The future of Test cricket September 9, 2009

Bangladesh agree to day-night Test in England

Cricinfo staff
  shares 77

The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) has agreed to the ECB's request to appear in the first-ever day-night Test during the team's tour of England in May-June next year. However, the ICC has not yet cleared the idea and its approval will be subject to suitable equipment being developed for the purpose.

The idea was first proposed by the MCC during its World Cricket Committee meeting at Lord's in July as a way of making the game's longest and oldest format more appealing. The other proposals included the use of pink balls and a World Test Championship.

The ICC has made it clear that though the concept of day-night Tests was discussed by its cricket committee, no decision has been taken yet. "The ICC cricket committee had last year agreed in principle that the notion of day-night Tests should be investigated," an ICC spokesperson said. "For now, we are happy for members to try this at the domestic level first and if it proves successful, the cricket committee would consider recommending this on a trial basis at the Test level."

Apparently, there are a number of key issues related to the concept that are still being discussed: the colour of players clothing, whether the suggested pink balls retains its colour or needs to be changed frequently due to discolouration or wear and tear, to what extent would batting, bowling and fielding conditions vary and so on.

An MCC spokesman confirmed to Cricinfo that the World Cricket Committee would meet with the ICC in November. The future of Test cricket is on the agenda, and within that floodlit Tests will be discussed. "We are very keen to help in any way we can," the spokesman said, "and have been continuing with our trials of coloured balls to see if it will work on television."

The MCC could have a dual role in this process: as well as being fully behind floodlit Tests. Lord's could be the ground to host the match. One of the Bangladesh Tests is currently allocated to Headingley; the other is part of the bidding process, with Lord's in the running to hosting it. "We would like to host it and we have our brand new floodlights," said the spokesman.

The future of Test cricket has been the subject of debate within the ICC over the last year with the concept of a Test championship initially gaining ground. But the idea was opposed by the India and England cricket boards who did not find merit in sharing their substantial TV revenue that would have gone to a common pool.

India and England have subsequently backed the idea of day-night Test cricket as a way of taking the format forward amidst the rise of Twenty20 cricket. However, the ICC, which is finalising its Future Tours Programme post-2012, is yet to arrive at a decision on the matter. The ICC's executive board meets next in October, when the issue is likely to be discussed again.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • JS82 on September 13, 2009, 15:30 GMT

    @Nipun - I guess you have all along missed the idea from my first comment. My point is in order to make cricket more popular globally (and hence financially), you have to let the up and coming countries be part of the process. By excluding teams like WI, NZ, Ban, ZIM, Ireland cricket will never become a global game. If you talk to the younger generation of the English crowd, you will find that they are interested in football/soccer than cricket. Same thing will happen in other countries outside of the subcontinent because their teams never got the opportunities to participate and develop. In the Indian subcontinent, it's a totally different story because cricket is massively popular and people follow it religiously. That brings me to my second point, Bangladesh has a much better chance to develop into the top echelon of cricket countries due to the fan base and infrastructure support.

  • Young-tigers on September 13, 2009, 13:51 GMT

    Mr. Nipun, there was an article in cricinfo few weeks ago, and there was a comment from you, starting with "I am an Indian, but I support Bangladesh so much after INDIA" now is there any explanation why you suddenly turn your back and talking all negative for Bangladesh Cricket????

  • CricketWatcher on September 12, 2009, 17:20 GMT

    This is a positive step forward. New experiments oftentimes result in fruitful rewards in addition to lucky inventions that have advanced human civilization over the centuries. After all, lifespan is a short time, and life is one second at a time. So, why not try something different? You never know!

  • Nipun on September 12, 2009, 16:56 GMT

    @ JS82 :- Assuming you have some common sense,I guess you can understand how difficult it is difficult to sustain performance when you play about 1 test a year.India had played 23 tests in 20 years,& yet drew 12 of them.Bangladesh played 61 tests in 9 years,& they have drawn only 1 test against a full strength opposition without the help of rain.The comparisons with India are pointless anyway,since it involves a long time frame,but it's you started a pointless & invalid comparison.& in any case,the stats are heavily skewed in India's favour.Zimbabwe & Sri Lanka would present better better comparison.They had quite a few world class players when they started playing tests.In comparison,Bangladesh has Habibul Bashar,with a test average of 30,as their best test batsman by miles. lastly,I would be very happy if you present valid arguments with valid statistical support.Simply emotional arguments won't help.& yes,please EXPLAIN what you want to mean rather than presenting vague arguments.

  • Nipun on September 12, 2009, 16:40 GMT

    @ JS 82 :- I don't know for how many days have you been watching cricket,but it certainly shows that it's not a big number.England won the 5th Ashes test after losing the 4th test by over an innings & something.So what do you want to mean by the fact that 5 tests before winning the first test India lost to Australia by an innings and 177 run goes beyond me.Better explain !!! & yes,remember that in those years,there were hardly more than 1/2 tests a year as far as I can guess.Bangladesh has played 61 tests within 9 years;I guess the countries which started to play test cricket in the 1930s & so played this many tests over 20 odd years.So there's more cricket now, more opportunity to learn & improve.& don't forget that in the 1950s,the Australian team,led by a certain Sir Bradman,were the Invincibles.Statsgurur has it that India drew 12 out of its first 23 tests.I didn't go beyond that because I didn't need to.These 23 tests were spread among 20 years,which means 1 tests per year.

  • bilalifyful on September 12, 2009, 7:33 GMT

    Remember teams complain about the DEW factor, especially when playing under lights in the sub continent, continuously having to wipe the ball. Imagine playing a test match in those conditions. There are too many Question marks attached to this idea.

    A test championship would have been a better option, but then again the boards will always have problems with broadcasting revenues.

