Imperfect light

Once again, after the first 4 days of the 2nd Test of South Africa v Australia all saw the players leave the field due to imperfect light, the first day of the Australia v New Zealand series began with the players coming off in imperfect light. Not bad light, but imperfect light. Michael Clarke was arguing to stay on despite New Zealand having two set batsmen at the crease.

The final day of the South Africa match was completed because there was a result on the cards so clearly the conditions weren't dangerous or the umpires would have had no option but to take the players off again? So point 1 on my list to better market Championship and Test cricket is to take the players off only when it's dangerous. It should be a once a season occurrence rather than near daily....

Thrilling Test cricket

I'm not necessarily suggesting the standard of the cricket was that high, although I don't think it was bad, but the South Africa v Australia 2nd Test at The Wanderers was a classic. Patrick Cummins, an 18 year-old on debut for Australia, must be pinching himself after taking 6 for in South Africa's 2nd innings and then clinching the win with a crucial nerveless 13 not out off 15 balls.

This match comes off the back of a quickfire 1st Test where South Africa suffered the ignominy of being bowled out for 96, only to then bowl out Australia for less than half that (even allowing them a final wicket partnership of 26) and winning by 8 wickets.

And outside of this series the recent Zimbabwe v New Zealand match where Zimbabwe threatened a fantastic win on the final day before falling 34 runs short was another thriller.

So great games but still a small audience at the ground at today's final day in South Africa....one to consider. Simon Hughes has recently pondered how to support Test cricket to ensure it's place at the top of the cricketing pile. Hughes mentions bad light as an issue, and that should be point 1 on any agenda to increase the crowds at Tests. Having come off early for bad light every day of the match (despite floodlights being available), the umpires were left in a tricky situation today because the Test was reaching a thrilling conclusion, so the game was completed in darker conditions then they'd come off in on previous days (according the commentators). So clearly conditions weren't dangerous to the players then, or they would have had to come off no matter what the match situation was?

Let's start with the basic step of getting the light issue right and go from there....the matches are certainly offering great entertainment for those that watch them on TV or at the ground.

Dangerous bad light yesterday?

Sri Lanka observe Vaas heroics

In the lead up to the 1st Test, I said that Sri Lanka should be a tough test given that they have a class batting line up. I can't see players like Sangakkara and Jayawardene missing out again at Lords and Jayawardene especially has a great record there. So England can expect to have to work much harder in the field than in Cardiff. When batting they'll be up against a similar low profile Sri Lankan bowling attack and Sri Lankan's must have had a rueful smile on their faces when they saw Chaminda Vaas' heroics earlier in the week for Northants.

Apparently Finn has been bowling well for Middlesex according to John Emburey, but I find it hard to look past the time I watched Luke Wright take him apart at Hove on a bowler-friendly wicket earlier in the year - I worried for his international future that day, and 3 back of a length-bowlers with no Bopara/Collingwood style back up worries me. It'll be interesting to see how England go if, as expected, they play the tallest ever Test bowling line up.

The great news is that the weather looks set fair and spectators shouldn't have to put up with the usual bad light issues....looking forward to it. Without having seen the wicket, I predict a draw!

Any chance of a result?

After an excellent batting display on day 4, it would seem that of the two sides England are now the more likely to push for victory on day 5. But whether either side can even get close seems unlikely if the wicket plays as it has done over the last 2 days. There's still the (hopefully small) chance that England will suffer a collapse and Australia will be able to to set up a run chase from mid-afternoon. But with a lead of 88 overnight England may well be looking to get to a lead of 250+ and then give Australia a tough few overs before the tea interval.

Annoyingly, the idiotic bad light laws mean that any chance of a sensational win for either side has been reduced as the match is running 17 overs behind. Despite starting half an hour early, it's got to be odds on that the umpires will want to take the players off early at the end of the day. If either side pulls off a victory then it really will be a sensational one, beating the Adelaide Test in the last Ashes tour....

Bad light makes me seeth

The umpires got out of jail when it rained shortly after they took the players off for "bad" light at the Gabba. Would it have been considered bad light in a Twenty20? Of course not, because it wasn't *really* dangerous for the batsmen or fielders. And as I've Burbled before conditions are either dangerous or they aren't - it shouldn't matter what format of the game is being played.

I would suggest that if the umpires can't get this right, the responsibility for addressing bad light should be moved to the ICC referee.

