Cricket misses the point again
If you pay a hundred quid to see Jude Law in Hamlet and Jude loses his voice, an understudy will step in. If there's a leak in the roof, someone will stick a bucket underneath it. If there's a creaky stage, there's a creaky stage. The show, as those theatre types are fond of saying, must go on.
Theatre is an entertainment. On the evidence of Tuesday night at Old Trafford, international cricket considers itself otherwise. How else to explain the latest farcical episode in the sport? Twenty thousand paying customers and the highlight was a middle-aged ex-cricketer periodically poking his umbrella into a circle of mud.
Twenty thousand paying customers frustrated by a couple of circles of mud - it's worth repeating. Why those circles of mud were there, we'll come back to later.
England captain Paul Collingwood under blue skies in Manchester
"This is an international Twenty20 match," said England skipper Paul Collingwood after the abandonment, the second in three days at the same ground. "If the
conditions are unfit you have to make a brave stance."
"There's no game I play for Australia where you go out and bowl some full tosses so the crowd get a great spectacle," said Aussie skipper Michael Clarke. "The ground just wasn't fit enough to play and both teams are disappointed."
The inference is that international cricket exists in a vacuum, for its own sake, above and beyond vulgar entertainment. How brave, I wonder, did those 20,000 paying customers find the decision to pull stumps without a ball being bowled?
The brave stance would have been to put the risks to one side, agree to bowl spinners, tell the pacemen to shorten their run-ups. Former Aussie speedster Jeff Thomson reckoned there was nothing wrong with the pitch. Former Aussie batsman Greg Blewett advised them to play in football boots. Shane Warne suggested they bowl from one end. Ridiculous? Try telling that to the 20,000 paying customers.
"If Brett Lee was running up to bowl, I can't imagine it being safe enough," added Clarke.
Why not tell Brett Lee he's not going to bowl? It's just a game after all, or am I being hopelessly naive?
When did international cricket become so self-important? If Lancashire chief executive Jim Cumbes is to be believed, it has been a gradual process over the last 30 years. "We would have got out there and played," a clearly upset Cumbes told Sky presenter Paul Allott. "Yes, but things have changed," was the gist of Allott's reply.
Maybe things need to change back.
"We have got to rethink how we treat our public in cricket," added Cumbes, acutely aware that some of those now trudging into the night behind him, caterwauling as they went, might never return.
The irony is, 30 years ago, cricket could probably afford to treat its fans in such an off-hand manner, entrenched as the game was in the nation's consciousness. But in this splintered and cluttered age, with its myriad forms of entertainment, it really can't afford to be so haughty.
Back to those circles of mud, clogging up the bowlers' run-up at the Brian Statham End. When 99% of the pitch was seemingly playable, why was the most important part a sodden mess? Cumbes said the footmarks had sweated under the covers. David Lloyd, the Lancashire great and former England coach, wasn't convinced.
Why, you could also ask, was Manchester awarded both Twenty20 internationals? It tends to rain rather a lot up there, especially in September.
It's been a horrendous few days up at Old Trafford. The ground, currently being redeveloped, is fighting for its international future. There are no Test matches scheduled for the ground until 2013, so it could have done without all this.
Those who made the decision not to play on Tuesday could have done Lancashire a big favour. Instead, they huddled in the pavilion and worried about themselves.
Instead of banging on, I'll read you an email I've just received, and it from a paying customer:
From Rick (Mr Angry in Cheshire): "Do the players and administrators and umpires not know who pays their salaries? The poor old muppets who keep stumping up £40 or £50 + car parking + food + drinks.
"Why not bowl off slightly shorter run-ups? Be creative and come up with some ideas. The whole thing is so badly run. Perhaps the spectators should strike for a few seasons? Apologies for ranting and raving, but this is a disgrace."
I'd wager Rick's not the only Mr Angry out there. The powers that be would do well to think on what he's said.
Hello. I have been working for the BBC for almost a decade now and cover almost all sports, but particularly cricket and boxing. It would be good to hear from you - just don't be nasty or my mum might get upset.
Here are 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Wasn't it the Old Trafford people who were the most indignant about missing out on a Test in favour of Sophia Gardens? Maybe they're just a little complacent there.
Complain about this comment
If the players and umpires were paid per played over we would have seen a game of some sorts last night. Sad but true.
Complain about this comment
Totally agree, in the winter we had the farce of a coach pulling his side off thinking he had won on the D/L, there was what 3 overs left the light was still playable but no to hell with the paying spectators many in Guyana have to travel by road and boat to get there.
That was a case of a coach bringing the game into disrepute and showing total contempt for the game and its spectators, cricket is dying 20/20 is supposed to bring new life, fat chance.
Complain about this comment
viewfromthevale. What a waste of ink!
Complain about this comment
As soon as I realised the condition of that run-up area, I knew that they would abandon the match.
I said to anyone prepared to listen, (mainly the dog), that if it is abandoned as an official international match, then just have a 'hit and giggle', even if it meant bowling from one end. Oh the inhumanity of it all. For the sake of cricket, think of the fans.
Complain about this comment
Well said Ben and Rick, my guess it's a view shared by 99% of the supporters of the game of cricket and every other sport. I played rugby in conditions that were more suited to mud wrestling without a thought of abandonment mainly because a few hundred hardy souls had turned up to watch. Now that filthy lucre has entered into the equation you would have thought that the paying customer deserved even more consideration. So much sport has been corrupted by the self-importance of its performers that I'm seriously wondering whether to cancel my over-priced Sky subscription. If a few thousand of us took a similar line maybe Sky would withdraw their funding and perhaps our pampered 'sportsmen' would recognise that their only role is to entertain and if they can't stand the heat they should, get out of the kitchen.
Complain about this comment
Why does Collingwood need to keep reminding us thats its a game of 'international' cricket?? Do they think they're something superior to the rest of cricket or something??
I am so angry at the contempt of these people. Who do they think they are??
Maybe we needed Ricky Ponting back - an experienced captain who would probably have appreciated the gravity of the situation. Instead we had those 2 chumps, messrs Collingwood and Clarke calling the shots!! :-((
Complain about this comment
Jim Cumbes is absolutely correct that the cricket administrators need to wake up and start showing some consideration to the needs of the spectators. First time I have heard someone dare to say such a thing.
How ridiculous for Paul Allott to say that he could have played on it but it was not fit for today's players.
And what about the game on Sunday. Cut off time was 6:14 - why have a cut off time? People have paid good money to watch a match. If it's fit at 7:30 then play then - and play the full 20 overs.
Cricket administrators are a joke.
Complain about this comment
Why not have two strips prepared at either end of the square?
You could see a few days ago that the forecast was going to be bad all weeek so why not be a bit pro active?
The worst that can happen is that a pitch is prepared that doesn't get used.
First time visitor to OT last night and I won't be going back.
Complain about this comment
It's not just international cricket that forgets its audience. On more than one occasion I've seen this at county level. The most recent was a T20 match at Canterbury three or four years ago.
This was a Saturday with an early start, mid-afternoon. About half an hour after the match began it started to rain. It continued to rain for the next couple of hours. One side had already had 5 overs, so with the rain having slowed the covers came off just in time for the other side to get 5 overs before everyone went off, now in bright sunshine, and to choruses of boos from the crowd.. What had happened is that everyone had done just enough, partly whilst it was still raining, to keep everyone's money.
We now had three or four hours of good light, but on a bright, sunny evening no further cricket was played. Kent said their hands were tied by the time allowed for a T20 match. Stupid, but at lease the County weren't wholly to blame. However, what stopped the teams coming out and entertaining the crowd for an hour or two anyway?
That was the last time I went to see a Kent match. I used to go regularly and took friends and family, none of whom have been since.
Complain about this comment
Collingwood clearly has ideas way above his station--he is an entertainter not a brain surgeon--what's brave about calling off a game !
Complain about this comment
Erm no Dirsy, you are missing the point. There were "20,000 paying customers" inside Old Trafford, and then the match was abandoned, and there were "20,000 people due a £50 refund"
Still, hardly Old Trafford's finest hour...
Complain about this comment
I think to be fair they had to start by a certain time as they are tied in by local authorities, the issue being getting everyone out and away from the area in a reasonable time
Not sure why this is such an issue it's always been a possible occurance in T20 cricket and anyone who bought a ticket with a thought it was highly unlikely to rain in Manchester in September is living in a dream world
You pay your money and hope for the best sometimes you get stung that's just the way it is with criket, the only issue I have is with the fixture list, I mean a whole 7 ODI series in September?? A summer with matches in Durham book ending the season?? If you need two matches in Durham fine but why in May and September it's beyond mental
Complain about this comment
it was incredibly annoying that the had it not been for a few square metres of mud the game would have happened. What is even more ridiculous is the way all the umpires and sky commentators (Paul Allott) kept on prodding and stamping on the muddy surface only making things worse. no wonder it never has any time to get better as they keep on stamping on it!
Complain about this comment
It's a fair point that it is an international match that will count towards world rankings. However, there is surely an obligation to entertain the paying public. If the only problem was that the run-ups were unsuitable for the likes of Brett Lee, why not play a 'friendly' (if there is such a thing between England and Australia) with limits to the run-up. That way the players get a game and the spectators get some entertainment. Simple really!
Complain about this comment
I went to a Glos v Somerset 20/20 match a couple of years back. It was raining but they started the game and after 10 overs had been bowled they walked off. The rain hadn't got any heavier and the conditions hadn't got any worse but of course after 10 overs had been bowled they didn't have to give anyone any money back. They then had the cheek to ask the crowd to give the players a big cheer for trying to put on a game!!! I've not been back to a cricket match since. When will they learn?