  • JS82 on September 11, 2009, 19:48 GMT

    @Nipun - I assume you know some world history. Comparing number of tests played by India during the World War 2 era and the Great Depression era vs the time period Bangladesh has played is downright ridiculous.

    But since you begged, I did check statsguru on it and I found that 5 tests before winning the first test India lost to Australia by an innings and 177 runs which proves my point.

    Assuming you know how to use statsguru, here are the query parameters I used and you can check it out yourself.

    View match by match list [change view] Involving team India remove India from query Start of match date less than or equal to 1 Jan 1952 remove less than or equal to 1 Jan 1952 from query Ordered by start date (ascending)

  • atique018 on September 11, 2009, 16:02 GMT

    All you little geniuses forget about the statistics for God's sake. Don't use some excuse to say a word against Bangladesh!!! The ICC officials and members of the committees are probably better judge than someone like Nipun!!!

    Globalization of the game and giving chances are important. Teams like Bangladesh hardly gets a chance to play against quality oppositions, if that is regular surely they will be able to improve themselves.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 11, 2009, 14:49 GMT

    ICC are a farce. Time to replace a body of faceless plutocrats with a body which looks after the game properly.

  • Nipun on September 11, 2009, 13:12 GMT

    @ JS 82 :- You can also check out individual statistics of the Indian players in their initial test matches (I am mentioning only India because that's the team you've mentioned).To be honest,check out such statistics of all other nations & compare them to Bangladesh players' statistics.Guess you'll be surprised.Now don't turn up & say that STATISTICS MEAN NOTHING,mate !!!

  • JS82 on September 13, 2009, 15:30 GMT

    @Nipun - I guess you have all along missed the idea from my first comment. My point is in order to make cricket more popular globally (and hence financially), you have to let the up and coming countries be part of the process. By excluding teams like WI, NZ, Ban, ZIM, Ireland cricket will never become a global game. If you talk to the younger generation of the English crowd, you will find that they are interested in football/soccer than cricket. Same thing will happen in other countries outside of the subcontinent because their teams never got the opportunities to participate and develop. In the Indian subcontinent, it's a totally different story because cricket is massively popular and people follow it religiously. That brings me to my second point, Bangladesh has a much better chance to develop into the top echelon of cricket countries due to the fan base and infrastructure support.

  • Young-tigers on September 13, 2009, 13:51 GMT

    Mr. Nipun, there was an article in cricinfo few weeks ago, and there was a comment from you, starting with "I am an Indian, but I support Bangladesh so much after INDIA" now is there any explanation why you suddenly turn your back and talking all negative for Bangladesh Cricket????

  • CricketWatcher on September 12, 2009, 17:20 GMT

    This is a positive step forward. New experiments oftentimes result in fruitful rewards in addition to lucky inventions that have advanced human civilization over the centuries. After all, lifespan is a short time, and life is one second at a time. So, why not try something different? You never know!

  • Nipun on September 12, 2009, 16:56 GMT

    @ JS82 :- Assuming you have some common sense,I guess you can understand how difficult it is difficult to sustain performance when you play about 1 test a year.India had played 23 tests in 20 years,& yet drew 12 of them.Bangladesh played 61 tests in 9 years,& they have drawn only 1 test against a full strength opposition without the help of rain.The comparisons with India are pointless anyway,since it involves a long time frame,but it's you started a pointless & invalid comparison.& in any case,the stats are heavily skewed in India's favour.Zimbabwe & Sri Lanka would present better better comparison.They had quite a few world class players when they started playing tests.In comparison,Bangladesh has Habibul Bashar,with a test average of 30,as their best test batsman by miles. lastly,I would be very happy if you present valid arguments with valid statistical support.Simply emotional arguments won't help.& yes,please EXPLAIN what you want to mean rather than presenting vague arguments.

  • Nipun on September 12, 2009, 16:40 GMT

    @ JS 82 :- I don't know for how many days have you been watching cricket,but it certainly shows that it's not a big number.England won the 5th Ashes test after losing the 4th test by over an innings & something.So what do you want to mean by the fact that 5 tests before winning the first test India lost to Australia by an innings and 177 run goes beyond me.Better explain !!! & yes,remember that in those years,there were hardly more than 1/2 tests a year as far as I can guess.Bangladesh has played 61 tests within 9 years;I guess the countries which started to play test cricket in the 1930s & so played this many tests over 20 odd years.So there's more cricket now, more opportunity to learn & improve.& don't forget that in the 1950s,the Australian team,led by a certain Sir Bradman,were the Invincibles.Statsgurur has it that India drew 12 out of its first 23 tests.I didn't go beyond that because I didn't need to.These 23 tests were spread among 20 years,which means 1 tests per year.

  • bilalifyful on September 12, 2009, 7:33 GMT

    Remember teams complain about the DEW factor, especially when playing under lights in the sub continent, continuously having to wipe the ball. Imagine playing a test match in those conditions. There are too many Question marks attached to this idea.

    A test championship would have been a better option, but then again the boards will always have problems with broadcasting revenues.

  • JS82 on September 11, 2009, 19:48 GMT

    @Nipun - I assume you know some world history. Comparing number of tests played by India during the World War 2 era and the Great Depression era vs the time period Bangladesh has played is downright ridiculous.

    But since you begged, I did check statsguru on it and I found that 5 tests before winning the first test India lost to Australia by an innings and 177 runs which proves my point.

    Assuming you know how to use statsguru, here are the query parameters I used and you can check it out yourself.

    View match by match list [change view] Involving team India remove India from query Start of match date less than or equal to 1 Jan 1952 remove less than or equal to 1 Jan 1952 from query Ordered by start date (ascending)

  • atique018 on September 11, 2009, 16:02 GMT

    All you little geniuses forget about the statistics for God's sake. Don't use some excuse to say a word against Bangladesh!!! The ICC officials and members of the committees are probably better judge than someone like Nipun!!!

