing figures would go through the floor. Greater initiative has been shown by the Royle Family than England demonstrated as they responded to Bangladesh's upbeat 419 all out, their third-highest Test innings. The tourists' rationale was that they wanted to avoid mistakes on another crummy pitch against accurate left-arm spin, build a substantial lead cautiously and then see how the match panned out. But it was hard to avoid the conclusion that their first objective was the prevention of defeat, not the pursuit of victory, and this against a side they had beaten in all 16 previous international encounters. Bangladesh have shown pluck and gumption in the last four days of Test cricket – the final two days in Chittagong and the first two here in Dhaka – but they remain the least accomplished side in Test cricket by the length of a Dhaka rickshaw ride. Still, when they left the field yesterday they will have been dreaming of their first authentic Test victory. After Bangladesh illuminated the morning by adding a further 89 runs for their last two wickets in 23 overs, England made 171 for 3 from 64, a rate of scoring designed to petrify onlookers. This eventually represented something of an acceleration since the first hundred came at fewer than two runs an over. What passed for an innings highlight came in the form of Kevin Pietersen becoming the 19th England player to have scored 5,000 Test runs. The 45 he required to reach the landmark took 99 balls, a third less than his usual rate. The surface, easy to stay in on but difficult to score on, was largely at fault but the lack of boldness was hard to understand. Perhaps Pietersen was overcompensating for all those occasions he has been derided for being too audacious. Pietersen was dismissed by Shakib-al-Hasan's left-arm spin just as he was upping the ante despite being denied anything like full value for his drives. Shortly after, Paul Collingwood was beaten by some genuine reverse swing of the kind England talk about but rarely produce at such an extreme, and the score was 107 for 3. There were scant few other alarms before the close and about a similar amount of enterprise. Shakib and his fellow left-armer bowled 43 overs and conceded 95 runs. Jonathan Trott, who opened the innings with Alastair Cook after England reverted to a five-man bowling attack and dropped Michael Carberry, could have proceeded more solemnly only in a funeral march. He took 33 balls to get off the mark, one fewer than Tamim Iqbal, his counterpart in the Bangladesh side, took to reach his fifty on the first morning. When Trott reached his own half-century, a clinically diligent affair which would have been more at home in a laboratory than a cricket pitch, he had used 147 balls. By that stage in an innings Tamim might have been challenging the world record score. The day was a qualified mess for England from the start. They needed two wickets to end the Bangladesh innings but displayed no inclination to take either. Between them, the improbable trio of Naeem Islam, Shafiul Islam and Rubel Hossain had a merry old time. As Nos 8, 10 and 11 they are doubtless the players their coach, Jamie Siddons, had in mind when he said that many of the team did not have their own bats. Since they were tail-enders it was hardly a surprise to see runs being squeezed down to third man, a position that remained unfilled for 90 minutes while nine fours went in that direction. There were fielders on the leg side when it seemed pretty obvious that the batsmen were often trying to drive the ball on the off side. If Alastair Cook, the captain, noticed, he decided to overlook it. Somebody should have advised him – and, as England have taken to having drinks breaks as often as they can to try to keep dehydration at bay, a message could presumably have been sent out. Stuart Broad, who started the morning, looked particularly lethargic and this has not been the happiest of trips for him. Since his outstanding bowling in Durban, which was significant in helping England take a lead in their series against South Africa, he has played three and a half Test matches and taken eight wickets at more than 50 runs each. Shafiul's 53 took 51 balls before Tim Bresnan produced one that was edged behind. Graeme Swann finally finished the innings before lunch with his fourth wicket, Naeem being left unbeaten. England lost Cook to a slog sweep held at midwicket. If it was ill executed, it had the merit of intent, which was not true of much else that followed.

[achilles]

I love you, Stephen Brenkley. :adore:

[achilles]

This is the same guy who pwned Giles Clarke in his own backyard - Clarke loses his cool with journalist :hehe:

[Feed]

Day and night tests : MCC chief Keith Bradshaw's in the pink ahead of Abu Dhabi experiment for county curtain-raiser The eyes of the cricket world will today focus on an unlikely experiment in a small corner of the Arabian peninsula that may change the face of the sport for ever.More... MCC chief Keith Bradshaw's in the pink ahead of Abu Dhabi experiment for county curtain-raiser By Lawrence Booth reports from Abu Dhabi Last updated at 11:27 PM on 28th March 2010 The eyes of the cricket world will today focus on an unlikely experiment in a small corner of the Arabian peninsula that may change the face of the sport for ever. MCC and champion county Durham will move the domestic season's curtain-raiser 3,500 miles from Lord's to the Sheikh Zayed Stadium and - uniquely for an English first-class fixture - use a pink ball under floodlights to trial the viability of day/night Tests. The stakes are high, as the ICC-backed idea is widely thought to be the format's best hope of reclaiming some of Twenty20's glamour. Unlike red and white, pink is visible against both white clothing and the night sky. Scientists at London's Imperial College have made a dye they hope will last at least 80 overs, the minimum life span of every Test-match ball. MCC chief executive Keith Bradshaw, who recently signed a three-year reciprocal deal with Abu Dhabi Cricket Club, says this will be a good trial. 'The fact that we're starting with this match in conditions as harsh as you can imagine means we're certainly going to give the pink ball a real workout,' he said. 'The hope is it stands up.' Trials elsewhere in the world have had mixed success. The pink ball was said to have survived 119 overs in a game between Trinidad & Tobago and Guyana in Antigua in January, but a Queensland bowler said the dye came off at a game in Adelaide. The plan has even been questioned by Rob Elliot, managing director of Kookaburra, who made the 24 balls brought here by MCC. 'I don't believe any ball other than the red one has got 80 overs in it,' he said. Durham players claim they have struggled to see the ball's seam while batting in the nets but Bradshaw insists any teething problems will pale alongside the potential long-term benefits to cricket's most venerable format. 'The game is changing,' he said. 'We need to do something and not just put our heads in the sand.' Here in the desert, they're hoping the metaphor does not become a reality.

