The debate about the feasibility of four-day Test matches left me slightly bemused, to say the least.
As in a “what would be the point of that?” type bemused.
For starters, last I heard, a four-day Test becomes a three-day match if you happen to lose a day to inclement weather, as occurred on day one of the Australia-India clash at the Gabba.
And that, coincidentally and ironically, highlights the other glaring flaw in the four-day Test match argument.
Even if a day is rained out, that doesn’t necessarily sabotage any chance of a result, because Tests being decided inside three days are becoming all too common.
So in other words, what actual benefits would a four-day Test provide, given that the vast majority of Tests in the modern era don’t progress into day five anyway?
Hence, the fifth day is virtually a raincheck that covers for the possibility of play being lost.
It’s handy to have up the sleeve, just in case.
The alternative could well result in outraged disbelief if a major series came to an anti-climactic conclusion, with the result hanging in the balance at stumps on the fourth and final day of the decider.
And the other point worth noting is that it’s not as if there is any emerging trend of Tests finishing in dour draws.
There’s no urgent need to artificially stimulate scoring rates. Normally if a team is still batting late on day five, trying to salvage a draw or even chasing a win at the death, the match is approaching an exciting finale. Boring draws are few and far between.
Nonetheless, if cricket officials are looking for a little bit of special sauce to liven up the game’s oldest format, I would’ve thought it was pretty much a no-brainer.
Simply play pink-ball Tests, all the time.
OK, perhaps not all the time. Maybe retain a handful of red-ball Tests for the traditionalists, as occasional “heritage” fixtures, played in daylight hours. Just to remind the next generation how it was, back in the day.
But the vast majority of Tests would be played with a pink ball, starting about 3pm.
The pink ball, as we all know by now, is a different beast. It makes for a unique brand of Test cricket, but for mine it is a more entertaining, unpredictable brand, and the huge crowds in Adelaide recently would surely vouch for that.
Whereas Test matches have, since 1877, usually favoured either batters or bowlers depending on pitch conditions, with the pink ball, the momentum can swing wildly from one session to the next.
The first session is usually batter-friendly, on a pitch that has been baking hard since sun-up.
Providing the early swing can be countered, history would suggest the pink ball comes off the bat sweetly and big scores can be made (ie David Warner 325 not out v Pakistan, 2019).
The second session is when it starts to get tricky.
As the short break approaches, the batters find themselves batting in the half-light.
If both batters are well set, it’s probably not such an issue. But when a newbie arrives at the crease in murky light, suddenly the pendulum swings in favour of the bowling side.
The third session at times seems a fast bowler’s delight, especially if there happens to be a change of innings.
The pitch that was apparently flat and docile a few hours earlier suddenly starts zipping around.
The ball keeps swinging well after the opening overs, and wickets keep tumbling. It’s tough work for batters surviving until the close of play, but the reward is that they get to resume the following afternoon in ideal conditions.
So pink-ball Tests can provide a more fluctuating contest on a daily basis than their time-honoured predecessor.
Not forgetting, of course, the huge popularity of pink-ball games, as evidenced by bums on seats and TV ratings.
Playing Test cricket at night ensures a far bigger audience, simply because that’s when more people are able to watch it.Imagine the crowds pink-ball Tests would attract at the MCG and SCG, during the festive season?
Those matches are already two huge annual occasions, but this would take them to another level.
My only reservation about pink-ball Tests is the potential impact on spinners, who tend to take a back seat, especially during the night sessions.
Most tweakers would prefer a nicely roughed-up red pill to a slick, shiny pink version.
But as the late, great Shane Warne declared in 2020: “I’ve been saying this for the last few years. I believe the pink ball should be used in all Test matches. Day games, not just day-night games.
“I think the pink ball you can actually see the ball easier, the crowd can see the ball easier. It generally does more than the red ball and it looks fantastic on TV. So why not use a pink ball the whole time?
“Maybe change it at 60 overs because it goes soft, but I’d be using the pink ball for every Test match so more of it I would say.”
If it’s good enough for the “King”, that seals the deal as far as I’m concerned. Bring on the pink-ball revolution!