    Globalization of the game and giving chances are important. Teams like Bangladesh hardly gets a chance to play against quality oppositions, if that is regular surely they will be able to improve themselves.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 11, 2009, 14:49 GMT

    ICC are a farce. Time to replace a body of faceless plutocrats with a body which looks after the game properly.

  • Nipun on September 11, 2009, 13:12 GMT

    @ JS 82 :- You can also check out individual statistics of the Indian players in their initial test matches (I am mentioning only India because that's the team you've mentioned).To be honest,check out such statistics of all other nations & compare them to Bangladesh players' statistics.Guess you'll be surprised.Now don't turn up & say that STATISTICS MEAN NOTHING,mate !!!

  • Nipun on September 11, 2009, 13:08 GMT

    @ JS82 :- Hey mate,do you have any idea how many tests did India play before winning their first test ? Do you have any idea how many tests they drew before winning ? Do you have any idea of how many matches they put up a fight in ? There's a nice little feature named STATSGURU in cricinfo,mate.I hope you can use it,but I'm not sure if you can.If you could,you wouldn't have posted your shit of this nation playing this many years for their first test win,etc.which are said by all Bangladesh people willing to turn their backs off the truth. @ Redneck :- Mate,if a full strength West Indies team plays again,they would still be a test team worthy of playing in a 2nd division.If you don't believe me,you can check out statistics of their OVERALL test performance since,well,since 2000 I may add.Don't need to go back that far,check it out for a period since 2003/4/5.....If the West Indies deserved to continue playing test cricket,Ireland has a valid claim to try out themselves in test cricket.

  • Test_Cricket_Fan on September 11, 2009, 8:33 GMT

    The idea is good. However, to negate the effect of playing under lights, each team should play at least one inning under lights. Make a test a 3-day affair with 3 innings per team. First day, team A plays 50 overs under lights while team B plays during the day. Second day, team B plays under lights. On the third day, toss will decide who plays under lights.

    I really am fascinated by the fact that we could return from offices and still look forward to going to a cricket field to watch a quality test match.

  • mukiwa on September 11, 2009, 8:31 GMT

    Night tests sound like a novel idea but I doubt it can work. They tried it in the Sheffield Shield competition in Australia during the late 90's and it was a dismal failiure... Batting sides got rolled for very low scores (between 100-200) when batting at night. I think the main issue was the colour of the ball. They tried a ball that was red on one side of the seam and yellow on the other but it discoloured very quickly and needed to be replaced regularly... They had the same problems with the white ball too... Good luck to Bangladesh and England on that one!

  • cskp on September 11, 2009, 8:26 GMT

    "LOL that's silly!" , This gentlemen is what my "wife" said when she heard this! ICC has to grow up! This is nothing short of a new "Revanue Avanue!". Dont insult the game and try to make a buck of every possible way, ICC. Cricket will probebly be considered a threat to the enviorenment for the energy comsumed. oh and by the way "Pink" balls? i guess its no longer the Gentlemens game then ah?

  • sanjeevmukherjee2006 on September 11, 2009, 7:17 GMT

    well i guess it is a terrible idaea in many venues for eg durban the condition changes after 6 or 7 pm we have seen this in the odi's and thus if a match is played for eg at durban the test match will be over in three days or max three and a half days....

  • shehanrat on September 11, 2009, 3:39 GMT

    Test cricket, 50 over and T20 all offer something different to crowds. The traditionalists will enjoy test cricket for what it is and even 50 over cricket. Those that seek entertainment will opt to watch T20s. Buy trying to make all formats similar then you risk ignoring a very important viewer segment.

    To make tests interesting you need to have a test championship. Its that simple!!! Not spanning anything over two years. Need not be on a home and away basis either. Eg: In championship 1 India will tour England and in championship 2 (two years later) England will tour India. When teams go on tour those tests they play should count for something. If the boards want to include ODIs on the tour so be it!

  • Edmontonion on September 10, 2009, 21:01 GMT

    How about better pitches around the world for gripping test matches and attractive facilities for spectators so that more people can actually come to the ground and watch cricket more comfortably?

  • lucyferr on September 10, 2009, 20:45 GMT

    Wow - we do have a lot of Luddites on this site. What's wrong with pink balls? Please, there's nothing wrong with protesting (I'm about to do so), but do so for the right reasons. Otherwise, you'll sound like an anachronistic twit.

    There was some match a couple of months ago, probably involving England, that was abandoned when they turned the floodlights on. Apparently the batsmen and umps didn't like the balls displaying four shadows. How has that rather basic problem been taken care of? Better placing of floodlights? Fewer floodlights? Different kinds of floodlights? Changing the laws of physical optics? Special 'sun'glasses for each player? Banning fast bowlers? Fluorescent balls? Or just giving players more opportunities to practice at night?

    I think day-night matches are a great idea, since you don't have to take the whole day off at work.

  • teo. on September 10, 2009, 20:04 GMT

    The icc as it seems, is governed by the bcci.. And the bcci clearly, are governed by the tv rights and broadcasting shareholders. As such, would their 1st concern in deciding the feasibility of such a farce not be to determine which of 2 between day/night and traditional tests reach the greatest television audience numbers? If they wanna make more money, atleast be smart about it.

  • AnthoniJi on September 10, 2009, 19:49 GMT

    It's all about money, ain't it. Who cares about global warming. who cares about running out of fuel. who cares about wasting money on burning a few thousand lamps all night....Ay...It is the only planet we have, but who cares....

    Money is everything...let's not care about anything else....

