Could day/night tests become a reality?

Today it was announced that Lord’s had taken steps towards arranging for floodlit tests from 2010. This is in response to a discussion which has been going on over the past year as to whether holding day/night tests would be viable. It was first put forward forcefully by Cricket Australia, whose reasoning is that test cricket is losing its crowds, and that one of the best ways to win back its popularity is to give it a slot in primetime. Not only could this allow people to finish work, dash off to the ground and still see two full sessions, but it will also, or so Cricket Australia claim, quadruple the viewing figures for test cricket. In several ways, these arguments do seem sound. The almost incredible rise of twenty 20 cricket means that although many purist fans of the highest form of the game still abound, the younger generation are being attracted steadily more to the shorter form. Given that the number of day/night one day internationals is rising all the time, why shouldn’t there be day/night tests as well? In addition, bad light, one of the more irritating causes of breaks in play, would no longer be an issue.

There are however, several problems. The first is that a suitable ball needs to be found. The red ball can’t be used under lights due to lack of visibility, and the white ball, which is used in one day internationals, can’t be used along with the white test clothing, and gets scuffed and brown after forty overs, half the number required for tests. In the 1990s Australia trialled yellow and orange balls for Sheffield shield matches under lights, but batsmen complained both were hard to see. Pink balls are currently being tested in England, with so far successful results, though one problem is that the seam is less pronounced. It seems that the only solution may come when a white ball is developed that can last 80 overs, but even then this would necessitate moving to coloured clothing for tests, something that many purists would find horrifying.

However, even providing a suitable ball can be found, there remains the fact that the idea would simply never work in several countries. On the subcontinent, the huge amount of dew would make spinners effectively redundant after 7 pm. In South Africa, the ball behaves completely differently under lights, and in England it may be simply cold for spectators after sunset. There are then, several major issues that need to be addressed before such a scheme can even be considered, and in the eyes of many fans, the sacrifices may be too great.

Kaka’s integrity a relief, but threat of money still looms

To all fans of football as we know it, Kaka’s decision to remain at AC Milan must have brought a huge sigh of relief. Manchester City’s record offer of £107 million must have been tempting for Milan, given their current plans for a new stadium, but their decision to stand firm can only be praised.

Kaka’s decision however, may not have been as tough as some have suggested. Make no mistake about it, if he had accepted Manchester City’s millions, his career as a serious footballer would have been over. Even with him in their team, there would still have remained the strong possibility of Man City being relegated, and it does not take much to imagine the farcical nature of a player of the stature of Kaka stepping out onto the pitches of clubs like Doncaster Rovers or Barnsley next season.

But it would not just have been Kaka, but rather football as a whole, whose credibility would have suffered had the deal gone through. AC Milan’s stance represents a commendable stand against the rise of billionaires whose interest is not to see football flourish, but themselves. It indicates that, for the moment at least, football can’t be bought. Although such a thing could be considered to have happened at Chelsea, they were at least a title challenging team to start with, and in any case, much of their early success under Abramovich can be put down to the brilliance of Jose Mourinho, given how his successors have struggled with identical resources.

However, despite recent events, the very fact that such obscene sums can be seemingly casually offered, and that a move by Kaka to Man City was ever a possibility reinforces the serious nature of the threat posed by the Abu Dhabi consortium. Arsenal’s pursuit of Andrei Arshavin, which only yesterday was looking almost certain to succeed, could now be derailed now that Man City have turned their eye towards him. There can be little doubt that Arshavin would prefer to be at Arsenal, a team with whom he is far more likely to taste success, but the sad thing is that the decision may well be out of his hands. Football fans across the globe will be hoping that over the coming years, they are not about to witness the demise of “real” football.

After a turbulent week for English cricket, have we finally got the right man for the job?

By Laurie Brock

It seems highly unlikely that anyone, pundit, professional or devoted cricket fan, could have predicted the events of the last week. Much of the affair surrounding Pietersen and Moores’ co-departure is still shrouded in mystery, but what is clear is that Andrew Strauss has got his hands full if he is to prepare the England Squad successfully for their tour of the West Indies. It is difficult to know how to view Pietersen over his departure.

On the one hand there will be those who will feel that he was right to press forward the right of the team captain to have a considerable say in team selection, and that his demands to the ECB represented not an ultimatum, but a bold stand against the influence of the corporate classes. However, there will also be those who will simply cite this as another example from a long sheet of Pietersen’s petulance. Having already walked out on South Africa, admittedly for seemingly noble reasons, and then Nottinghamshire just prior to their relegation, England might seem to many to be the next step on the ladder.