Complain about this comment
Cricket needs to wake up to the competition from other sports and other forms of entertainment generally. Its biggest problem is failure to deliver on the promised quantity of overs, possibly due to light, rain or captains deliberate slow play. Instead of so many playing regulations, which try to cater for all eventualities and always fail, there should be an overriding "common sense" rule, which allows the umpires to make fullest possible use of good conditions.
In tests, play should start at 10.45am and a minimum of 30 overs bowled before lunch can be taken. Then 1.30pm and 30 more overs, then 4pm and 30 more. sides can bowl more overs of course, but this should be an absolute minimum. Finish times should be abandoned altogether. If lighting and weather allow, then why stop if the minimum overs have not been bowled.
Everything should be geared to getting the overs bowled, even if it means ball changing, artifical lights (and a swap to a coloured ball), a huge tarpaulin cover over the entire ground for 24 hours prior to start of play etc.
The game needs to balance the risk of injury - which is tiny - against the risk of the whole game slipping away in the punters affections - which is very real. A Simon Jones style injury, which is awful, can happen in perfect playing conditions, so don't over play the risks, think about the paying customers!!
I have loved watching the game for 40 years, but even I am getting frustrated by how often I get short changed!
Come on ECB and ICC - WAKE UP !!
Complain about this comment
As 1st time 'international' 2020'ers on Sunday, we were very disappointed with a lack of information being shared with the crowd between innings. Apart from the tremendous RAF Falcons (parachutists) there was no entertainment, something I thought 2020 was all about? My son described the cheerleaders as 'weak', sorry but that didn't work, the two groundstaff guys driving the carts around the ground with a rope tied between them to clear the rain from the surface was more interesting. Long queues for food, drinks and toilets and even the TVs were switched off in the club shop because people were watching the Sky cricket coverage to find out what was happening! With no refund available for an abandoned match, we won't be going back.
Complain about this comment
You do wonder if the old school tie is at work in the allocations of tests ODIs etc. These grounds like Headingley and Old Trafford are famously poor and have done nothing to improve and stop this bar relying on bigger and bigger squeegy machines. Whilst competent grounds are excluded seemingly personal matters these grounds are on the roster on a nod and a wink. The ECB effectively played Russian Roulette with the weather.
Edgbaston whilst it did have a lot of rain probably only got play on a first day of mostly bright sunshine because the umpires realised there was a full crowd there and England had to bowl a wet ball and the Australians got an easy 123-1. Yes they had more rain after but at Lords you would have seen far more play with far more rain. Edgbaston had 3 years notice and has spent money on stands but just left the drainage as poor as when I lived near there 25 years ago. Indeed the groundsman Rouse kept appearing on TV laughing 10 days before he'd be lucky to have a decent wicket (what a sense of humour) - how do you get sacked short of a row with KP when boasting of competence issues is allowed? - ironically the only thing that was fine at Edgbaston was the wicket. then he did the same on the day as we frustratedly watched no cricket in sunshine saying how they'd worked all night to be nowhere near ready (hey like every bad manager I ever worked for you bust your back for deadlines you can not meet).
Headingley called off an ODI this year in bright sunshine because its drainage is toilet.
Now Old Trafford they've started building new stands. Great prioritisation great seats no cricket.
Really the fault is the ECB incompetence and silly excuses about 'lots of rain' will be allowed to wash. No action will be taken no penalty applied. ECB and co will get together and laugh at the people who turned up over a decent claret when assigning the grounds to these places again.
Think how bad these people would have fared without these giant sponge machines. Edgbaston actually was probably only a day short of being a very interesting test.
For the not particularly au fait England has frequent rain but not lots of rain by most country's standards. Nevertheless for a people who witter on and on about rain you'd think drainage would be sorted. After all it's probably cheaper than the fine wine collection of the ECB and each of these rotton grounds&counties.
A few hundred grand pennywise pound foolish the new motto of ECB. We will see no change. No sacked groundsmen. Don't aim at players and umpires what about an ECB who think they are competent as the money rolls in.
Complain about this comment
Spot on.
Collingwood made me cringe when he said it's not fit for 'international' cricket. What arrogance, what humbug! Its T20 man! The trouble is, none of this centrally contracted, muddy coddled bunch of Primma Donnas, ever actually play County T20. Live is very different it seems in their Ivory Tower.
Complain about this comment
The refund of the ticket price does not reflect the wasted evening, the cost of transport, parking, food, drink.
Cost of these is likely more than the ticket, but there'll be no refund for those.
Complain about this comment
Rac21ers --
Collingwood - an entertainer?????
Complain about this comment
While Jim Cumbes does have a point that the players and officials should feel morally obliged to provide the paying public with a game of some sort - even if it's not counted as a real Twenty20 international and they only bowl from one end as Shane Warne suggested - he should also stop trying to deflect the blame from Lancashire CCC.
It is their ground staff who failed to sufficiently protect that crucial part of the playing area. If they had done their job correctly, we'd have had a full game last night despite the afternoon deluge of rain.
I feel sorry for David Lloyd, he's been championing the cause of Lancashire and Old Trafford whenever he's had the opportunity on the mic, and now they've been given a chance (despite half the ground being a building site) they've made those who backed them look rather foolish.
Complain about this comment
Just as with football referees, the first responsibility of the umpire is the safety of the players. Imagine the criticism that would have been leveled at them (not to mention the lawsuits) if an Australian or an England player had slipped in this mud and seriously injured themselves.
Complain about this comment
RE ThereWeSaidIt - LCCC have recently had a brand new drainage system installed, and will be turning the pitch to take advantage of the angle of the sun. To say they haven't done anything in untruthful - but it still comes too late for those afftected yesterday.
I live locally and was speaking to fans last night who had travelled 300 miles and paid for a hotel from Sunday until this morning. Yes they will get their £50 admission back, but not the petrol money and hotel expenses incurred.
I agree with the 'have two pitches' ready idea...and to use 'sweating under the covers' excuse after how many years of covered pitches?
Complain about this comment
peter_couch - "Erm no Dirsy, you are missing the point. There were "20,000 paying customers" inside Old Trafford, and then the match was abandoned, and there were "20,000 people due a £50 refund"
And the travel costs? Overpriced food/Drink purchased while waiting for these clowns to make a decision? Are there any refunds for these costs....?
The ground staff have failed miserably. Old Trafford have proved their inability to host even a 20/20 game.
stevegrant1983 - spot on.
Complain about this comment
I wait with baited breath for articles saying that tennis/golf/football has missed the point again next time Wimbledon or the Open stops for rain or a football match is abandoned due to a waterlogged pitch.
Will there be calls for Andy Murray or Tiger Woods to 'get out there and play anyway' in order to 'entertain the crowds'. Maybe Murray could not run about as fast or Woods could play with only his driver. Maybe the footballers could just walk about the pitch.
ALL sport is subject to abandoment and postponement because of bad weather, but it does feel, sometimes, that cricket is criticised far more heavily when it is effected than other sports are.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I understand that international cricketers don't want to get injured they could at least have tried to play last night at Old Trafford. Michael Clarke and Paul Collingwood did not appear to be very concerned that the crowd nor the wider viewing public would not see any cricket last night. I have always been a Paul Collingwood supporter, indeed I am his no. 1 fan, but his display last night has upset me tremendously, I always thought he was so gutsy now I am not so sure. It seemed to me that both captains were relieved that they didn't have to play any cricket. I think it is so sad that international cricketers today are more worried about their T20 status for IPL contracts and not about the paying public. It is high time the ICC got together with IPL and sorted this situation out. Once again money talks and unfortunately it is the poor cricket public who miss out bearing in mind some of them will be unemployed and in relation to last night spent considerable amounts of money incidental to the ticket price to support cricket in this country. I cannot for the life of me understand where we go from here. Debacle is not strong enough, for example the Allan Stanford situation, Sir Viv Richards stadium situation and now this. Bring back the oldies is all I can say, at least they got out there and played because they loved the game of today's cricketers I am not sure.
Complain about this comment
#27
Its because cricket matches get abandoned a lot more easily than other sports. A sport you cant play at all in rain really cant be that good.
Cricket, alongisde golf and tennis is very overrated.
Complain about this comment
At least last nights spectators will receive some kind of recompense - I took my son to the game on Sunday at a cost of £80 + expenses, for this I received 21.1 overs of cricket, ten of which I missed while queueing for drinks at the woefully inadequate facilities. Works out about £8 an over in a match with no result. It suddenly makes taking him to the other Old Trafford seem like great value! Never again.
Complain about this comment
Quick Blue Turtle makes a valid point. This is a first class ground, not the village green and has a vast number of pitches on the square. Surely, there must have been another strip (covered by the square tarps), recently used which could have been pressed into action when it became apparent that the run up area would not dry. I appreciate that this would be a used pitch, but what would that really mean? The ball might move off straight occasionally?
I agree with the original article and the majority of the subsequent posts, that this is the latest in a growing line of incidents where 'match regulations' have defeated common sense and the authorities have shown absolutely no respect for the spectator as an important part of the event.
This was not a county championship game played in front of 2 men and a dog, this was a T20 international in front of a packed house. T20 is an entertainment business - Fireworks, dancers and million dollar salaries testify to this and i'm afraid the players can not be entertainers when it suits them and pampered children when it does not.
The saddest thing about the whole debacle however is the number of people - many posting comments on this thread who will never return to watch live cricket. It is this - a situation created by the adminstrators lack of foresight and imagination which is international cricket's greatest threat.
Complain about this comment
Simple solution, stop trying to play these international matches in the north of England where the weather is notoriously bad. Is it that difficult to work out? Both Twenty20 matches would of gone ahead and been completed if they had been played in Bristol and London respectively. It's a no brainer, better weather in South England, better chances of play.