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 10, 2009, 18:52 GMT

    Bangladesh are already hopeless so why do we have to take the last bit of hope for them out of the game-the temperature. If we lived in a hot climate it might be practical. In any case they could play till eight thirty in June so why bother with lights. And personally I like to watch cricket in whites sometimes.It seems like the game I know then. To be frank the only way you could make this work would be by screening the last two Tests of the summer like this, but for other reasons tey are generally too crucial to muck about with. Otherwise it seems barking mad.

  • DuncLancs on September 10, 2009, 17:29 GMT

    At that time of the year in England it will only go dark at 10pm. It would be pointless as the floodlights would only take effect for the last half hour or so. Perhaps they are going to play until midnight?

  • ratchamal on September 10, 2009, 15:23 GMT

    interesting concept and a good one too because players got to know how to play a long inning in a night time with difficulties it's a good challenge that will make better players to the future great stuff

  • idontknowidontcare on September 10, 2009, 14:49 GMT

    What a terrible waste of electricity. Not so long ago the ICC told tall tales that it wants to keep the game clean. How about showing some social responsibility as well?

  • YoBro on September 10, 2009, 14:40 GMT

    That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life...night Tests and pink balls...what else will we hear next? Players in their nightgowns and flip-flops, and maybe a dinner break followed by a short nap time...ludicrous.

  • CricketPissek on September 10, 2009, 14:10 GMT

    when they send a lower order batsman at the end of the "day"'s play to protect the better batsmen... would they be called a DAY-WATCHMAN now? curious....

  • popcorn on September 10, 2009, 14:04 GMT

    It is a stupid idea to hold a Day Night Test match.There is no guarantee that it will draw crowds for 5 consecutive day-nights. Test Cricket in its present form is ideal. Those who love cricket will watch Test Cricket in its current form. Lalit Modi can find a job as a cheerleader in a Twenty20. Ghastly sight.

  • shahbd6 on September 10, 2009, 13:50 GMT

    Nothing can beat a 5-day competitive test match as any purist or traditionalist would agree. Evolving or adapting to maintain or increase spectator interest is right. Many today miss this wonderful format of cricket simply because they cannot find time. ICC is doing the right thing. Now they should find a formula for competitive test matches, day in and day out.

  • Afta on September 10, 2009, 13:32 GMT

    England playing Bangladesh, that too night TESTS..!? Why not play Australia.You want to stick to tradition? Please do. Do not try to innovate. Pink balls..! There are the other forms (ODI/T20) you could play in the nights. Sometimes night games change so dramatically (Premadasa at Colombo).The ICC should thoroughly experiment in every country before implementing such a format. (eg.daytime you could lose sight of the ball in the sun, but night you could lose sight of the ball according to the number of light towers.So the ratio works 1:4 or 6, absolute disadvantage). Let Test cricket be TEST cricket, it may not bring in much revenue, but as someone said, let it be the Gold Standard. This is a clear example of losing or giving up on tradition and value in the face of money. You want to make Test cricket more interesting? Try fixing a minimum run rate (overall) per over. Who knows there will be no more drawn games.

  • numptyville on September 10, 2009, 12:07 GMT

    Day-Night tests? What a ridiculous idea! Let the powers at be mess about with short game if they want to attract more money into the game. Test cricket appeals because it still retains a lot of traditional values that most sports have lost over the years.

  • AsifRathod on September 10, 2009, 12:02 GMT

    Well, this concept is new and we have to look, how it goes. And, I m sure,we have to accept this concept sooner or later, to retain the interest of the people, in Test Cricket. More peoples will be attracted towards the day night Test Cricket, because of its flexible timing. But there are few concern too, like, Problems to, View a ball properly in night, Due factor etc. Let's see how it goes, fingers cross.

  • jmabbasi on September 10, 2009, 11:55 GMT

    Whats wrong with ICC and why do they want test cricket to be played at night anyways? Test cricket has done just fine for more than 100 years being played in the day time, the most appropriate time for cricket. One day Cricket is a completely different matter - the games are shorter, more exciting and results are achieved the same night. What ICC should focus on is to tightly regulate the number of test matches that are played every year. Test Match Cricket has lost some of its charm due to so much test cricket being played - some of it very substandard by some substandard teams - in the last 10 years. Thats the area where ICC needs to work on - fewer, but high quality, test matches: the kind of test matches that were playede between 40s and 90s. I still remember when Lance Gibbs broke Trueman's record 0f 307 test wickets, what a big deal it was then! Now Murali has taken so many wickets - most of them of poor quality batsmen - that we don't even know how many he has taken! J. Abbasi

  • vinjoy on September 10, 2009, 10:59 GMT

    I think ICC has panicked at the growing acceptance of T20 and the increased pressure to retain interest in 50-over game and in test cricket. Ask any player and he says that he relishes test cricket most. Look at what happened to 'Substitute Player' system in 50-over format; that too was made in a haste.

    Leave test cricket for purists, as it is for God's sake and don't act in panic if you cannot make a sensible decision.

  • Dragon_7654 on September 10, 2009, 10:39 GMT

    1) T20 - Spread Cricket using this format across nations that currently don't play the sport. Use pink balls and black bats (remember T20 league in WI?) Aim for a 32 nation T20 WC every 2 yrs. 2) ODIs - Use white balls. Push tier 2/3 teams to become better ODI sides. Aim for a 16 team ODI WC every 4 yrs. 3) Test Cricket is the GOLD Standard. Don't mess with it! Sporting wickets to make games exciting will help. BCCI and ECB should accept to play the Test Championship (IPL is there to make money for BCCI; ECB has Pro-40: manage it as well as the IPL!) - played across a rolling 4yr period, top 9 Test playing countries (allow BNG to evolve: SL and my own country India were not best at Tests, and took time to become consistent). BCCI's ticket pricing is different for Test, ODI, and T20: economically viable but also easy on fans - other boards learn from this. Allow broadcast on free-to-air so more people can watch. That Test Cricket is dying is a myth spread by a few who are greedy...