[Feed]

First day and night FC match played with pink balls It's all about pink balls out here in Abu Dhabi with the trial of the new Kookaburra ball being considered a success so far by the powers that be at the MCC. More... Durham in Abu Dhabi The pink balls look flashy when new but soon wear once smashed about the park By Martin Emmerson BBC Newcastle's Durham cricket reporter in Abu Dhabi It's all about pink balls out here in Abu Dhabi with the trial of the new Kookaburra ball being considered a success so far by the powers that be at the MCC. The players seem to like it as well. I have to say though I am not a fan. Commentating on this match from the fifth floor of the pavilion - the highest position I've ever watched cricket from - is not exactly an easy task. The ball stands out quite well when it is new, but after a few overs when the cover has been knocked off it, the ball becomes very difficult to see. Under the floodlights also proves a problem from this lofty perch, although when the ball is silhouetted against the night sky it is easy to see. They changed the ball after 90 overs and the replacement was like a breath of fresh air. Suddenly it was easy to see again. In the overs before it was changed, Durham batsman Dale Benkenstein was bowled by Glamorgan spinner Dean Cosker. A number of the Durham players were sitting in the press box with me at the time and there were a few giggles when I suggested Dale may have been deceived by "a wrong-un". The fact is I couldn't really see what happened. It appears Dale couldn't see it either. It was great to see Michael Di Venuto and Kyle Coetzer in the runs again. Both made centuries on the opening day. Kyle batted out the entire day spending 367 minutes in the middle. Diva [Di Venturo] says the new ball is okay but he finds watching the seam difficult, especially with the spinners. Keith Bradshaw, the MCC's chief executive, says they may have to look at making the seams darker to help the batsmen. But with both openers making hundreds it would appear things weren't too difficult for them. This summer too early for floodlit Test, says ICC's Dave Richardson • More experiments needed, admits International Cricket Council • General response to pink-ball trial has been positive At least a year of scientific research could be needed before a ball suitable for day-night Test cricket can be produced, according to the International Cricket Council's general manager, Dave Richardson. The former South Africa wicketkeeper is in Abu Dhabi to assess the high-profile trial of the pink ball in the current match between Durham and MCC. Hopes are high that a strong performance under the floodlights of the Sheikh Zayed Stadium will bring about the era of day-night Tests – and improved crowds. But Richardson believes it is important to tally the anecdotal evidence of players with firm empirical data before such a step is considered. He even suggested that despite the relatively advanced development of the pink Kookaburra, an orange alternative has not yet been ruled out. "Ball manufacturers are saying to us 'You tell us what you need and we'll develop it for you'," said Richardson. "But the thing is we don't know what we need. We don't know if we want an orange ball against a black background or a pink ball against a white background. "That is going to be the first step – the scientific approach, to go to these research guys or universities and get them to tell us what we should be asking for. The data collected so far is all very much on a hearsay kind of basis – what did the wicketkeeper think, what did the fielders think, what did the TV guys think. There's a danger in relying on ad-hoc, hearsay-type evidence. It's good to have and it's positive progress but it needs to be backed up by scientific evidence." Given those constraints, Richardson said five-day cricket under night skies would not be possible as early as has been mooted. The Lord's Test between England and Bangladesh in May had been discussed as a potential day-night fixture but Richardson now feels next summer is a more realistic target. "It's a bit early to say but I think 12 months is a realistic timeframe. We were hoping to get something as soon as this summer but I don't think that's going to happen. England versus Bangladesh would have been too early. The balls that have been developed so far are still a long way off being able to last 80 overs, in the same way a white ball wouldn't last 80 overs. They just get too dirty and you can't see them as well." Players from both Durham and MCC have been mostly positive about the visibility of the pink ball – even after 90 overs – during the first two days in Abu Dhabi, with the darkness of the seam the only gripe. And despite his own caution, Richardson accepts that day-night Tests are all-but certain in the near future. "Down the line I think there are going to be some markets that do want to come and watch in the evening and if we can schedule some matches in that time we must do it. I'd be surprised if we couldn't find a ball that worked and I think there will be a solution if there is a will for day-night cricket." Pink cricket ball gets mixed response The pink cricket ball, which has been used under lights for the first time in a four-day game, has received a mixed response with players saying that it was not very difficult to see but some viewers outside the field faced problems to spot the ball from a distance. Michael di Venuto and Kyle Coetzer saw the pink ball brilliantly on Monday. The Durham pair both hit tons for the county champions against MCC, the traditional curtain raiser to the season. The ball is being tested as part of a bid to eventually play the five-day Test format under lights to make the game more popular. The game started on Monday at 2.30 pm local time and the ball became a deep reddish hue by the time the lights came on. Durham finished on 3-329 in 96 overs, with Michael di Venuto making 131 and Kyle Coetzer 123 not out. Di Venuto said the colouring was fine but there were "more concerns with the seam". The players wore whites and the sightscreens were also the usual white during the game, The Sun reports. ICC president David Morgan said Tests will be played under lights by 2012 although plans to have a night-time Test against Bangladesh this summer were scrapped. Gloucestershire swing bowler Jon Lewis sent down the historic first delivery with the pink ball.