Complain about this comment
I was at Old Trafford yesterday evening with my wife and son. The organisation was, I would suggest, a shambles. From the temporary, uncovered, stand where we were seated it was impossible to understand any of the public address announcements. The redevlopment of the ground is partially completed and services are poor.
The decision to abandon the game came after 2 hours of clear skies with no rain. Cynics might say that the decision was delayed for 2 hours so that the maximum amounts of overpriced beer and food could be sold to the punters, whose bags had been searched on the way in to make sure no "illegal" food or drink was smuggled in.
The final insult has to be the fact that a full refund will not be given; we have to send our tickets to a PO Box in Leicester, wait for a cheque and then have £1.40 per ticket deducted for "administration costs". What a nerve and what a way to treat the paying public. Customer care - they must be joking.
Complain about this comment
If they're gonna play up north then make sure its not in May or September, simple as that.
Complain about this comment
Having paid £50.00 for a ticket I would be more than cheesed off if the players agreed to play a game of "slap and tickle" as suggested by some people on this page- any one of us can go and do that down at the park. This should be a meaningful T20 (yes I appreciate that in itself is an oxymoron) or nothing at all- not a beer match! Why would I want to pay £50.00 to see Brett Lee et al. have what amounts to no more than a square practice? I'd rather have the £50.00 quite frankly. The fault here lies a) with administrators for picking a seasonally soggy dinosaur for a venue and b) for the seasonally soggy dinosaur not evolving sufficiently to have waterproof skin!!!!
Complain about this comment
I'll admit to having a little sympathy for the players yesterday - yes, the ground wasn't that bad, but no, it was not up to scratch for an international match, 20-20 or otherwise. The ground staff have most to answer for, in my view.
As to the suggestion that they should have improvised some form of contest for the sake of the spectators, have to say I don't see how that solves very much. If I've paid 40-50 quid to see an international 20-20, and I end up being treated to a joky game of beach-cricket, I'd want my money back.
As a Saffer, too, I must remember with some wry satisfaction that the IPL faced a choice of playing the competition in SA or England this year. Apparently weather was the decisive factor in swinging it SA's way, but after last night's debacle, it seems remarkable that England was even considered.
Complain about this comment
If there is anyone to blame for last nights fiasco it is Lancashire CCC. Why were the bowlers run ups like a bog whereas the rest of the ground was perfectly playable ? They have spent a lot of money on new drainage yet a small part of the ground was sodden.
Hearing Jim Cumbes explanation for this as 'the footmarks had sweated under the covers' is utterly laughable. Sadly the incompetence of this Club, the worst of all the Test Grounds, shows they are still unfit to hold International Cricket. The people of Manchester deserve better.
Yes, the players should have gone out & played some sort of game, but the real culprits are Lancashire CCC.
Complain about this comment
Can anybody tell me why I'm not entitled to any kind of refund on the tickets I had for Sunday's game?
Cricket must be the only sport that get's away with this when a match is abandoned with no result being reached.
It's a farce and I don't think I'll be spending my money on cricket tickets anytime soon.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting that the blogger compares theatre to sport. Sport has become more and more results orientated, focussing less on the quality of the participants involved at the expense of giving the audiences formatted entertainment akin to going to the theatre or cinema.
Maybe the 2 sides could have chased each other round the boundary (conditions permitting) throwing custard pies. That would be entertainment, no?
Complain about this comment
This isn't the first time fans have been shafted at an international match at Old Trafford.
I remember the Saturday (day three) of the Ashes Test in 2005 when it rained nearly all day yet they deliberately went out to make sure there were just enough overs bowled that fans didn't get a full refund, then went off again.
A mate of mine, mainly a football fan but who loves his cricket, said they could stuff it and hasn't been back to a Test match since. I bet many fans will be saying the same again after yesterday, full refund or not.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Hoggy-Bear. Ben Dirs I hope you do not describe yourself as a sports journalist to anyone.
Complain about this comment
Utter stupidity all round.
1) Why schedule games in the North of England after September? They could've played these ODIs/T20s earlier in the summer instead of a pointless Test "series" against the WIndies... where we'd just come back from.
2) How did the run ups get wet?! Surely they're the next most important area other than the actual wicket?
3) Surely they could've agreed to call it a non-international game (a glorified beer match) and bowled from one end? Then they'd only have to refund say half the ticket money, saving them a lot of money and grief whilst putting on a show for the thousands of paying spectators. This also would've saved me from watching CSI Miami last night with the missus...
Complain about this comment
As long as the ground is ok for the upcoming Coldplay concert I don't mind ;-)
Complain about this comment
I can't believe that Lancashire have half got away with this. Shows that attack is the best form of defence. Why aren't people getting at them for not covering properly? And would Lancashire have paid the claim if a star player's career had been ended?
Complain about this comment
Sympathy to the spectators, but Law 22.1 says overs must be bowled from alternate wickets. Bowl from one end if you must, but it wouldn't be cricket. Sort of baseball, perhaps?
Complain about this comment
A couple of friends travelled from hertfordshire to manchester yesterday with their 3 children to watch their first game of 20/20 yesterday...
After an 8 hour round trip,£50 petrol,£50 food and drinks,they got back at midnight and had watched 4 grown men looking at a bit of pitch for an hour.
They are all agreed that from now on they will stick to going to the footie with the kids,congratulations collie on the brave decision,you have lost the goodwill of 20,000 people yesterday by treating the paying public as mugs!!!!
Complain about this comment
I don't agree. I don't like to see cricket abandoned just as much as the next guy, but, your point Ben, has a flaw. The money people pay to watch the cricket, as we talk about so much, is not spent to watch Voges run in and bowl medium pace. It's spent to watch your steam-train Brett Lee's and Mitchell Johnson, if i were 8 years old and saw Australia's opening attack of Voges and D Hussey then I might take up football. I also might take up football if I saw my idol Brett Lee running-in on this wicket and breaking an ankle in the process, not a risk worth taking over a damn T20.
Complain about this comment
On Sky last night David Lloyd explained the laws regarding decisions to play or not play an international Twenty20 match. He stated that any decision has to be made by the umpires collectively (i.e all four in agreement) and that this decision must not be influenced by any player or players. It seems to me that it was the players who had the most influence here.
Complain about this comment
To be fair, Manchester's only the ninth-wettest city in Britain. Swansea takes that crown (and I'm vaguely proud of that, given I live there). Cardiff's wetter and they played a Test there this year - and it was mostly dry! It's all luck of the draw: plenty of Tests have been interrupted by rain at Lord's.
To people saying that international matches should only be played in the South: that's a pretty offensive statement, on a par with the Tories saying a year or so back that people living in the North should move to the South if they want jobs. Headingley and Chester-le-Street don't even get that much rain! And after the number of England players Durham, Lancashire and Yorkshire have produced in recent years, too.
Complain about this comment
i can understand the umpires and Captains being concerned about where the bowlers 'land' on their run-ups, how would they look if someone was seriously injured. I think the main question is why, when the rest of the ground looked perfect were these 'critical areas' soggy - give me a few large family tents to pitch over these areas and i could keep them dry, i was at old trafford last night and the grass looked immaculate- there was no spray at all when the rope was being dragged over the outfield. I also liked the idea of an exhibition match from one end- at least the kids i took would have something to remember
Complain about this comment
R. 42.
A pointless test series against Windies? Yes,they are rubbish, but, it was our only chance to play test cricket in England before the Ashes, worth it.
Complain about this comment
The men's international cricketers quickly distance themselves from their roots and the people who pay their salaries.
That's why I now prefer watching the women's cricket...
Complain about this comment
Ben, I love your writing and you even make boxing seem like a decent sport, but this blog is bang out of order. Quoting from you here:
====================================================================
"The inference is that international cricket exists in a vacuum, for its own sake, above and beyond vulgar entertainment. How brave, I wonder, did those 20,000 paying customers find the decision to pull stumps without a ball being bowled?
The brave stance would have been to put the risks to one side, agree to bowl spinners, tell the pacemen to shorten their run-ups. Former Aussie speedster Jeff Thomson reckoned there was nothing wrong with the pitch. Former Aussie batsman Greg Blewett advised them to play in football boots. Shane Warne suggested they bowl from one end. Ridiculous? Try telling that to the 20,000 paying customers.
"If Brett Lee was running up to bowl, I can't imagine it being safe enough," added Clarke.
Why not tell Brett Lee he's not going to bowl? It's just a game after all, or am I being hopelessly naive?"
======================================================================
Yes, you are being naive, to be frank. What's the point of a game where one of the true quicks in the world is told 'Sorry lad, not bowling you, too dangerous' and instead you get four overs of Michael Hussey bowling instead. It'd be like going to see Pele play in his prime and ending up with Peter Kay going 'Have it' instead.
When a game of football or rugby has is in danger of being called off due to a frozen pitch, I doubt you'd be posting up a blog saying 'They should have gotten out there with restrictions on tackling and made each player wear several layers of padded clothing. Oh, and they can't use their wingers'.
Many people have said that an exhibition match should have been played. If the ground is unfit for a T20 game, why on earth would the same players turn up to bowl pies at one another and run about unenthusiastically around the pitch in a facile meaningless contest?
"When did international cricket become so self-important? If Lancashire chief executive Jim Cumbes is to be believed, it has been a gradual process over the last 30 years. "We would have got out there and played," a clearly upset Cumbes told Sky presenter Paul Allott. "Yes, but things have changed," was the gist of Allott's reply.
Maybe things need to change back."