  • Oldmanmartin on September 10, 2009, 10:00 GMT

    This is the sort of insanity we have got used to expecting from Giles 'Stanford' Clarke. I expect he wants it to take place at Lord's, with its new floodlights. If so, let's pray that the local residents will kill that idea (they weren't too keen on the idea for one-night stands, let alone 5 successive nights). What disappoints me is that the BCB should go along with it. I thought they, at least, would have more class ...

  • Mike_C on September 10, 2009, 9:25 GMT

    I wonder how the pricing will work, as a novelty I can see myself popping in after work for the final session (7-9/9.30 or 8-10/10.30) on the way homefrom work, but will these games be priced per session?

    If the ground will be largely empty in the afternoon, and only filling after 5pm, how that will look on tv?

  • ND11 on September 10, 2009, 9:13 GMT

    There should not be any day night matches in any form of cricket. Normal people in india faces power cut problems and we are misusing the electicity by playing day night matches. When we can play in normal light, no need to play in flood lights.

  • youfoundme on September 10, 2009, 9:11 GMT

    Silly idea. I'm beginning to think that it's not Twenty/20 cricket killing off ODI's and Tests it's the England and India cricket boards that are...

  • specialk109 on September 10, 2009, 7:52 GMT

    I think that the idea of a day night test match is right now - but I don't understand the need for England to play it against Bangladesh. The Aussies are coming anyway to play Pakistan so why don't England play Australia in a one off test which is day night?

  • a_dick on September 10, 2009, 7:45 GMT

    Considering the other technical difficulties such as ball colour and the ability to watch a full day not actually being enhanced, as previously mentioned, why does test cricket have to try to compete with T20, by moving closer towards it logistically? As much as it may pain many, including myself, due to the monetary gain to be had from T20, mainly because of the lowest common denominator mentality of the public, test cricket plays a significantly smaller role in raising revenue than it used to. As such, in stead of trying to chase a few extra dollars in the short term, in the name of it's prolongation, test cricket would be better served to remain the proverbial gold standard within cricket, thus maintaining it's value not only in terms of aesthetics, but also in terms of cricketing skill and prowess. To introduce day/night matches is to embark upon the slippery slope of devaluing all cricket, including T20, as they all ultimately rely upon test matches for relevance within cricket.

  • JulesUK on September 10, 2009, 7:28 GMT

    This is ridiculous. Playing a day/night test won't make Bangladesh a more attractive option. Also, forget the balls and the coloured clothes, the real problem is that a day night test is bad for spectators in England. A day/night ODI is ok, at least you get a finish. With a test, you might just have the last session meandering along. Everyone will leave early so they can get home. It's cold in England in the evening, even in June. Spectators won't be able to go to the test match with their friends then go out afterwards. Just generally a bad idea.

  • atheist4all on September 10, 2009, 7:22 GMT

    Every thing need to test for retaining the pride. Now a days for T20 the cricket format is going to be dilapidated and faces the tough time considering the situation of wasting time. 50 overs or test both are in great danger for its apparently long or long format respectively.there there is a need for tuning this formats.As a day-light format of test this need to experiment and bangladesh would be glad to participate in this historical change.Time, cloth,ball color all are necessary to experiment for the future of Test cricket to regain the glory,zeal,twisting for future cricket loving peoples.Best of luck for the Test cricket.

  • Nafis on September 10, 2009, 6:35 GMT

    At the modern era of cricket we must adjust with some modifications.As always we find it difficult to accept any new format.but if we look a couple of years back, we have adjusted with the format of 20-20,the 3 powerplay system,the referral system,the change of ball at 34th over etc.not only adjusted we r simply loving some of these.On the other hand changes like player substitution didnt survive in this game. Similarly,we need to give the day-night test a go-ahead.Whether it will stay or not will be found out during this period.Bangladesh have done their part by agreeing to participate in this initiative. The ticket prizes of test match are low any how.at least in the sub-continent.But its not working.now a days the sub-continent pitches are too flat to produce a good test match.all this things should be taken in consideration.Because people would not like to see a high scoring draw even in a day-night test match.

  • Rooboy on September 10, 2009, 5:53 GMT

    GS_374, if you 'don't understnad this traditionalist nonsense from your fellow bloggers' then perhaps you should take some time to actually consider what is being proposed before spouting off your own nonsense. There is more to it than simply the colour of the ball and the uniforms. The team that can bat mostly during the day is at a massive advantage, this was proven when this 'innovation' was trialled (and then quickly scrapped) in the Sheffield Shield in Australia. Having said that, it is already a joke that bangladesh is allowed to compete at Test level so I suppose this is just a continuation of that sorry farce ...

  • Copernicus on September 10, 2009, 5:12 GMT

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no! This "innovation" is cosmetic at best and actually damaging at worst - adding frivolous gimmicks to Test cricket will hardly draw in new crowds (I know many non-fans and I find it hard to believe that something as trivial as pink balls and night matches will convert them) whilst actually alientating traditionalists. If the ICC was serious about increasing interest in Tests they'd be trialling the championship idea and making sure sporting pitches were prepared. As for the ECB: bring the ticket prices down to something appealing, especially for matches aganst mediocre-to-rubbish sides like WI or Bangladesh (sorry to the fans), and bring back TV rights to free-to-air! What galls me most about this move is the fact that administrators seem so willing to screw around with Tests, without experimenting at first-class level first (e.g. referrals). What inevitably results is a messy failure (usually dismissed as "teething problems"), which nobody bothers to fix!