[Definition of "dangerous" in the legal dictionary is apparently "creating a risk of bodily injury", but injuries are part of sport so I'd suggest that in this context it should be interpreted as "creating a risk of death"?]

Sussex secure vital win in near darkness

Sussex needed to win to stay in the hunt in the Pro40 competition and so against all the odds they found a way to play on Sunday against Somerset, winning a D/L match that was meant to be Twenty20 but ended up as 20/15. One of my co-spectators at the Oval on Friday was there and described the conditions as the worst he'd ever seen cricket played in, with the light incomparably worse to the Oval. But it being a one-day game - and a County game rather than an international - the conditions were not considered to be dangerous.

As some of the reports on the game elsewhere have said, good on the players and officials for playing the match.

Save Test matches!

We have discussed the craziness of the players going off in decent light before on Cricket Burble, but it happened again yesterday and I can't help thinking it's absolutely vital now - for the successful future of the game - that something is done about it. Yesterday I was at the Oval and the light was decent all day, but there was cloud cover at all times. Mid-way through the afternoon the umpires asked for the lights to be put on.

The light hadn't changed to the naked eye - in fact it seemed better than earlier in the day - when the players were taken off after 73 overs in the day. The match situation was interesting to say the least - a game that looked like going into day 5 at tea was suddenly threatening to be cut very short by England's collapse so the authorities were looking at the prospect of having to repay some of the ticket price to the sell out day 4 crowd on Saturday if the match finished quickly.

The only explanation for the players being taken off is money - there is no doubt in my mind about that. The light was definitely not dangerous for cricket. The only explanation for the fact that players are taken off in Tests, and yet the same conditions aren't considered dangerous in one dayers or Twenty20s, is that spectators have already paid their money when the game is contained to one day, and there's no benefit to stalling the game for the authorities.

Nasser Hussain summed things up nicely on Sky when the umpires first discussed the light a few minutes before they took the players off. Talking to Michael Atherton, he said "You are joking Michael, this is rediculous, they can't be chatting about light surely?" Need I say more? I hope whoever pressured the umpires to come off to ensure more money in the coffers had trouble sleeping last night but somehow I doubt it - he or she probably thinks they did a brilliant thing as money is the only thing that counts it seems.

But the future of Test matches is at stake. I haven't been to a Test for a few years because of the bad light issue, and it happened again when I went back to try again. Why should people like me keep returning? Perhaps a campaign is required?

SAVE TEST MATCHES! Play in the same standards of light in all 3 formats of cricket - it's either dangerous or it isn't!

Bad light ends day early....again

Sadly the England batsmen accepted the offer to go off for bad light in non-dangerous circumstances. I won't bang on about the craziness of the bad light law given the huge amount of protective gear now worn by batsmen. But I'm pleased I didn't go up to Old Trafford - a ground that I've never been to - despite not working today! I did give it some consideration but this sort of thing means that I, and people like me, will continue to stay at home....I'm not sure how that can be helpful in the attempts to boost Test cricket.

On another note, why is Nasser obsessed with calling Ian Botham "Sir Ian" - surely he can just call him Ian or Both?!?

No details on umpiring referrals

Yes, the ICC have said that referrals will be rolled out from October, but there is no detail given as to how they're going to do this so I'm worried. Will they, like last time, not allow the video umpire to see where technology suggests the ball will go on to after hitting the pad for LBWs? Will they in fact allow the video umpire to see and hear everything that TV viewers get to see and hear?

Until the details are known, I'm fearful that it will be another botched rollout. But the good news is that umpires will only take the players off the field if it's dangerous and the players will have no say (although I'm quite sure the team struggling in the match will be whining). That should be a great change, so it will be up to the umpires to ensure that they take the players off only when it's truly dangerous, remembering that these days they wear a helmet, chest protector, forearm guard, etc, etc.

Dangerously bad light?

It has been argued before on Cricket Burble that the amount of protective equipment available to the modern batsman means that they are never truly in danger in the way that the batsman were in pre-helmet days. And that is what makes the regular stopping of play for bad light such a farce.

As many observers have pointed out after West Indies chose to go off for bad light yesterday because they mistakenly thought they were winning on the D/L method, what does it matter whether they were ahead or behind? The only reason for going off is the potential danger to the players, and that doesn't change based on the state of the match.