It's nothing to do with cricket feeling self-important. It's fairly obvious why things have changed, and that is because of the threat of litigation. Imagine the scenario: Brett Lee goes out to bowl on a pitch that the umpires aren't sure is fit for play but they're pressured into playing. Lee goes up to bowl the first over, slips during his run up on a muddy spot, damages his knee and cartilage so badly that he never plays again. The first port of call Lee would make would be to his lawyer. There would be the loss of future earnings from playing for Australia and the loss of potentially huge sums from not being able to play in the IPL, possibly in the Champions League, loss of sponsorship, merchandising, etc etc. It would go on similar lines to Gordon Watson in the past (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-watson-awarded-damages-1092274.html). As Gordon said, "At the end of the day I go to work. If you get injured at work things like this have to be taken into account and this is what this judgment is about today."
That's it, the bottom line. Old Trafford yesterday was a workplace for two sets of cricketers. If that workplace was felt to be unsafe and those workers had been told to go out there when the ICC representatives were unsure about the safety of the playing conditions, you're walking on a precarious legal tightrope.
Now Gordon Watson's victory was back in the day way before we got out the bunting for the start of the new millennium and before the days of those vile accident insurance 'Will sue for you' adverts. Nowdays the cash payout would be even greater as we saw with the case of Ben Collett (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/08/12/manchester-united-footballer-awarded-record-4-3million-115875-20693992/). Ben was a young defender who hadn't even made a first team debut for Manchester United. He was playing in his first reserve team game yet still managed to get £4.3 million to cover loss of future earnings after Middlesborough claimed negligence for the tackle that broke Collett's leg.
£4.3 million for a bloke who never played for the full team?!?
With that in mind, how much would Brett Lee be able to claim in he were injured at work through an umpire's negligence? Ashes winner, internationally regarded quick bowler, potential for many more years of cricket with Australia and the IPL... phew! Lawsuit City! Lee versus the ICC, as I'm sure the match referee and the umpires as appointed ICC representatives would be up in the dock.
Litigation is a worry in all sports. Why do you think golf courses are so eager to whisk players off at the merest hint of thunder and lightning? You should also look at Formula 1. Ever since Senna died, the FIA went on a mission to improve driver safety not just to prevent its drivers from getting mashed in accidents but the threat of legal or criminal cases being launched against them. It has led to significant safety improvements in both car design and driver safety through the HANS device and sadly has also led to some truly dismally boring circuits being devised. The circuits and equipment are safer for drivers and the threat of death/injury with accomompanying legal action against the FIA is reduced. Again, with reference to Ben Collett, if a non-first team Man Utd player can get £4.3 million for a negligent opponent, how much do you think Senna's estate would go for now had he died in dangerous conditions in this current legal climate?
Ben, you can quote Rick aka Mr Angry from Cheshire all you want. The paying public need to wake up and realise that they aren't the real breadwinners for the players. The television money is the key here. Spectators do not play player's salaries. If there was a drop in crowd figures, the clubs would find another way of screwing the coin out of the pocket just as the wonderful football teams do. Rick can waffle on about how the players should ball off shorter run-ups all he wants. It is a ridiculous idea. Rick, you live Oop North in an area of high rainfall and you've bought tickets for September. You run the risk of no cricket, just as I run the risk of having no cricket next week when I'm down in Southampton with my £65 ticket. If it gets rained off down at the Rose Bowl, you won't see me moaning and demanding the quick bowlers bowl off of five paces and get smacked just to entertain me. I paid my £65 demanding a full-on cricket experience, not the equivalent of performing sealions gallivanting about on a damp field just to make me feel like I've got something for my money.
All the Glamorgan fans crowing are a tad hypocritical. Yes, Old Trafford has seen some drainage problems. So did you when it came to your first big game, you messed up, and you were given a second chance. So hush!
The real question that should be focused on is why Old Trafford was given both T20 games. It's been a horrendous summer in terms of scheduling. The Friends Provident Trophy started on April 19th to sparse crowds (people don't want to watch cricket in mid April when the weather is dodgy? Shock!), the West Indies Tests were a farce, the domestic T20 competition has been somewhat squished by the World T20 competition, and now we're having all the one day games coming after the main Ashes event, thus making the ODI games feel even more like a huge irrelevance. The scheduling of this summer has been very messy indeed and I hope lessons have been learnt.
Complain about this comment
I have thought for some time that the concept of playing limited overs international cricket in England in September is far fetched.
It is down to the ECB and the ICC desperately trying to get as much money as they can from us mug punters. Trust me the same thing will happen next year with limited overs games against Pakistan scheduled for September.
Anyone who has seen or watched limited overs cricket played in September in England will know that the shortening day, possibility of dew coming up and the effect this have on the ptich as well as the possibiluty of rain means it is a lottery. I can remember that often the old 60 over one day final was decided by the toss rather than the play on the pitch.
Next year there will be five one days and two 20/20's from the 5th of September onwards
http://www.ecb.co.uk/ecb/about-ecb/media-releases/ecb-unveils-2010-format,307430,EN.html
Next summer England are due to play six tests plus 13 one day days plus 2 20/20 internationals.
Logic surely dicates that if you are going to try to get 2 test series and two one day series in then you are asking for trouble.
Hasn't the time come for an early test series followed by a tri nations one day series then the second test series.
Also hasn't anyone else wondered why if we continue to play internationals in September then give players no time off before an early auturmn tour then a winter / spring tour that so many international players are always injured or carrying injuries.
Complain about this comment
I was at Old Trafford last night and with the very heavy rain is was pretty obvious that the ground was going to be unfit, and I for one do not want to see a micky mouse game (T20 is micky mouse enough!). My only comment/criticism is that the game could have been called off mid afternoon - the cynic in me says LCCC wanted some money through the bars and food outlets, if I am being kind the ground staff and umpires were genuinely trying to get a game on. It's pretty tough on those that travelled a long way but a game played in those poor conditions would not have been "entertaining" at all - It was the right decision to call it off, just a little late in my opinion
Complain about this comment
What is this? International standard cricketers should represent their country, but not play to their abilities, but tone the game down to suit the audience. This isn't American Wrestling, it's the greatest sport on earth!! Umpires being paid to extend games could lead to deliberate bad decisions, which would undermine the status of the umpires. There are bigger fish to fry than this. Rain is not unusual in Manchester. Last I heard, Old Trafford had more Test days lost to rain than all of the rest of the Test grounds combined. Why are people surprised when a 20/20 (about 3 hours) is lost, when Old Trafford has lost an entire Test to rain?
Complain about this comment
1) Lancashire have previous here. Some years ago a championship match v Yorkshire was abandoned because the covers had not been effective. They had basically created pools as water leaked through a gap or something. It was a farce and robbed Yorkshire of a likely win.
2) I do tend to agree with those who say they'd rather have the refund than watch some farce of a match with spinners only, short run ups, one end, etc. Yes you can't get your petrol, hotel, time back...but that's the gamble you take with cricket.
3) Those who say 'don't have matches in the north' lack some basic knowledge. The wet/dry divide is much more west/east than North. Yes you're more likely to get rain in Manchester, but if cricket matches were always held at the place where rain is least liekly, they'd all be in the Atacama desert. The people of the NW love their cricket and deserve to have an international match (whether this is at OT is another matter - given my point #1).
Complain about this comment
Is it not time to include meteorologists in the team who plan these events? Currently Tests are played at Durham in May when it is freezing cold and One days scheduled in Septermber in the North West when ex-hurricanes tend to deposit rain on the Old Trafford ground while the East of the country remains dry. Lancashire continually cite the number of days lost to weather as a reason that they do not win the County Championship so perhaps a study of seasonal weather records might allow more cricket to be played.
Complain about this comment
International cricketers should sometimes think about what they are saying, and how consistent this is with previous comments. Collingwood was happy to criticise the Stormont pitch as being useless and wet. Stormont is a part-time pitch, and the best an associate member with no funding can hope to provide. First Edgebaston, now Old Trafford, a spot of rain and unplayable. Kettle, pot etc?
Complain about this comment
57. At 10:17am on 02 Sep 2009, exiled-tyke wrote:
3) Those who say 'don't have matches in the north' lack some basic knowledge. The wet/dry divide is much more west/east than North. Yes you're more likely to get rain in Manchester, but if cricket matches were always held at the place where rain is least liekly, they'd all be in the Atacama desert. The people of the NW love their cricket and deserve to have an international match (whether this is at OT is another matter - given my point #1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No one is saying they don't love their cricket but of all the abandonments we've had this summer, every single one has been in the north of England while the South enjoyed sunshine or at least no rain. Its a simple solution to play internationals in the south then we wouldn't be having these discussions over a farce like last night.
Complain about this comment
The ground was wet, squidgy and muddy. It's all well and good going on about the bowlers being asked to run in off a shortertened run, but what about the fielders? What if a guy had slid, got his knee caught in a soft patch, and then ripped his knee apart much like Simon Jones did in 05 which has arguably ruined his career?
It is frustrating and costly as it is to turn up and then go home again without seeing a ball bowled, but unfortunately that's what bad weather and sporting events entails from time to time.
Can you blame the players for not risking their livelihoods running and diving around on a sodden outfield? Jim Cumbes is clearly more worried about how much £££££££ the ground makes, or in this case didn't. When rugby gets called off how about they play a game of tag instead? Asking Brett Lee to bowl off 4 paces isn't a spectacle for me.
Sorry guys, just my opinion.
Complain about this comment
As a former groundsman/greenkeeper I was watching the events unfold yesterday before the abandonment with interest. When the extent of the damage at the Brian Statham end was shown on TV it was obvious to me that someone had made a complete mess of placing the covers, it was fairly evident that there must have been a gap in the covers just beyond the edge of the Hover Cover...only 1 person should take the blame for the abandonment and that person is the Head Groundsman...so tough luck on his employers LCCC, they have lost money because one of their staff made a c*ck up, deal with it and stop trying to deflect he blame.