  • crick50 on September 10, 2009, 4:48 GMT

    An exciting development in the game but with T20 format is getting more popular it will be a great innovation for all form of Cricket to make it Intresting. Eyeing T20 format it will be good choice to keep other form of cricket similar to 20-20 overs format. Like instead of 50 overs one day match change to 40 overs. Change Test format daily 90 overs limit to 80 overs.or even 4 Days instead of 5 days. That will be exiting finish.

  • JS82 on September 10, 2009, 3:07 GMT

    Nipun - Forgot to cite my source of first Indian test win. You should also notice that Indian won it against a depleted English side as it notes below.

    http://www.iloveindia.com/sports/cricket/achievements/first-test-victory.html

  • JS82 on September 10, 2009, 3:04 GMT

    Nipun - I have followed your comments. If I remember correctly, usually you like to bash ZIM and BAN. Let's look at one of today's powerhouse India's test history. "India achieved its first ever Test victory in 1951-52 when it beat England in Madras. Having made its Test debut in 1932, India had to wait for 20 long years in the sidelines before making its mark in the big stage." Please notice "20 long years" and Bangladesh has already won 2 test series regardless of whoever they played against. If cricket is followed by elitist like yourself, it will never be a global game. Look at the history of soccer even India plays soccer and ironically funded by BCCI. Now a soccer elitist may say it should only be played in Europe and South America. Would that kind of attitude ever work to globalize football? Please embrace other countries and be patient with their development process. India should someday play a test series as FTP requires against Ban instead of worrying about money.

  • peeeeet on September 10, 2009, 2:38 GMT

    I don't agree with day-night tests - I just don't think they will work. During World Series Cricket they realised that the red ball didn't work at night so they played with a white one. I think the best option for test cricket which has been completely thrown out the window is the one of a Test Championship. I think this would be great. If all the teams competed in Test series against each other home and away over the course of a few years, then the top two teams battle out over a 5 match series for the title, that would add importance to every test. Maybe if there was also a promotion or relegation system - maybe only teams that start out in the top group can actually claim the title, or it could even be modelled on the county system. This would be better than day-night tests in my opinion.

  • OwenEdwards on September 10, 2009, 2:03 GMT

    The baffling thing is, as a lot of the peripheral T20 competitions are in the process of dying, and as List A realises it has to face up to a whole new world, that cricket bosses are so desperate to change Test cricket.

    Quoth (I think) Dean Jones after the Oval Test this year: "If the rest of the world wants to get rid of Test matches, they can do that. We'll keep on with the Ashes, thanks!"

  • redneck on September 10, 2009, 0:17 GMT

    this is prehaps the one change to test cricket that sits ok with me. nothing really changes just the start time and balls colour. it also stops players going off for bad light. however i dont think englands the best place to trial it, after seeing the weather forcasts through out the ashes its still warmer here in southern australia during our winter than in england during summer most days!? @Nipun how arent a full strength west indies worthy of test status? they won a series against england earlyer in the year, won the opening test against south africa in south africa and above all have produced many of the games greatest players throughout its history! just because they havent had much success over the last decade doesnt mean they cant turn it around. in the last 10 years they have still won a test against every other test nation. thats something world no. 2 sri lanka cant even boast!

  • KP_84 on September 9, 2009, 23:14 GMT

    An exciting development in the game. I just don't understnad this traditionalist nonsense from my fellow bloggers. Who cares what colour the ball and clothing is? It's still Test cricket. I can't understand why people debate these trivial issues when the future of the Test game is at risk. Preserving the game is more important, surely.

  • wgtnpom on September 9, 2009, 22:43 GMT

    I think this is premature at least - it hasn't really been tested at f-c level so the testing shouldn't be done in a Test (you know what I mean). The dynamics of a five-day match are different from a 1-dayer which basically has one side batting in natural light and the other under floodlights. I can't help thinking the extreme changes of conditions during an innings would interfere with the ebb and flow of the game too much. And dew/fog issues in some places would be a factor too. Who would have imagined MCC and Lord's proposing something as radical as this! Not necessarily against the idea but it is a fundamental change to the game so there should be a lot of testing in domestic competitions before it's inflicted on the highest level. The Test arena is not the testing arena. If it proves to be a flop, let it be a flop at domestic level, not international. Only introduce it at international level when you're certain it will be a success on the basis of domestic trials.

  • Harvey on September 9, 2009, 22:19 GMT

    WHY? Anyone wanting to go and watch a FULL day's play will still have to take a day off work. Anyone wanting to travel any distance won't be able to get home by public transport, and will have to stay overnight, therefore having to take TWO days off work instead of one. This idea might have a place on the subcontinent in some places and at certain times of the year, but trying it in England is lunacy. Doesn't Giles Clarke know that it gets COLD in England at night? Of course this has nothing to do with making things better for the fans who actually pay to watch cricket, (who Giles Clarke dismisses as anoraks), and everything to do with the extra TV money he thinks he can get. The trouble is that since he sold the TV rights to a subscription-only satellite company, most people can't watch it anyway, whatever time it's on.

  • on_the_level on September 9, 2009, 21:46 GMT

    Watching a Test match in the balmy warmth of an English summer night. Yeah, right!

  • SRT_Jammy_Dada_VVS_and_Anil_legends on September 9, 2009, 21:31 GMT

    If the idea is going to be trialled what is the point of Bangladesh playing in it? Bangladesh are a truly awful Test nation and hardly anyone would want to watch them playing a Test in the day OR night, so it will be impossible to measure whether the experiment is successful. But why not try it in the neutral Pakistan v Australia Test matches?