Perhaps this could actually be a blessing showing up the bad light law to be what it is - something that one side uses to gain tactical advantage. Bad light should be something to be endured like heavy cloud cover allowing the ball to swing. On that most club cricketers are agreed, having played through "bad" light most weeks for their careers. When will things be changed? Anyone's guess.

Observations from Lords

Having taken the day off work and spent the day at Lord's in the over-optimistic hope of a tense finish to the first test vs South Africa, only to witness a flat and anticlimactic day's play on a lifeless and benign Lord's pitch. Andrew Miller sums it up well on Cricinfo, but here are my burbles from the day, in no particular order...

- What on earth are the rules for an early finish to a draw-bound match?! The 'bad light' ruse after Amla had got his century was nonsense - I was applying suncream while the players were off the pitch! Clearly none of the players wanted to be there any more, but the way the match was concluded was something of a farce for the paying crowd.

- With Sidebottom, fielding at fine leg by us in the Tavern Stand, clearly in trainers for the final session and Anderson bowled into the ground, the third new ball was taken by Broad and...Collingwood. Which takes the tally of England new-ball bowlers this test to six (as the spinners Panesar and KP were used in failing light on day three). That must be some sort of record!

- Vaughan never stops tinkering as a captain. It clearly wasn't England's day in the field on an unhelpful pitch and against obdurate batting, but I don't think we saw the same field twice through the day. Unlike an indecisive club captain though, the changes - at times, every ball - were always in place before the bowler was back at his run-up.

- The number of overs Panesar bowled over the wicket was baffling. A disciplined McKensie played everything outside leg with his pad, and any chance of taking a wicket was essentially eliminated.

- It was impressive to watch Ambrose effortlessly standing up to the stumps off Sidebottom (though it probably reflected how lifeless the pitch was). Maybe he was trying to sell his keeping to the selectors after his dropped catch yesterday!

- Given that, to my mind, there are not currently any undroppables from or shoe-ins into the England pace attack from a pool of Anderson, Broad, Flintoff, Sidebottom, Jones and Hoggard, and given the three days' toil (and injury niggles) of the current attack, the selectors could do worse than rest a bowler or two for the next test starting on Friday. Given the current squad (today's XI plus Flintoff), this would probably entail Flintoff for Sidebottom (and require a fit Freddie!).

- The queueing system for getting into Lord's is bizarre. Much to the amusement of the American and the Canadian that I was taking for their first experience of cricket, we were first directed by stewards at the East Gate to head over to the North Gate for the queue. After about half an hour of this queue, we reached the front, and were sent...round the block again to join another 15 minute queue back where we started!

Law 43

Well, how stupid was the one day game yesterday?

The match was regulated, like all others, by regulations and what do they say "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools". There was an awful lot of bad weather but surely it is better to get a result if at all possible.

Rightly or wrongly I am a great supporter of Law 43 and you will not find it in the law book! It is the one that should state that common sense should prevail if both captains and the umpires agree. I have used it this season when we have shortened the tea interval because we were worried about the weather and surely this is the right thing to do?

The intention must always be to play cricket because this is what cricket is all about.

Lighten up Bucknor!

Yes, I know it's not Steve Bucknor's fault that there are some idiotic laws in place covering bad light, but it was hard not to hate him yesterday as he kept waving around his lightmeter. Let's remember it's meant to be about the safety of the players (allegedly) - when Vettori has just hit Anderson for 12 off an over I think we can "safely" say that he's feeling pretty safe! With all the advances in protective equipment I think it would be quite difficult to argue that they are ever unsafe - exactly the argument that Mark Davis made last year.

Up and down the country today club cricketers will be playing in far worse light than there was at Lords on Thursday and Friday, and that is far more risky. The bowling may be slower but equally that batsman's reactions are slower, and there is no first aid on hand in case of injury. If the cricketing authorities are really worried about player safety then they'd have to tackle play where emergency services aren't available first. But they aren't really worried about safety at all really are they? Is it too cynical to suggest that once they have got past their 25 over threshold for spectators not getting any money back, they are quite keen to go off? Both against West Indies last year and against New Zealand this year, bad light could be used as an excuse to ensure there is 5 days play and the money rolls in.