Complain about this comment
I like Ben Dirs, I usually agree with most of what he has to say but in this instance I'm not convinced by a few of the points made:
'Why not tell Brett Lee he's not going to bowl? It's just a game after all, or am I being hopelessly naive?'
I think you are being a bit naive, it's meant to be a serious international match and you want one, or both, team(s) to just not bowl one, or more, of their premier bowlers? What would this do for principles of competition and the standing of what should be a top class, meaningful match - I can't imagine a scenario where any other sport would consider something like this, imagine Liverpool being told not to play Gerrard because windy conditions were making his shots swerve too much (I know this is a stupid example that would never happen but the principle is similar).
As for shortened run-ups, yeah maybe, but this would most likely reduce the match to a half-hearted, going-through-the-motions spectacle that arguably diminshes priciples of competition as well. Considering that most fast bowlers have to reduce their run ups for ODI & T20 due to time constraints already, and that cricket should be as close to an even competition between bat and ball as possible this solution does not seem a particularly good one.
Ultimately I just worry about producing a sub-standard match that undermine's what should be top-class international competition.
P.S. If it seems like I am defending the ECB in anyway, I do not intent to, in recent times they have proven themselves to be one of the most incompetent organisations imaginable.
Complain about this comment
The whole north/south weather divide is fairly irrelevant in this case, isn't it?
If the ground staff had done their job properly on that one patch of grass (like they'd done on the rest of the ground), we'd have had a full game - albeit delayed by an hour - and nobody would have complained at all.
As a southerner, we're certainly not exempt from our fair share of rain at this time of the year either.
Complain about this comment
#1 Quesion here: Why were the covers ineffective in protecting the run-ups?
It would have been (at least) a bit silly to try playing a match on that pitch, beceause of that small area.
Complain about this comment
There have been a great number of very well thought blogs both for and against the decision last night and as a result on the basis of the very good point of potential litigation I have changed my mind and now support the abandonment. I guess the correct theatrical analogy is calling off the show when at the last minute it's discovered that the stage might collapse. All that said I'm still adamant that any sport played for wages in front of paying spectators is purely entertainment and has no other greater purpose. But perhaps another blog will convince me otherwise again?
Complain about this comment
Yes, the players should have gone out & played some sort of game, but this misses the point. If there is anyone to blame for last nights fiasco - it is Lancashire County Cricket Club. Why were the bowlers run ups like a bog whereas the rest of the ground was perfectly playable ? They have spent a lot of money on new drainage yet a small part of the ground was sodden.
Hearing Jim Cumbes explanation for this as 'the footmarks had sweated under the covers' is utterly laughable. Sadly the incompetence of this Club, the worst of all the Test Grounds, shows they are still unfit to hold International Cricket. The people of Manchester deserve better.
When Cardiff was awarded the right to host the first Ashes Test, and Old Trafford lost out there was no more vociferous critic than Mr. Cumbes; he would do well to reflect on why his club are often criticised.
Complain about this comment
Could they not have got the crowd on to mop up the rain...? (1968 springs to mind).
A friendly match would have been much better for the crowds - played on a different wicket perhaps - how difficult can it be to use the county one?
Complain about this comment
Clearly the players have forgotten that T20 is the lowest form of cricket designed to get people in the grounds and entertain them. This was not a test match and would have been forgotten the following day as being inconsequential in the history of the game. Therefore play some form of cricket and entertain. Very poor decision!
Complain about this comment
I think that this is the new 20/20 generation of fans who want cricket whatever the state/safety of the pitch. This is an international match and should either be played at full pelt on a safe pitch or not at all. Sorry for those you paid out but this is cricket, take it or leave it
Complain about this comment
Can anyone tell me why the OT Ground staff did absolutely naff all to try and dry up the puddle at the Statham end? No squeegees, no sponges, no sawdust, no effort whatsoever. Absolutely nothing. WHY?
Complain about this comment
BTW whoever replied to my piece and said LCCC had spent money on drainage it really does actually make my point they are totally incompetent. How many cases of claret did it take to get that contract for C Bodge, It & Run to do the drainage.
Again no sackings. No recriminations more tea, cake and drinks with Giles.
Complain about this comment
Sport in general, especially in Europe / ROW, often struggles to realise that it is just a branch of the entertainment business and that any athletes or sporting bodies cannot live in a bubble.. broadcasting, advertising and gate sales pay their wages, so if the broadcasters/advertisers/punters say play/run/fight they better start..
Complain about this comment
Two abandonments, that must rate as two of Collingwoods best results as captain.
Complain about this comment
Yet again you have all missed the point.
Ok, a game of cricket got rained off and thousands of spectators and viewers had a ruined evening - but I was able to enjoy the mentally stimulating debate amongst the panel of highly articulate and hugely experienced commentators and the poignant interview with the Chairman of Lancs CCC. Well worth my Sky subscription.
And I even made sure I got my money's worth for my Licence Fee by listening to the radio commentators empathising with the crowd by voicing their disappointment with the "powers that be".
That's entertainment.
Mike Oxley-King
Complain about this comment
Don't criticise the club for the bad weather. This summer has seen exceptional rain on the West Coast and the water table is so high even modest rainfalls causes local surface water.
Lancashire spent half a million quid last year on the outfield drainage. Last evening , despite heavy rain on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, the outfield was fit to play whereas in previous years the ground would have resembled a lake. The problem area was in the bowlers approaches where the square and outfield meet. There must either be undrained water from the square, or a damaged or blocked drain, causing the waterlogging at this point. Clearly Lancs CC need to sort this out with the drainage contractors post haste.
I was at Old Trafford for the Sunday 20:20 Int and know the disappointment caused to many supporters. Maybe the players could have made the effort to put on some sort of game - but it is not just the players. During the Sunday match the last 3 overs of the Aussie innings were played in light rain but, for some reason, the game Eng could not bat because of the same light rain! Despite numerous Aussie players practising on the outfield. Umpires and match officials note! This pantomime went on for more than an hour - all the time during dry/light rain - before the umpires decided play could start. Eight ball later the rain set in with a vengeance. What a wasted opportunity.
Complain about this comment
Oldfashionedrugby (Number 66):
I think I was the chap you were referring to for bringing up the litigation side of things. Health and safety affects everyone at work. It seems so many spectators seem to forget that sports people are also subject to the same regulations. We've all seen the daft accident damages adverts. If a lass can sue for negligence based on a damp floor without a 'Danger - wet floor sign' being visible, then a cricketer who suffers an injury on a ground that is dubious in terms of playing safety would have a very strong case.
"All that said I'm still adamant that any sport played for wages in front of paying spectators is purely entertainment and has no other greater purpose. But perhaps another blog will convince me otherwise again?"
I've never believed that. As a player, the spectators are irrelevant. You don't focus on them. You focus on your opposition and your own game. You don't get a footballer thinking 'Wll, we've got over 50,000 in this stadium today, a great turnout, so I'd better try a few stepovers just to entertain the crowd rather than sensible passes left and right of me'. A sporting competition is essentially a private competition that the public are invited to watch in exchange for their readies. A player does what he or she needs to do in order to be successful, not to give some people in Row D a thrill.
Spectators shouldn't obviously be treated badly though. They should be respected with proper facilities, decent toielts, good seating, good views, a decent choice of catering at the venue that isn't overpriced, and some recompense if the sporting action they have come to see gets cancelled. I've never liked the ECB scheme where a certain number of overs play means no refund. Quite frankly, it should be a lot easier than that. If a T20 match only sees half the game, the paying public should get half of the ticket back. If a day's Test cricket sees two sessions washed out, give the paying public back two sessions's worth of money or some kind of voucher system enabling them to money off future events.
The bottom line with this cancellation is the legal issue. You just have to look around to see that damages for injuries, be they sportsman or members of the military within the UK, have never been so commonplace. It isn't just the cases that actually go to court too. So many get settled out of court because it's prohibitively expensive for the defendent to launch a defence against the claim in the court system. I know of one case within my former employer in which a settlement out of court was made because the case itself would have cost £50,000 to launch. Just a search on Google for 'damages councils pavements' will show you how much local councils have paid out due to people tripping on pavements.
Legal issues affect all sports. No doubt. To me, the decision to cancel this game was no different to making under-16 players wear helmets when batting and keeping wicket. It's all done for self-preservation of the ruling bodies who are the ones who'd cop it in the courts when someone gets hurt. Personally I think you'll see more of those cancellations within amateur cricket in the future. It really would not surprise me if you get to the point where a player in an amateur league sues the league s/he plays for as he was injured on an unsafe wet pitch. I don't say it is right but it reflects the 'Must have someone to blame' society that has erupted around us.
Complain about this comment
A soloution to this rain problem is this: Build - in the Midlands, probably Birmingham, for ease of access for the whole country - a national cricket stadium - with a roof! So at the end of the summer England can play all their ODIs and T20s, knowing that the weather can't ruin the game. Further to this, if they made the stadium big enough, 50,000+ the ECB wouldn't have to charge so much for tickets and then low and behold people would be more inclinded to bring their families and friends and - OMG!!!!!! - T20 achieves what is suppossed to.
But it'll never happen sadly...
Complain about this comment
Absolutely spot on, Mr Dirs. This article should be required reading for the ICB.
Complain about this comment
I don't think the Institude of Certified Bookkeepers will much care for the article...
Complain about this comment
By the same token, how come Sir Alex Ferguson gets away with not talking to the BBC? That is a disgrace that should have been challenged years ago. It is the viewing public that makes football what it is and SAF has an obligation to set aside personal grudges and speak to the corporation as one of the principal football broadcasters.
The viewing public does not exist for the benefit of football, it is the other way around.
Complain about this comment
First, many thanks for your replies, this is obviously an emotive subject...
