Test cricket is alienating fans with its baffling refusal to be flexible around bad weather

Ensuring the rain-induced misery of Old Trafford is not repeated is vital if the game wants to grow rather than stagnate

July 23, 2023 8:18 pm(Updated 8:21 pm)

What may Test cricket have lost at Old Trafford in its ardent refusal to plan ahead or offer even the slightest hint of flexibility?

On the first two days of the school holidays, the crucial fourth Test supposed to set up a decisive fifth on free-to-air TV has reinforced most stereotypes which disincentivise new English cricket fans.

This is a game which isn’t thrilled to be dragged into the 20th century, let alone the 21st, with a distinct “the show might go on” attitude.

I’m not asking for revolution, but will a game that remains adamant it wants saving make some effort to do so? How can a sport with the global reach and financial might of cricket still be held captive by rain and bad light?

There is a misconception that the only two options in this debate are covering stadiums or getting wet, but these are the extremes.

It remains baffling why, for a Test both captains admitted could be decided by rain before it had even begun, there was not even a discussion of contingency.

Establishing a reserve day, as is now expectation with T20 finals, is perhaps the cleanest solution, even if it is expensive, but for the potential money to be made from a series of the Ashes’ calibre, it must be worth exploring.

Yet there are lesser alterations which could have a significant impact. Permanently introducing increased flexibility on playing hours may cause fans minor difficulty with planning ahead, but for the one or two days most summers this becomes a serious issue, is that enough deterrent?

Would players agreeing to an extra hour, maybe even 90 minutes, of play on the first three days in lieu of a refreshing weekend of rain-induced waiting be an unfair ask?

As Joe Root rightly pointed out on Sunday morning, why isn’t play possible between 10am-10pm if needed in the British summer sunlight with a maximum on-pitch time agreed? The ECB managed to start play at 10.30am last summer to cater to Indian broadcasting schedules, and the only issue was how late they chose to do it.

If there was sufficient preparation, or a simple expectation that an earlier start is possible if ill weather is due, what’s the downside?

This would also require teams to improve their over rates. Twenty-six overs were lost to slow over rates in the first three days at Old Trafford, with an estimated 75 lost all series. Enforcing these, through either implementing a standard which must be met or threatening penalty runs, is also crucial.

Then there’s the question of roofing and covers. The Lord’s hot-air balloon ploy floated a few years ago may have sounded absurd, but so was the host of umbrellas optimistically waiting for a game that would never come in the new Party Stand. If on-field drainage cannot be made more efficient and a whole-pitch cover doesn’t suit British humidity, then maybe something hot-air balloon-related at least needs revisiting.

But this isn’t only about the rain – light once again played a significant role. England were restricted to only using their spinners in the final hour of Saturday’s play, which also transpired to be the final hour of the game, due to light so poor umpire Joel Wilson put his sunglasses on.

This begs the question: is swapping the red ball for the pink, created specifically for these conditions, really less fair than halting play entirely?

With the impact of humidity or cloud cover on a seaming ball or heat on the degradation of a wicket, condition-based injustice is already integrated into cricket.

The alternative would be improved floodlighting, another laughably simple solution, yet this might cost money, a wildly unpopular cricketing concept.

There was a similar obstinance on show on Saturday afternoon as there was on the penultimate day of the Oval Test against South Africa last summer.

With England needing 33 runs with 10 wickets remaining, play was ended early because of poor light. Everyone had to turn up the following day simply because tradition forbade any safe way of continuing play.

The casual sporting spectator loathes injustice above all else. Nothing will get an armchair fan out of their seats quicker than perceived inequity and that is what the rain and poor light have produced in Manchester.

The same goes for the Ashes being retained rather than shared in the event of a draw – I get the great historical theatre of the series and the Urn, but that’s simply ridiculous. Cricket aficionados may believe they understand why the game is still helplessly held victim to both the weather and futile tradition, but potential new fans may not be so sympathetic.

If Test cricket wants to grow rather than stagnate, ensuring the misery of Manchester is not repeated is vital. Whether it is actually keen to expand, rather than continue the policy of containment it currently prioritises, is another question altogether.

This is perhaps the greatest frustration on an afternoon like this – that we know it will happen again. This often feels like a sport not conducive to change nor open to it. Those steeped in the game will simply say “that’s cricket”, but why? Even after the game, on what must be a most heartbreaking occasion, Stokes waved away the idea of reserve days and simply said retaining the Ashes was “the way it’s always been”.

If it’s the way it continues to be, there may eventually be no Urn to retain.