  • UsmanLoveCricket on September 9, 2009, 20:09 GMT

    I think the only way Test cricket can survive is by having a test championship between 8 major team with bonus points system. It should follow the grouping system we will have for champions trophy to keep it as short as possible and as interesting as possible. There should be not more bilateral series between any teams. There should be a test match season and no cricket other than test cricket during that time. Every team will get from 3 to 5 matches. I aggree that day/night cricket will not work. I think i will follow England Vs West Indies more closely if it is going to affect Pakistan chances to reach Semi final.

  • Maui3 on September 9, 2009, 19:55 GMT

    Brillian move by Bangladesh. It's like playing clicket blind-folded. Now they have a 50-50 chance of a positive result :-)

  • BadeBaba on September 9, 2009, 19:11 GMT

    ICC if they are listening, please do not tamper with test cricket. Let it remain the way it has been for the last 150 years or so. T20 is not cricket. It is a spectacle to be enjoyed on a sunday afternoon or on public holidays. Test Cricket is still the ultimate sport for the purists and the connoisseurs.

  • Karachian_1 on September 9, 2009, 19:00 GMT

    I dont understand why the authorities want to change test cricket. I love it the way it is and i certainly believe that true cricket lovers want test cricket to be the way it is.

    Instead of changing test cricket we should try to limit T20. Number of t20 matches should be restricted to 1 or 2 per series with a world t20 every two years.

  • sivaambi on September 9, 2009, 18:37 GMT

    There is absolutely no need to tamper with Tests. Tests are still watched by people all around the world with importance. Probably the number of people turning up at the grounds might have decreased but the audience watching it on TV have increased. Decreasing the ticket prize will be a great idea to promote test. The whole drama behind this is ICC/BCCI want more and more money. The best thing for cricket would be to abandon this Twenty 20 thing, which is as good as what kids play on the beaches. Unfortunately not just ICC/BCCI, everyone these days seem to be going behind money and the true spirit with which the game/work is played/done is lost. Sad! If the current mindset continues with the cricket administrators, 10 yrs down the line cricket will be reduced to Kittipul (a game played in India with couple of broken sticks). It will no longer remain an international sport. If just 8 countries around the world play cricket, so be it. There will be more meaningful,interesting games.

  • ayubshaikh on September 9, 2009, 18:27 GMT

    whether the match is played during night time or day time, young bangladesh are going to thrash england in both tests and odis

  • Nipun on September 9, 2009, 18:25 GMT

    Any way:day or night,would do,as long as it helps Bangladesh to be a little competitive !!! You don't need day night tests to attract people to the game,you need competition,you need teams who will play competitive cricket.I am sorry,but West Indies,Zimbabwe & Bangladesh have no place in test cricket.Remove these 3 teams from tests & you'll have test cricket alive again.

  • getrealforreal on September 9, 2009, 18:21 GMT

    Also, Pink is the color that signifies the fight against breast cancer. So if MCC ties in the use of the pink cricket ball with fight against breast cancer, that would be a huge PR win and maybe prove that not everything is about money :)

  • getrealforreal on September 9, 2009, 18:16 GMT

    I like the initiative. It's arguable that moving the playing time to the evenings would give folks a better chance of making it to the match say after school or work. However, certain things needs to be taken into consideration with the day/night format. Most folks would want to come and watch the evening sessions everyday, so a concession has to be made to accommodate those who would want to say pay for half a day. If you try to get too greedy with this, then it's bound to fail. The other major factor is that the daylight plays a huge part in deciding the outcome of a test match. Some of the greatest test battles were not just against the other team but also against time and fading daylight. But once you introduce floodlights, the play time becomes infinite and parameters needs to be drawn as to what constitutes as the end of a days play. I have not seen the pink ball in action and I am curious to see how much of a visual difference it makes compare to a white ball.

  • Henry_Kane on September 9, 2009, 17:33 GMT

    The reason why the white ball is ok in baseball is because they can constantly replace it, even from one pitch to the next. e.g. if it gets scuffed in the dirt, it's immediately replaced. This does not - and cannot - apply in cricket, as the wear and tear of the ball is a crucial aspect of the game. Which is why the red ball (or any dark colour) will always be the best way. As if all this would increase interest in test match cricket anyway! After a most brief period of interest in the novelty, it'll be a resounding failure, and then the authorities will use its failure to justify the claim that Test cricket has had its time and should now be superseded by T20. Ultimately, it all comes down to the huge revenues that can be made from T20 jamborees, which is why the national authorities are more than happy for real cricket to be undermined. It certainly doesn't have ANYTHING to do with making cricket more spectator-friendly. That's just a ruse.

  • 9ST9 on September 9, 2009, 17:28 GMT

    It could be Innovative it could be fun..but it just doesn't sound right does it? Test matches without the red ball just sounds so much like Egypt without the pyramids. The Identity of cricket should be preserved. Tamper with T20, tamper with ODI's. But use them to sustain Test Cricket, and leave Test Cricket as it is. Many people won't watch it, but at least the handful who watch would know that they watched Cricket, the way it was meant to be.

  • BiSONN on September 9, 2009, 17:21 GMT

    Nooooooooooooo. Even though this could be interesting in a lotta ways, I feel that the white clothes+red ball combination is too iconic for it to just fade away - which is exactly what will happen if this catches on. We're trying enough stuff with ODI's and T20's as is - no need to tamper with test cricket .. AT ALL.

  • Saim93 on September 9, 2009, 16:37 GMT

    Thanks to T20 we will see these silly changes now, People keep suggesting these new themes to keep ODI and tests "alive". If the decisions were upto me i would limit T20's to World T20 and IPL.

  • Oldmanmartin on September 9, 2009, 16:35 GMT

    Why stop there? Play them at night, without lights with fluorescent clothing and an incandescent ball. Have a Twenty/20 match in the middle. Introduce random powerplays, and roll-on/roll-off subs. Call it a Jest Match.