AndyPlowright - "The paying public need to wake up and realise that they aren't the real breadwinners for the players. The television money is the key here. Spectators do not play player's salaries." Sorry, have to disagree totally. No, the paying public may not directly be the breadwinners, but without people paying money to turn up or watch on TV, then do you think the TV cameras would bother turning up at all? I doubt it.
"When a game of football or rugby has is in danger of being called off due to a frozen pitch, I doubt you'd be posting up a blog saying 'They should have gotten out there with restrictions on tackling and made each player wear several layers of padded clothing. Oh, and they can't use their wingers'." - No, but the point is the pitch at Old Trafford was 99% playable last night - if a game of football or rugby was called off because of a couple of patches of ice, then yes, I might blog about it!
peter_couch - I don't think it is me missing the point. Going to a game of cricket or football or whatever costs far more than simply the price of a ticket. Factor in travel for the whole family, petrol, a few burgers and a couple of drinks each... well, you get my point, they don't get all that back, do they?
Hoggy-Bear - "I wait with baited breath for articles saying that tennis/golf/football has missed the point again next time Wimbledon or the Open stops for rain or a football match is abandoned due to a waterlogged pitch." Sorry, but these sports simply aren't comparable. The fact is, if it rains at Wimbledon, then the players literally cannot stand up on the court. At Old Trafford last night, everyone agreed that, other than two spots of mud, the rest of the ground was perfectly playable. The Open? Can't remember the Open being stopped by bad weather too often. Football and waterlogged pitches? Well, that hardly ever happens at the top level any more, and anyway, football can do what it likes, cricket's long-term popularity is't as assured.
fiveoffthetee - Strange you should say that, because the majority of people on here agree with me!
coxy0001 - But that's the point, the ground wasn't "wet, squidgy and muddy", any number of ex-pros attested to that, apparently the new drainage system had done a miraculous job. Other than a few areas.
Complain about this comment
Was listening to Meeting Mr. Miandad by Duckworth/Lewis Method, which somehow got me thinking about Eng v SA at the SCG in 1992 and just how little seems to have changed when it comes to rain-affected matches - they always descend into farce.
Anyway, the point is, if these are international matches, why does the ECB go some way to ensuring consistency in the drainage and coverage systems used at the grounds? Being told that the drainage system is not as good as that at Lord's, whilst sitting above a wet outfield in brilliant sunshine at Edgbaston, hardly does much for crowd morale.
Is there not a way of leasing equipment for the hosting of international matches, or the ECB buying the kit and transporting it via lorry prior to the staging of international matches? I don't know about the exact logistics of such an operation, but there must be something that could be done.
And interesting to note that Old Trafford were charging £50 for a 20 over match, when it was £40 for a double-header during the Twenty20 World Cup...
Complain about this comment
The whole afternoon/evening was a farce and Lancashire CCC have to take a serious look at how they go about staging international cricket. My friends and I arrived slightly early and the gates were still shut. Being members I feel we should be able to go into the Pavilion to have a drink but we couldn't. At 5pm the gates didn't open. The pathetic reason was the teams hadn't arrived. Are they really that precious they can't be anywhere near the public when getting off a bus? As we didn't get in until 5.20pm considerable revenue must have been lost by the bars and catering outlets.
Once in the bar and having seen Nigel Llong emerge from the umpires room it was clear right from the outset that the vibes from him and the players were very negative and I think we knew from when the rain stopped that no play was going to take place even though the covers had not come off. It is a pity that alot of cricketers would still rather not play than actually play but that has always been the way of the game.
For Lancashire's covers to fail to give them the excuse not to play is a disgrace. We poured scorn on the West Indies authorities for the abandonment in Antigua but this was just as bad in a way.
There was also a lack of announcements in the ground and clearly Sky viewers found out before the spectators.
This farce will do little to encourage spectators back and makes me wonder what is the point in paying the full membership price every year for a club that won't even let me in for a drink and then denies me the spectacle I have paid extra to watch.
Complain about this comment
Rather, why DOESN'T the ECB go some way to ensuring consistency...
Complain about this comment
If the viewing public makes football what it is, then the scenes from the Millwall-West Ham match should be enough to consign football to a landfill site, right? Football does not exist for the viewing public. They are private sporting clubs involved in a league system that the public are invited to watch in exchange for their money. The spectators are a resource to be used and mined. Their love of the game spells dollars in the eyes of those who runs the clubs and leagues.
As a sidenote, it's nice to see that, after the totally overblown media criticism from some snooty papers of the England fans at Edgbaston, we saw two cancelled games of cricket where there were no riots. Fans drank and sang but there wasn't any scenes of violence or racist chanting. Cricket fans have shown themselves in a good light after the Millwall-West Ham debacle.
Complain about this comment
Question why there was only a small area of the pitch that was unfit to play on.
Question why both matches were held at OT.
Question why decisions like this are made late on in the evening if it's obvious there will be no play.
But DON'T question why players and umpires deemed the pitch unfit to play and DON'T question why people didn't change the game just so the supporters would see some form of cricket!
In football, if a penalty area was frozen and considered unsafe, you wouldn't play on half the pitch and make it a 5-a-side just to keep the fans happy
Complain about this comment
@ JLindseyGreen
'I think it is so sad that international cricketers today are more worried about their T20 status for IPL contracts and not about the paying public'
Its quite fashionable nowadays to blame everything on the IPL. What has IPL got to do with ECB and LCCC's incompetence? They cannot even conduct one T20 and compare this to the IPL organisation of just moving the whole tournament to another country. Now that is planning & execution!
If Flintoff's knee breaks its the IPL, if Ravi Bopara cant score a run its the IPL...just sickening!! Wake up to the realities that being rubbish at something and finding excuses for everything wont go far.
Complain about this comment
Atrocious point-missing from Dirs here, and some of the most moronic comments I've ever seen on a BBC blog, and that's saying something.
Trotting out the same tired line about 'sport being part of the entertainment business' is cheap, fatuous and serves no purpose. Yes, maybe it is, but if conditions aren't fit for it, then they're not fit for it, and that's that. Suggestions that there should be a spinners-only, one-end only, mickey mouse game are absurd. These are professional sportsmen and should not be subjected to pinning the tail on the donkey to satistfy some drunken oafs.
Moaning that it took them two hours to call off the game? Would have been happier had they called it off BEFORE two hours of sunshine, and before the state of the affected area became evident, would you? Thought not. Think before you speak.
As for not getting refunds on games partially finished? Obviously if the game wasn't finished, there are no costs to the ground, are there? None whatsoever, no security, no capital outlay, no nothing. Think before you bleat 'it's just part of the entertainment business'.
People are forgetting that cricket is cricket, and that it is vulnerable to the weather. It always has been, always will be. You can never completely protect the game from the elements. Nobody should be expected to do their job in conditions that are unsafe, and coming up with all sorts of mickey mouse solutions to see 'a game', rather than the game you paid to see, makes a mockery of the game.
Cricket may be 'a part of the entertainment business', but it's a part called cricket, and it has its own characteristics, just like all the other parts. Twenty20 has seen it go far enough down the bland road of nouveau football and anodyne fa-mi-lee friendliness, and what-do-I-tell-my-kiddies. It's still SPORT. Comparisons with theatre and Jude Law are fatuous nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Just at in the test at Edgbaston, this is so frustrating!
Surely it must be possibly to put matting on the tiny part of the ground that was too wet, to create a stable enough surface for the bowlers?
Complain about this comment
Old Trafford was a fine venue until yesterday. 20-20 is a bit of an international nonsense in any case but the ground could have been better prepared than it was. Bowlers run-ups should be fully covered and if not then that is shoddy. There is an equal duty of care to the spectators as well as the players. I suppose that their tickets are reimbursed but travel and other expenses and can you put a price on disappointment ?
Complain about this comment
Be interesting to compare the state of the Old Trafford run ups to that experienced in this years and last year's IPL games?
Would Collingwood and Clarke have taken the same stance if they were getting paid £50k a game? Hmmmm.
Complain about this comment
I think people have missed the point with this. Yes it is entertainment but should it be diluted just to give the audience something to watch. Bowling only spinners or making fast bowlers shorten their run ups ruins what people paid to come and watch, would people watch football if the strikers were not allowed to score ? It should have been a spectacle to see lee, Johnson and nannes bowling over 90mph and would have been a farce to instead see hussey white and Clarke tossing it up instead. Lancashire is solely to blame in my opinion as they produced a unplayable arena. The interview with Jim cumbes shows how out of date administrators are in England and how we will never get the radical reforms in county cricket we need in order to produce the best players for international cricket.
Complain about this comment
To be honest, I wouldn't personally pay to watch 20/20, or, "tip n run" as it was called when I was a kid back in the 50's....but...the fans of that form of the game deserve far better than what they were served up at OT.
To the person who banged on about litigation and the paying customer doesn't count...that seems to be the view of the ECB who "administer" this great game by the principles of deception and thievery, creating the perception that the paying "customer" is going to get something he clearly is not.
When the "paying customers" walk away from the grounds fed up to the backteeth of being shafted. we'll see what the Devil , in the form of Sky TV does then!!
Well written Ben, though I suspect you were holding your feelings back due to the restraints of the National PC Corporation.
Complain about this comment
CartmanEazyE - "These are professional sportsmen and should not be subjected to pinning the tail on the donkey to satistfy some drunken oafs." Aaah, poor lambs. No, you're obviously right, God forbid these highly-paid professional sportsmen be made to perform such a demeaning task. What unspeakable acts will we have them performing next? And you rather betray your feelings for the public when you call them all "drunken oafs".
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Just for everyone's info, Lancashire are 24 for 1 v Sussex, at, guess where? Yup, Old Trafford!! What a difference a day makes!!