And there can be no doubt that, even if Pietersen’s motives were righteous, and not merely an attempt to pass the buck for England’s poor performance in India onto Peter Moores, he has nevertheless, by some of his actions, displayed astonishing naivety. First, it seems absurd for a man to issue an ultimatum to the ECB from a beach in South Africa, apparently assuming that his word would go unquestioned. Second, his misjudgement of the level of support he had amongst the England team in his power struggle against Moores, which was the deciding factor in his departure, if not simple naivety, smacks of pure arrogance.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen how tough it will be for Pietersen, assuming he returns to the team, to sit in the dressing room knowing that at least half of the team, and probably more, didn’t want him as captain. Even for someone as self assured as him, that will not be easy.
Moving on from Pietersen, the main question is whether Strauss can fill the gap. In my view, there is no doubt that he can, and indeed if anything this appointment has come two years too late. After his successes as captain against Pakistan in the summer of 2006, the decision to appoint Flintoff ahead of him for the Ashes down under seemed then, just as it does now, nonsensical. Indeed, not only did the England team suceeed under Strauss, but his personal performances also improved, with two centuries in the Pakistan series after a barren patch against Sri Lanka earlier in the summer. Given the emphasis placed nowadays on how such an appointment affects a player’s performance, this fact cannot be excluded.

There will of course be those who will say that Strauss is too “mild” to lead England in a series as highly charged as the Ashes next summer. But the important thing for a captain is to remain calm in such situations, and indeed giving the captaincy to a man of level temperament leaves the more flamboyant and fiery members of the team, particularly Flintoff and Pietersen, to concentrate on their own games. Even if he had held a longer tenure, Pietersen would never have been far from controversy, and although his ebullient nature might have set up some stunning victories, one can’t help feeling that with Strauss at the helm, England are in safer hands.

PIETERSEN'S SELECTIONS LOOK GOOD, BUT IT'S TIME TO LAUNCH BROAD TO 6

On paper, yesterday’s England team selection for the fourth and final test against South Africa at the Oval appears nonsensical. After the debacle that was Pattinson at Headingley, and the seemingly crazy gamble of Collingwood at Edgbaston, surely the time was right for England to opt for someone in form, Ravi Bopara, to aid a batting line up that has looked fragile in the extreme in recent times.


Recent first innings scores of 203 and 231, the latter in what can only be described as perfect batting conditions, indicates that it is England’s batting which is letting them down, and that it is that same line up which therefore needs strengthening. Thus the selection of both Harmison and Broad, giving England five bowlers, seems strange. However, all is not as it seems. Although England can be seen to have been one appeal away from winning the last test, (where Graeme Smith clearly gloved Panesar to short leg while on 86), the fact is that once either injury or fatigue removed Sidebottom from the attack in the second innings, England looked desperately short of options. While Panesar wheeled away from one end, Flintoff and Anderson had no choice but to operate by themselves in tandem from the other, and by 3 o’clock Flintoff looked exhausted. A bowler like him works best when allowed to operate in short bursts, but England’s short staffed bowling line up meant that in time his bowling was robbed, through tiredness of all its pace and hostility. Furthermore, South Africa’s 522 in their first innings at Headingley, following up 393-3 in their second innings at Lord’s, indicates that England’s bowling too is flawed, and five bowlers are definitely required as a minimum.

This does seem to leave England’s batting desperately thin. However, this is not the case for England’s five bowler line up as much as it might be for others, for one reason. England have not one, but two all rounders. While Flintoff was in woeful form with the bat, he has recently looked to have re discovered some form, though doubts do remain about his ability against spin. It is Stuart Broad’s batting however, which has been a revelation. It has not just been his recent scores which have made an impact, 76 and 67 not out against South Africa, to follow up two other fifties late on in the series against New Zealand, but more the manner of them. These innings contained none of the slogs which typically dominate a batsman’s innings when either his team are in a dominant position (Lord’s) or a hopeless one (Headingley) but rather were made up of a combination of straight bat back foot drives and sweet timing off the legs. These were the shots of a proper batsman and moreover one who appears to be improving with every game. With this is mind then, the unnerving presence of Ian Bell at three and Paul Collingwood at 5 should be alleviated by England’s strength in depth. The only real issue is that Broad, despite his obvious ability is currently set to bat at 8, which is at least one, if not two places too low. Tim Ambrose is clearly struggling with the rigours of test cricket, with South Africa’s bowlers not dishing up the short and wide balls which feed what is in reality his only shot, the square cut. He averaged just 2.5 in five innings in the one day series against New Zealand and his most recent innings of 19 off 100 balls was a tortured affair and one far more resembling that of a tail ender, though admittedly one with a solid defence, trying to hold up an end than of a proper wicketkeeper/batsman.

There can be no doubt that Broad is a far better batsman, and indeed it is hard to see why he should not bat ahead of Flintoff, who is clearly more useful at 7, where his immense power can come in useful with the tail. Flintoff’s batting is nowhere near where it was in 2005, where the no. 6 slot was appropriate, and Broad, in the form he is in would do better to fill that position and be given a chance to bat with the proper batsmen and prove his worth, rather than being cruelly stranded three quarters of the way to a hundred, as he was at Headingley.

In terms of the personnel then, England’s selection is in fact justified, and Harmison in particular is a good choice given that fast aggressive bowling and bounce have proved more useful in unsettling the South African top order, as Flintoff showed in the last test with his four top order wickets, than has swing bowling, which, in the absence of Hoggard, England have somewhat lost the knack of. However, with few batsmen to play with, England can surely ill afford to have a player who is top of England’s batting averages, with 80, and who has scored 160 runs behind only Cook Bell and Pietersen, who have all played a match more in the series, languishing at no.8.