Cricket question - Bad light, test vs odi

M

Maelly

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
5
Location
Pretoria Mahlanyeng
Why do Test matches frequently get stopped due to bad light but thus hardly ever happens in ODIs especially DayNight ones?
Thanks
 
Bad light for a day/night game?

Would playing test cricket under lights involve more than changing the colour of the ball?
 
Test cricket = red ball, which is not easy to see under floodlights.

MCC have been experimenting with a pink ball.
 
It would also make for a very long day's play.
 
One change they are looking at is to use black stitching so as to make it easier for the batsman to see the rotation on the ball.

82091.2.jpg
 
Actually seen an odi decided by duckworth/lewis because of a bad light between india and pakistan. The ground didn't have lights and it got too dark even for the white ball with 5 overs to go.

I really wish they would solve this issue. Along with slow over rates its one of my biggest gripes with the way the game is run, leaving aside udrs which is only an issue when playing india...
 
stefan9 said:
Actually seen an odi decided by duckworth/lewis because of a bad light between india and pakistan. The ground didn't have lights and it got too dark even for the white ball with 5 overs to go.
Click to expand...

Same problem in the West Indies before the 2007 CWC.
 
It is rediculous that test matches gets stopped for light basically every day before 4 pm in Durban, effectively losing 2 sessions to a day in the whole test due to bad light.
At newlands, they stopped play at around 2:20pm because of bad light, but started play again about 20 minutes later. Straight away the batsmen scored boundaries right around the ground, without obvious improvement in the light....so how can you justify going off for bad light then? They eventually played on till 7pm on sunday. What baffles me is how it is possible that it can be too dark at 2pm for tests, but it is fine enough for teams to SELECT to bat first in a day-nighter and bat right through the twillight zone into night time, against pace bowling. I think what happened was that the ICC had to get some standard for light quality, and hence started using the light meter. I think the reading for bad light needs to be reviewed, because at the end of the day if the reading reads more/(less) than the allowed limit, the umpires HAVE to offer the light to the batsmen, rather than them asking for the light because they really can't see the ball. More often than not it is not a case of the batsmen actually struggling to see the ball, but rather a case of wanting to get off the field and survive the day or being offered the light by the umpires.

Another interesting point someone made was this: Losing the toss and having to bat first in overcast conditions with a green lively pitch, is considered part of the game and the luck of the draw.....no one complains and certainly the umpire does not offer the batsmen the choice to stop play because of a swinging ball and bouncing wicket. So why then does the batsman or batting team that may be batting second in that same test, be offered the light when they too have difficult batting conditions?
 
They should scrap test matches and only 20/20 games and 50 over ODI games...

Test matches are long, drawn out boring games... the other 2 are quick and fun and full of drama! :)
 
gdiza said:
They should scrap test matches and only 20/20 games and 50 over ODI games...

Test matches are long, drawn out boring games... the other 2 are quick and fun and full of drama! :)
Click to expand...

I also felt like that a while back but some of the test matches have been fairly epic actually. They must drop the 50 over game. 50 over games can be worse than 5 day games actually. I would love to see the back of the 50 over game. It seems a bit too long but 20/20 seems a bit too short :D. 40 over sounds like a good middle ground.

This whole light thing is just rubbish, play!!! if it's dark well that is unlucky. Sometimes cricket is too gentleman like.
 
Stefanmuller said:
What baffles me is how it is possible that it can be too dark at 2pm for tests, but it is fine enough for teams to SELECT to bat first in a day-nighter and bat right through the twillight zone into night time, against pace bowling.
Click to expand...
as has been stated - red ball v white ball

Another interesting point someone made was this: Losing the toss and having to bat first in overcast conditions with a green lively pitch, is considered part of the game and the luck of the draw.....no one complains and certainly the umpire does not offer the batsmen the choice to stop play because of a swinging ball and bouncing wicket. So why then does the batsman or batting team that may be batting second in that same test, be offered the light when they too have difficult batting conditions?
Click to expand...

not the same thing at all. one is the ball moving through the air around unpredictably due to conditions. the other is not being able to see the ball. the latter is dangerous.
 
milomak said:
as has been stated - red ball v white ball

not the same thing at all. one is the ball moving through the air around unpredictably due to conditions. the other is not being able to see the ball. the latter is dangerous.
Click to expand...
Quite correct. Also white ball against black sightscreen at dusk is better than red ball on white sightscreen at dusk.
 
Thanks guys, quite sensible comments all round. It seems that something urgent needs to be done by the ICC cause I feel for the fans at the stadia who will be told that the game has been stopped due to bad light 3+ hrs before the end of the day.

Otherwise, lets not argue about a Test game, this is after all the ultimate when it comes to cricket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X