Complain about this comment
I think the problem here is that people feel they're getting ripped off from every angle. It's one issue when a game of cricket is called off - but when you're getting charged over the odds for food and drink in the ground as well it gets irritating. All it takes is a gesture of goodwill - not necessarily by playing with reduced run ups etc - but perhaps some complimentary drinks and a discounted price for a future event. It's no real compensation but at least it shows that the organisers care a little
By the way, has anyone written an angry letter to the ECB about this yet? It's surely the only way we could make it a bit more english
Complain about this comment
If the stage is unsafe, in any form of entertainment, the show does NOT go on.
Complain about this comment
collingwood showed a lot of arrogance as he spoke about "international cricket". You would of thought he would make the most of it, as with his current form, it is not something that will be worrying him for much longer....
the people who run our great game of cricket should read the comments on this page. the amount of people who have been cheated and will not return to cricket should be of great concern to them. sadly, with the decisions the ecb, they probably cant read.
Complain about this comment
Isnt this the same man who was castigating Prior for having a kick around to warm up and entertain the fans?
Would we be happy if this happenned before th Ashes and someone got hurt in the knock about?
Complain about this comment
Sorry Ben but I do think that CartmanEazyE has a fair point (apart from all the crowd are drunken oafs). They are professional sportsman, why should they play some circus game to placate the fans. For years when a test match has had days/sessions called off due to the weather they have never done this, why now. New cricket (or 20/20) fans have to realise that the weather plays a part in cricket and when it rains or the pitch is not safe then no cricket will be played
Complain about this comment
You are all missing the point about missing the point.
Jules, you cant just sweep this under the carpet.
I agree that some other form of cricketing entertainment should have been put on. How about a game of French Cricket on the outfield? I once played this with my Auntie Ethel on the beach at Weston Super Mare and during her valiant innings the tide came in. She still managed to bat on in two inches of water without dissolving.
I would be quite happy to consider alternative cricket based suggestions Ben if anyone has given this some thought... but certainly not "pinning the tail on the donkey", CartmanEazyE: it has nothing to do with cricket and you simply have not considered the Health and Safety implications of allowing highly tuned international athletes to wander around blindfolded in the wet whilst holding a lethally sharp object.
Mike Oxley-King
Mike Oxley King
Complain about this comment
They're already down to "pinning the tail on the donkey" by having to play Twenty20. And I won't use the word "cricket" in that description. Why not have them play spinners only from one end? It wouldn't really make much of a difference. You could then bring in "one hand one bounce" for catches, make batsmen retire when they have scored 25. Ban LBW's and make the batsmen shout "wickets" when they cross the crease line when running and then we could get rid of umpires. Perhaps we could use a tennis ball so no-one gets hurt by a hard one. I appreciate that the crowd would have been very disappointed but to regard a Twenty20 match as an "international sporting event" is crass. It is nothing of the sort. It is simple, ultra basic entertainment for the masses with none of the subtlety of a game of cricket. I couldn't have cared less.
Complain about this comment
There must've been another wicket that they could've used. Counties are complaining about the lack of income they receive, doesn't help with these sorts of decisions.
Complain about this comment
hackerjack - "If the stage is unsafe, in any form of entertainment, the show does NOT go on." Doesn't it? Oh. But then I didn't say the stage was unsafe, I said if it was "creaky". And no, the England players shouldn't be having a kickabout before a game of cricket.
fatdeano - No need to apologise, nothing wrong with a bit of robust arguing on these pages!
Complain about this comment
At 86.
You say that football clubs are private sporting clubs involved in a league system that the public are invited to watch in exchange for their money - and by implication that they exist for their benefit and not for the benefit of the viewing public. While I understand your argument, my point comes from a slightly different angle. Perhaps I should more accurately have said that professional football exists as a result of the viewing public's money. Therefore SAF should feel an obligation to speak to the BBC, as its licence payers help pay his salary and allow him to have the life he has. SAF clearly doesn't see it that way!
As for your Millwall/West Ham reference, there will always be rogue behaviour to cite and in this case it was deplorable. The perpetrators should be caught and punished. I would not, however, consign football to a landfill site and thereby spoil the pleasure of millions of well behaved supporters who thoroughly enjoy the professional game.
Complain about this comment
Ben,
I betray my feelings for certain sections of cricket crowds by saying that, yes, not least because they'd surely be the only people satisfied by a freak show tennis ball game with special guests Jimmy Saville and Dame Edna Everage, or whatever it is people seem to want. I'm a paying customer at test matches and the 'get in at 11, drink until the close' contingent affect my enjoyment seriously. I stopped going to ODIs for that very reason, and I'm far from a non-drinker.
Football boots. Did someone seriously just say football boots?
I think that anyone who doesn't realise that there is a quality and a safety issue going on here is sticking their fingers in their ears and wilfully missing the point. I refer you to post 99. These things happen in cricket. It's frustrating, but there's no need for whyowhyowhy every time it happens. Had it been hammering down people still would have got their money back, but still would have lost out on travel money. That's the way these things work.
The stage was not fit, the show did not go on. By all means send the players out on a charm offensive, autographs in the stands (though as an Aussie player would you want to go near certain sections of the crowd? I wouldn't), that kind of thing, but don't stage silly cricket where you can't stage proper cricket. And for all its faults, T20 IS proper cricket.
Complain about this comment
Ben:
TV cameras do turn up to empty venues. The Lions tour showed that. I don't recall anyone saying the South Africa rugby board lost money on that tour despite a ticket pricing policy that was utterly ridiculous and led to some truly dismal crowds. TV cameras turn up to empty venues for early season Friends Provident games and cold Tests featuring the West Indies. if you want a prime example, look at the Turkish Grand Prix. Somewhere between 20,000 to 36,000 spectators attended due to the ludicrous ticket prices (http://www.crash.net/f1/news/148135/1/no_atmosphere_as_fans_priced_out_of_turkish_gp.html) yet it's Silverstone (128,000 spectators and an awesome atmosphere) getting ditched. Spectator money is important but it's fairly low down in the list of big income stats. Look at the IPL. You really think it's spectator cash that drives that and not revenue from TV rights and the usual big range of sponsors?
When Sky got the cricket, you had a load of people moaning about it and saying they'd boycott Sky. Did it happen? No. You have football fans talking of season ticket price rises and general ticket costs that verge on the ridiculous and you get the talk of boycotting games and/or season ticket purchase. Does it happen? No. People shoot the mouth off but don't actually do anything to protest. I for one will never buy Sky. It means I will miss out on watching cricket at home but my principles say that endorsing Sky and the big bad News Corp aka that organisation featuring James Murdoch, the same guy who had a monumental pop at your employer the other week (Robert Peston's response was fantastic, go and read his blog for the speech he gave the other day) is bad and I'd rather lose out on watching cricket than give that organisation any of my money and giving it greater strength.
It is Sky that has changed the sporting landscape in this country and made it easier for clubs and organisations to fleece the fans rigid. The greatest protest the fans miffed at this cancellation could make is not to boycott England matches but to boycott Sky. Because the fans sign up to Sky, Sky are more than happy to keep paying over the odds for sporting rights. The clubs and organisations running our sports therefore look to Sky first and keep them happy above the actual fans. Look at the Premier League when they were talking about overseas games. That's a clear cut case of 'Television companies taking precedence over fans'.
Fans, go and vote with your cash. Attend the games and fixtures, show your support for the team, but ditch your cable subsciption. That is the way to change things. If you say that BSkyB have 9 million subscribers at present (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/30/bskyb.television?gusrc=rss&feed=media), then a decent boycott of a million subscribers would cause some worry in the BSkyB ranks, not least after Murdoch's howling last week about the drop in revenues and all the talk of charging for online news content. A big reduction in Sky subscribers would cause shareholder panic, would have CEO panic, and might call for a change in the amount of money ploughed into sports in general, the majority of that money going in the form of ludicrous salaries. If Sky were then to reduce the money they dished out for cricket, the ECB would have to rethink it's commercial strategy and perhaps the common fan would see some better returns for their loyalty.
It's all down to the fans, man. It all depends on whether they've got the guts to dump the evil cable sub!
For this T20 game, let's say 20,000 people paid £50 for each ticket. That's £1,000,000 in revenue. Now if a player had got injured and had to retire as a result of that injury, any legal case would cost well in excess of that in terms of legal fees and damages payout. Put that £1 million in ticket revenue up against the £4.3 million Ben Collett received. Pretty small potatoes in the long run. The ECB will have insurance to cover the cancellation. From an accounting point of view and a liability point of view, running the fixture yesterday would have been madness.
I totally accept your point that 99% of the playing surface was OK. In a footballing context, if a pitch were entirely fine save for one penalty area being totally iced over, would you then say 'Nah, play on, it's mostly OK?' Of course not. Through a combination of dodgy covering and bad luck, a vital area of the pitch was not fit for play. It is stupid and the ECB and LCCC should be criticised for not having it fit for play but the calls for an exhibition game to be played are utterly ridiculous.
In many ways, Lords is now a problem for the ECB. The fantastic drainage system installed there has changed spectator expectations. Many of us will remember the first time that drainage system was shown in full effect with the Test a few years back against India when it absolutely hammered it down and yet some play was still managed. Lords raised the yardstick and the other venues have to catch up. In time, hopefully all venues will have this but it will take time, just as Wimbledon raises the yardstick for covered venues within this country for tennis.
Complain about this comment
"Aaah, poor lambs. No, you're obviously right, God forbid these highly-paid professional sportsmen be made to perform such a demeaning task."
Well perhaps Brett Lee could have got his guitar out and performed a few jazzy numbers with Nannes on Sax. It is "entertainment" after all. Can you just explain Ben what level of entertainment would have been too low for you before you would have asked for your money back? The point is not that it would have demeaned the players, it would have demeaned the paying public who came to see a game of cricket played by professional international players trying their best to win.