That sort of view will undoubtedly see the death of sell out crowds for Tests, with Twenty20 taking over, so something needs to be done. But having said that, I wonder if Twenty20 will actually become a saviour of Test matches if the authorities don't use common sense first (which evidence suggests they won't) - if grounds require floodlights for day/night matches then these can be used for Tests too. Of course, we'd probably be told that it was the wrong sort of light!

Fortunately, to save this post becoming rediculously long, Cricinfo have already written much of what I wanted to. You can read their thoughts here. I'm personally coming round to the view that there should be no bad light law at all - the only possible reason for coming off is if the spectators (who over the last 2 days paid far more than £1 an over) can't see the middle.

Ba humbug.

Day/Night Games

Whilst watching the Twenty20 game between Yorkshire and Sussex the other night, it occured to me that there may be a distinct advantage to bat first as conditions appear to be much easier for the side batting first in natural light and this applies equally to Pro40 games.

I have no idea of the statistics to support this opinion but it seems that it is considerably more difficult to bat as conditions change from sunlight (if we can remember that!) to twilight and then full-on floodlights. I appreciate that the odd catch gets dropped when it may well have been caught in daylight but this seems to be outweighed by the number of dismissals that are light-related.

Is there a case for some sort of formula along the lines of Duckworth-Lewis based on the relative quality of light for each side to compensate for the advantage of winning the toss and batting? And, does the side winning the toss always choose to bat in day/night games?

How dangerous is bad light?

Well quite reasonably we don't play cricket in the dark and the Laws of Cricket instruct umpires to suspend play when there is 'an obvious or foreseeable danger to any player or umpire' and that's fair enough.

But batsmen's protection is now so good that it would need to be pretty dark before they were in any serious danger and one wonders whether this improvement in protection is taken into account. Play at Lord's was suspended yesterday twice when certainly they'd have played Twenty 20 or we'd have played club cricket so are these forms of cricket intrinsically less dangerous than Test cricket? Cynically you might also wonder whether they'd have played if a certain number of overs were needed to be played in order to prevent refunds having to be paid to spectators.

Graham Thorpe had the interesting comment when he saw England home in the gloom not that long ago. ' Have you ever played cricket in such dark conditions before ?' he was asked. 'of course I have, I've played club cricket'.

So they've gone off for bad light , the umpires have had another look and reckon it's improved and what do they do? 'We'll restart in ten minutes' - why not immediately if the covers are not over the pitch?

Just an aside - the ball before the umpires took the players off for the first time Kevin Pietersen wafted and missed at a short one - brilliant!

Monsoon

There's a lot of criticism around for the Bangladesh Board as they decided to schedule a Test Series during the monsoon season there. It does seem like common sense that the series against India would have been better placed in the dry season but it's not anything to get too het up about.

With the draw already favourite overnight, Paul Allott and John Emburey have just been trying to convince themselves on Sky that there could still be a result despite a rescheduled start of 2pm on the final day and India requiring 12 wickets, not to mention the fact that they'll have to get some quick runs having finished of the Bangladesh 1st innings!

It will be a boring draw like England v West Indies and if games are to be played at times of the season that used to be considered unsuitable, we'd better get used to this as spectators - especially given the prevailing attitude from the umpires where they consider slightly imperfect light to be dangerous.

I can only see two possible solutions:
1. Using a 6th day if necessary much like some ODIs have a spare day that can be used if weather intervenes
2. In a decade or two we could see cricket stadiums with roofs that can come over in the case of bad weather - I don't like that idea much given how much the atmosphere changes how much the ball swings etc so a 6th spare day it is!

Lords

I presume from the post I left on Friday morning that no-one could think that I don't love going to Lords - of course I do. I'm sure everyone else does as well or otherwise it wouldn't be so hard to get a ticket. But there's always some moaning from people around me and I can't help a lot of that could be easily stopped with a bit of extra thought from the cricketing authorities. Here's just a few examples:

Getting into the ground:

There is clearly a problem getting spectators into all sports grounds - cricket is not alone - and the tightening of security due to an increased threat of terrorism lately makes things worse. But I can't help feeling that the problems could largely be avoided. By that I don't mean that there should be no security checks as some whiners around me in the queue seemed to be suggesting....far from it. I think my exact words to them were "I'd rather queue up for a while than die from a bomb". But there could be a few other things that would help.