  • JS82 on September 9, 2009, 16:00 GMT

    What's wrong with the white ball? Baseball is played with the white ball and most MLB games are day night matches. Is it because the white ball gets dirty and loses shine quicker than the pink ball? It would be weird to see a pink ball at first. I guess we will get used to it one day.

  • PratUSA on September 9, 2009, 15:10 GMT

    Personally I would prefer to keep the test matches as they are but either way it's important to do the trial for significant number of games at domestic level first. Test matches should not become trial ground for such a significant change. Earlier experiments in Australia and India (Ranji Trophy final at Gwalior in 1997) were not a success.

  • Andhravala on September 9, 2009, 15:08 GMT

    Innovative change.. But why don't ICC or any other cricketing board consider about Green Revolution.. By playing Day/Night matches, it uses lot of power and it drains many house holds.. Please consider the environment and start using 'GREEN REVOLUTION' in the cricketing game..

    Also, we will loose the real essence of cricket with White Clothes & Red Ball..

  • OwenEdwards on September 9, 2009, 14:59 GMT

    No, no, no. I mean, would this mean more overs per day (meaning longer test matches, both practically per day and theoretically overall)? No pajamas, please God no. Pink ball? How is that better/more exciting, unless it's argued it'll be better for the night sessions?

    Ridiculous.

  • kylethecricketer on September 9, 2009, 14:42 GMT

    The idea is innovative, but there is a lot of ground work to be done for flood lit day/night cricket for the longer format. To name a few, Color of Balls, Clothing, Sightscreen etc. More importantly in certain places like asia, DEW is also a game changing factor. Unlike limted over games, test matches span over 5 days, so it will make the bowlers job that much more harder in terms of gripping the ball,given that cricket these days is already a batsman friendly game! So ICC, think before you act, and have a solution to these items.

  • 0NBH on September 9, 2009, 14:41 GMT

    The reason Bangladesh Tests in England get low crowds is due to the stupidly high ticket prices, nothing more nothing less. If it cost £5 a ticket to get in to the game, they'd sell out easily. As it is, they might boost crowds briefly with this idea, while people want to see what the fuss is about, but then things will settle back down as they were before, unless Test cricket is made affordable again. And simply lowering prices has the added effect of not tampering with the most important form of the game.

  • tammimi2010 on September 9, 2009, 14:37 GMT

    I like the test matches the way they are! Morning starts and evening finishes. What is the point of a day-night test anyway?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • tammimi2010 on September 9, 2009, 14:37 GMT

    I like the test matches the way they are! Morning starts and evening finishes. What is the point of a day-night test anyway?

  • 0NBH on September 9, 2009, 14:41 GMT

    The reason Bangladesh Tests in England get low crowds is due to the stupidly high ticket prices, nothing more nothing less. If it cost £5 a ticket to get in to the game, they'd sell out easily. As it is, they might boost crowds briefly with this idea, while people want to see what the fuss is about, but then things will settle back down as they were before, unless Test cricket is made affordable again. And simply lowering prices has the added effect of not tampering with the most important form of the game.

  • kylethecricketer on September 9, 2009, 14:42 GMT

    The idea is innovative, but there is a lot of ground work to be done for flood lit day/night cricket for the longer format. To name a few, Color of Balls, Clothing, Sightscreen etc. More importantly in certain places like asia, DEW is also a game changing factor. Unlike limted over games, test matches span over 5 days, so it will make the bowlers job that much more harder in terms of gripping the ball,given that cricket these days is already a batsman friendly game! So ICC, think before you act, and have a solution to these items.

  • OwenEdwards on September 9, 2009, 14:59 GMT

    No, no, no. I mean, would this mean more overs per day (meaning longer test matches, both practically per day and theoretically overall)? No pajamas, please God no. Pink ball? How is that better/more exciting, unless it's argued it'll be better for the night sessions?

    Ridiculous.

  • Andhravala on September 9, 2009, 15:08 GMT

    Innovative change.. But why don't ICC or any other cricketing board consider about Green Revolution.. By playing Day/Night matches, it uses lot of power and it drains many house holds.. Please consider the environment and start using 'GREEN REVOLUTION' in the cricketing game..

    Also, we will loose the real essence of cricket with White Clothes & Red Ball..

  • PratUSA on September 9, 2009, 15:10 GMT

    Personally I would prefer to keep the test matches as they are but either way it's important to do the trial for significant number of games at domestic level first. Test matches should not become trial ground for such a significant change. Earlier experiments in Australia and India (Ranji Trophy final at Gwalior in 1997) were not a success.

  • JS82 on September 9, 2009, 16:00 GMT

    What's wrong with the white ball? Baseball is played with the white ball and most MLB games are day night matches. Is it because the white ball gets dirty and loses shine quicker than the pink ball? It would be weird to see a pink ball at first. I guess we will get used to it one day.

  • Oldmanmartin on September 9, 2009, 16:35 GMT

    Why stop there? Play them at night, without lights with fluorescent clothing and an incandescent ball. Have a Twenty/20 match in the middle. Introduce random powerplays, and roll-on/roll-off subs. Call it a Jest Match.

  • Saim93 on September 9, 2009, 16:37 GMT

    Thanks to T20 we will see these silly changes now, People keep suggesting these new themes to keep ODI and tests "alive". If the decisions were upto me i would limit T20's to World T20 and IPL.

  • BiSONN on September 9, 2009, 17:21 GMT

    Nooooooooooooo. Even though this could be interesting in a lotta ways, I feel that the white clothes+red ball combination is too iconic for it to just fade away - which is exactly what will happen if this catches on. We're trying enough stuff with ODI's and T20's as is - no need to tamper with test cricket .. AT ALL.