NEWS
GROUNDS
COLUMNS
MATCH REPORTS
INTERVIEWS
ENEMY CAMP
GALLERY
SCHEDULE
FORUM

Play until dark

Rain. An anathema for cricket fans and players alike. There was enough of it at the Melbourne Cricket Ground yesterday to delay the start of the second Test by three hours. Combined with bad light, which truncated play by 22 overs, it made for the loss of nearly half a day's cricket. And not just any day of Test cricket. This was Boxing Day, the biggest day on the Australian cricket calendar, when tens of thousands of fans traditionally flock to the MCG to witness what should be a great spectacle.

Today wasn’t really like that. Not that the cricket, when it was played, wasn’t competitive. The action, what there was of it, was entertaining. All 48 overs of it. That’s not even half a one-day game, the disgruntled fans might say. They are right. And it was quite different from a one-day game in another way, too: The lights were not utilised when it got dark.

Play was stopped at approximately 5:45 pm local time when Michael Slater and Steve Waugh, reasonably enough, accepted the offer to stop because of bad light. This is always a source of displeasure for opposing fans of the consenting batting side and all the spectators at the ground. Bad light? Be serious.

The offer is made, apparently, when the atmosphere becomes too dim and there is a chance of physical danger to the batsman. Real cricket fans don’t want to see the players hurt so this frustrating aspect of the game is grudgingly accepted. Or it would be, if there were no other option.

But there is. The MCG, like four of the other five major Australian cricket centres, is equipped with light towers of international standard. On the surface, it would seem a matter of course to simply switch them on and keep playing. But India, in its wisdom, decided before the series not to agree to the provision to make use of the lights, should they be required. It is a perplexing stance to take.

Unfortunately, it is not yet mandatory for lights to be used during Test matches when and if they are required. Yes, a large percentage of Test venues around the world do not have light towers, so this wouldn’t be a uniform condition. By why refuse to make use of what is available? The ICC is yet to legislate for the compulsory use of lights to improve playing conditions and indeed keep the match going when they are available. Fortunately, they are soon to examine this issue.

For now, the use of lights has to be agreed upon by both teams prior to the series. Last season, England also refused this recourse, citing the ludicrous reason that they did not have experience playing under lights in a Test match and so were unwilling to try it. It should not have to be pointed out that they will never gain that experience if they never agree to it in the first place.

Pakistan, the first touring side this summer, made a pro-active decision and agreed to the lights. They were used in Brisbane during the first Test, although Wasim Akram was unhappy with it at the time because his fielders apparently had trouble seeing the ball. India, though, were not willing to take this positive step but thankfully did not use England’s bizarre excuse. The Indian management, quite justly, said they will consent to playing Test cricket under lights when all ICC countries agree to it.

It should be noted that we’re not talking about playing well into the night like a day/night one-day game. This issue is simply about continuing play during scheduled hours of play when it has ordinarily become too dark to continue. There would have been a considerable amount of overtime today because of the rain, granted – and soon even that won’t be a problem in some cases, as Australia and South Africa will play the first international cricket match under a roof in August 2000 – but India’s slow over rate did not help matters, either, which is another issue altogether.

Presumably, when India rejected the idea of switching on the light towers – a decision, one assumes, taken by either the BCCI, team management, or both – it was done out of concern for India’s cricket fortunes. They would not have wanted to be caught in a completely unfamiliar situation, batting against the red ball under floodlights with the risk of losing a plethora of wickets because the batsmen were simply unused to it. That would have been embarrassing, even though if such a collapse did occur, it would in all probability be coincidental.

The refusal must have been a safety-first measure in a series they did not want to lose, which is understandable. In a way, it makes sense. They didn’t want to be playing in conditions under which they had no experience.

However, there are several things wrong with that way of thinking. First among those is that it has to happen eventually and just like England, they won’t know what it is like until they try it. In the 1997-’98 season, when this provision first came into play in the series between Australia and New Zealand, those two teams had not played in white clothes using a red ball under artificial lighting before, either. Now they have and Australia, in its positive manner, has since always agreed to the condition.

Another reason it fails to makes sense to remain in the dark is that yes, even though it is a red ball seen against a white sightscreen, it is not terribly different to day/night one-day cricket and with the surfeit of one-dayers played now, all sides are experienced in those conditions. Teams used to be wary of batting second under lights, but now several sides actually decide to chase.

Another counter argument is that in wanting to avoid the perceived risk of batting in the dark and thus contributing to a loss, India is limiting its options of winning equally as much. And so it was today. Australia, batting in the murk at 3/138, accepted the offer of bad light. Had the light towers been an available resource, India would have kept them out there, late in the day, with the match evenly poised in its early stages. Who is to say whether India might have seized a flurry of wickets if the Australians failed to adjust?

Steve Waugh, who said he was very pleased with Australia’s position and that they would have to battle through on this sort of wicket, also said on ABC radio that it was disappointing India didn’t agree to use the lights.

The one complaint which has been made about Test cricket under lights, that it is difficult for the fielding side to see the red ball, should not have been a consideration. Any one who witnessed Anil Kumble’s extraordinary dropped catch off Greg Blewett would have to think that any artificial assistance could only improve the fielding after that sorry attempt.

Finally, and most importantly for the overall health of the game, Test cricket can’t afford to make a bad impression on such a large audience. The MCG is the second-largest cricket arena after Eden Gardens and Boxing Day is easily the most well-attended Test day in Australia. 49, 082 people turned out to see Australia vs India yesterday, and that figure could have been as high as 70, 000 were it not for the miserable weather. Last year, this day was entirely washed out when there would have been 90,000 people for an Ashes Test.

After patiently waiting three hours for play to commence, the spectators were deprived of 22 overs when it became too dark, with those huge light towers standing inactive. A hail of boos reigned down on the players when they walked off. It is reasonable to assume that of the 49,082 people in attendance, not all of them would have been ardent cricket fans who fully understood the reason why play could not continue. Maybe next year, looking back at today, some of them will decide to give the Test a miss. Maybe they will go to a one-day game instead, when the lights will be turned on and a result achieved.

Test cricket cannot risk disgruntling its patrons like this. Test cricket cannot risk losing fans. Test cricket cannot afford to give the general public the impression it is an anachronism, and that is why the ICC must make the use of lights compulsory as soon as possible.

Daniel Laidlaw