The time that people arrive is clearly a big issue. All the moaners around me were struggling to get into the ground at 5 to 11, desperate to catch the first over. One guy even fell over and injured himself as he tried to break into a run to catch the first ball. But there was no-one else to blame but himself as he'd left it so late to get into the ground. The same was true for all those around me having a whinge (and me which is why I wasn't complaining!). It's common sense that spectators should get there early so that they aren't under time pressure if they want to see the first ball. The ground authorities could help with this by putting on entertainment of any variety before the game. Imagine the TMS team taking questions from the crowd between 9:45 and 10:30 from the centre of the pitch etc etc. With a little thought, the authorities could make it more enticing to arrive at the match early. Free bacon roll before 10 anyone?

Alcohol

The grounds want to make as much money as possible, that's common sense and I don't blame them. They do this by restricting the amount of alcohol you can take in, or not letting you take any in at all. Then they charge premium prices to buy alcohol you could have brought with you. We feel hard done by, because we always used to be allowed to bring in as much alcohol as we wanted. But that's not really the main concern. The concern is that there are a couple of idiotic rules that serve no purpose other than to frustrate the paying customer.

Buying 4 beers at a time or one bottle. Why, oh why? Does it reduce the number of people getting drunk? No. Does it create longer queues at the bar? Yes. If common sense was used and any number of cans were allowed the result would be less draught beer being sold as it's impossible to carry many pints. But, 12 or 16 cans can easily be carried by stacking 4 packs on top of each other. Net result: less time at the bar waiting for drinks to be poured, maybe even less bar staff required, customers who can watch more of the game, far less drinks spilt over others as people try to carry four pints back to their friends.

Opening cans at the bar? Some staff do and some don't but I gather there is some legal requirement to do that. Surely that can be got round?

Returning to your seats with you beers is often comical. Clearly your hands are full. You've sat in your seat for a bit before going to get beers so it's not like you don't know where you are going. But the ticket guy always needs to see your ticket. I found myself having to ask the guy to pull out the bottle of mineral water in the inside pocket of my jacket and then find my ticket, which he did and I was then allowed through to my seat. It doesn't bear thinking about what could have happened if I had my ticket in my trouser pocket! Let's see - an alternative ticketing system that involved wearing a band around your wrist once you are in. That should solve that one.

Had a great day at the cricket and fancy a last round of drinks before the close. If that's ever been your thought process you'll know that the bars are shut at this point. How is this sensible? The authorities have shown some commercial nouse by reducing the amount of alcohol people bring in so that you can make the money instead of supermarkets and off-licences outside the ground. So why alter that view later in the day? The sensible thing to do would actually be to encourage drinking towards the end of the day because people will then mill around a lot longer after the game, rather than all 28,500 people trying to get through the exits at the same time. A lot of spectators hit the local pubs to discuss the day's play - I can't help feeling that grounds are missing something here - why not take a share of that post match drinking revenue and help crowd control as everyone tries to leave after the match in the process?

Bad Light

This is increasingly becoming rediculous and a serious problem given that spectators have paid £60 for their entertainment. On Thursday morning the umpires were quite happy playing in what is sometimes considered bad light, but in the final session of the day on Friday they seemed desperate to get the players off, despite the fact that England wanted to carry on. Sarwan was grinning from ear to ear. The cynics around me suggested that umpires never worry about bad light until 25 overs are played and spectators therefore can't claim their money back. The more the players come off for bad light, of course, the more a one-sided match can be extended to the 5th day to ensure the authorities coffers are filled to the maximum.

Here's an idea. Bad light is part of the game. When you elect what you would like to do having won the toss you must consider the chances of bad light. On Thursday, for example, with cloud everywhere it was always going to get pretty dark later in the day, so Sarwan could chose to bowl with the advantages that come from bowling in slightly darker light (or is it all physchological - after all there's a huge sightscreen to help the batsman?), but also knowing that his fielders will find it tough given poor sighting conditions. Come 6pm, the umpires can take the players off if they consider the light poor, but only after 6pm.

As someone that loves going to the cricket I'm a little concerned that these things need to be considered now rather than in a few years time. After all, if I can sit at home with a group of friends bantering in the same way as we do in the crowd, but it takes 30 seconds to get beers from the fridge, rather than 20 minutes in a queue, and we have access to all the replays such as Hawkeye and Hot Spot, won't there come a time when even people like me think that it's easier and cheaper to watch at home, but without the cost?