And please don't keep referring to your crass Jude Law analogy it really is doing you no favours and only serves to distract from the real issue that you should be concentrating on which is why the bowlers run-ups were not in a fit state for play.
Complain about this comment
I truely don't see why people are so upset, the ground wasn't fit for play and that happens in cricket, you pay your money and take a chance that's how it's always been
Saying that players should have bowled from one end is a nonsense, you pay £50 to watch the best bowlers vs the best batsmen not Clarke sending down full tosses
The only thing you could criticse is the ptich not being looked after well enough - which is Lancs issue and the players perhaps going round the ground signing some autographs etc for the kids would have been a nice gesture so they got something from the day
I also question why all these fans are driving for miles to go and watch the game at OT, England are about to embark on 7 ODI's around the country which would surely be closer to home???? If your going to invest all the money in a T20 in Manchester in September, as a DN match with barely any room for movt on the start/finish time you've really only got yourself to blame
Complain about this comment
To skris606
If you read my comment properly you would note I did not at any time blame the IPL for last night's debacle but I think you must agree that it does have a bearing on professional cricketers seeing it as a "golden goose" and therefore not being prepared to put themselves at risk. I am afraid I am an old fashioned cricket lover but as my long suffering husband will testify I have embraced 20/20 as a means of bringing non-cricket enthusiasts to the sport and last night will not do that. I entirely agree that ECB and LCC have questions to answer but my chief concern about the game I love is that ICC and the IPL must talk together to achieve the best possible timetables especially for those of us who love the longer version of the game, but that is another debate. Without the support of true cricket lovers the game will fizzle out eventually IPL, 20/20 notwithstanding.
Complain about this comment
In response to CartmanEazyE who wrote:
As for not getting refunds on games partially finished? Obviously if the game wasn't finished, there are no costs to the ground, are there? None whatsoever, no security, no capital outlay, no nothing. Think before you bleat 'it's just part of the entertainment business'.
Can you honestly think it's reasonable to get no compensation whatsoever for the pleasure of watching just over half of an event like on Sunday? When I pay £40 for a ticket I pay to watch the cricket. Every member off staff (apart from security) I saw was either selling, programmes,merchandise, headphones, scratch cards, food or drink (all at inflated prices) thereby paying their own wages.
For England games the FA would give a 40% refund for an abandonment after half-time and the RFU a 100% refund. What makes cricket so special as to not have to offer anything?
Complain about this comment
After this weeks fuss and pallava in Manchester might be interesting to see how many internationls games Lancashire get in the next "bidding session".
Perhaps the ECB should buy some squeegie rollers to pick the water up like Warwickshire used at Edgbaston?
Complain about this comment
At 107. 21shargar:
When you have so many football clubs on the stock market now, from a purely financial perspective it is entirely feasible to say that the clubs are not run for the fans at all but for shareholder concerns primarily. Those shareholders buy into a club and the club looks for ways to develop financially and on the playing field. The fans are obvioously a part of those revenue streams but the advent of Sky meant that they were no longer the major stream of income. I don't know why some people can't accept the growing financial irrelevance of local fans in football when some of the major clubs make moves that demonstrate that these clubs regard the actual domestic league are becoming increasingly low down the pecking order in terms of bringing in the cash (as witnessed by talk of overseas games and the oft mooted European league).
As I've said above, it is a situation that has come around due to the influence of television and BSkyB in particular. It is not a situation I like and that is why I voted with my wallet and refuse to get Sky. If TMS and limited highlights are all I will get at home when I can't attend games, so be it. I'd rather do that then help anything Murdoch-related.
In the pre-Sky days, I think your points about the viewing public helping professional football stay afloat are very relevant. Those days really are dead though. The primary revenue stream is from television.
Let's say that all the spectators at Old Trafford yesterday didn't go. 20,000 empty seats at £50 a head meaning £1 million in revenue lost. With less sales of tickets, that's less policing to pay out for. That's less beer sold. That's less staff needed at the game before, during, and after to mop up the beer glasses. Obviously there's less income from tickets but with reduced outgoings too, would the total drop in revenue be that much? It'd be an interesting thing to actually work out and calculate. I can't imagine the policing at Old Trafford comes cheap.
Can you tell I spent some time in accountancy in my past?!? :D
Complain about this comment
I did wonder when the first post blaming Sky would appear...thanks for not proving my pre conceptions of BBC blog posters wrong Mr AndyPlowright (post 109)
Complain about this comment
As one of the twenty thousand people to attend both matches, I can say yes I was disappointed. We missed out on the Ashes series and didn't get a one day international which is a huge shame. Old Trafford is one of the best grounds in the world and I'm sad that both matches had to be abandoned due to the Mancunian weather which is something noone can control.
Nothing can beat the atmosphere in Manchester and as a young woman shaking under an umbrella hoping for play I can say I'm glad the matches were abandoned. If the players bowed to the crowd and played in unfit conditions and got injured I would be mortified.
Brett Lee has been and remains one of the fastest bowlers on the planet. He looked in pretty fantastic match winning shape and this bodes well for the upcoming series. If we had to give up our 20:20 matches so he can play in the one day series fully fit then so be it.
That said, since both matches were abandoned all ticketholders should get automatic refunds in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
94: JovialStelladave:
As I've said before, the answer isn't to boycott the games themselves but for the paying customer to boycott their Sky subsciption. If the ECB and football clubs weren't so happy to accept the Sky millions, then you'd see clubs having to do more to encourage fans to game, such as better seating, cheaper food, etc etc. The fact is that they get their Sky cash and then are so financially secure that they figure 'Well, let's really gouge the fans. They still pay the satellite sub so let's have four different kits per year, charge £5 for a pie and cup of tea, and see if the moaners actually do put their money where their mouth is and actually boycott games and Sky'.
The simple answer is they don't. The average British punter whines about being ripped out but won't ever do anything to actually change the situation. The answer is simple: axe yer cable sub! Sky loses subscribers, feels the pinch due to the large sports contracts it agreed, advertisers leaves Sky or demand cheaper ad time due to lower audience figures, Sky's revenues suffer...
Complain about this comment
Too true #104 - like the one hand, one bounce idea, decent idea that for innovation to make it even more like the school yard!
Won't be long before this T20 sloggit rubbish is gone... if I were the Aussies I'd refuse to play it tbh.
Why not have had a 7 test series against the Aussies? Set aside 6 days for the match then one day rained off won't matter. This would have allowed OT and C-Le-S to have had a test also. Then again £££ rules UK!
Nick-of-Time.
Complain about this comment
While we're on the subject of Sky, C4 bid much less money for their second contract than their first, arrogantly relying on their terrestrial status to force the ECB's hand into accepting their deal, 09.45 start times and all. Sky were the only serious bidder in 2004, and anyone who blames the ECB for taking their offer hasn't thought about it.
Would C4 have shown a weekday T20? When there's a Friends repeat or another episode of Hollyoaks to show? Dream on. But this is another debate.
Complain about this comment
I know there have been worse moments in the past with games being abandoned BUT I think the paying public are going to start getting fed up with sitting there and there being no cricket.
Without factoring in Time, travel etc. tickets are now far too expensive for that (£ 70 per day for the Edgbaston Test this year). After years of attending matches, I certainly will think long and hard about buying tickets in advance after the first day of the Third Test when Prior and the boys were sprinting between the wickets to get 25 overs in with 15 minutes to spare after a 5pm start. Outside the Ashes there have been tickets available on the day for ODI's and T20 finals day at Edgbaston. The warning signs are there for what ever the format of the game. Cricket has problems - too expensive, the weather poor, the domestic fixture list is poor and then you have PR disasters like this. Collingwood comments didn't help - he has been involved in these types of descions before - he walked off in the NZ ODI in 2008 with 5 balls left to make a match after they had been off for 45 minutes lunch. Of course safety is an issue - but there are times when this card has been used to cover up a total shambles.
In these difficult economic times, I wounder what attendances will be like when we are not playing the Australians. Durham struggled to sell Test tickets this year and Edgbaston ended up selling tickets on a BOGOF offer for the West Indies ODI. Events like yesterday will not help. It will end up with loads of empty plastic seats flapping in the wind - and TV without a regular product to show. Something that bidders may remember when the cricket 'rights' package is next up for grabs. What ever the format - Cricket and it sfinances will be the looser.
Complain about this comment
118 Andy, that's just wrong. Food and drink prices at cricket grounds have always been extortionate, even in the paradise days of Channel 4 nipping off to show the racing or leaving a test match to show that all-important Friends repeat. Nothing to do with Sky. You can't blame them for absolutely everything. Actually, I suspect you can, but you shouldn't.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Megaspur:
I'm blaming Sky and the organisations who receive their money for helping to create an environment when the fan gets treated poorly. If you want to give me an example of how the Sky millions have actually made it cheaper for fans to attend international games, please give it.
You wrote in the past about the Standford team (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/09/the_most_divisive_and_tasteles.shtml#P):
"Unfortunately Cricket costs a lot to finance at First class levels and without the Sky money it would slowly die a protracted death...with notable organisations like the Beeb, ITV and C4 only interested in financing tawdry reality shows there is no real choice but to sell the game to the highest bidder."
I totally disagree that cricket would have died without Sky. It would have been different but it would not have died. Had Channel 4 continued with the cricket post-2005 Ashes, cricket would be different but I do not believe it would have died at all.
Complain about this comment
At 115.
Just to be clear, my reference to the "viewing public" is very much intended to include TV audiences on which the broadcasters depend for their income - so in the end the clubs are financially dependent on the viewing public in that way. Hence my point about SAF's attitude to the BBC. I entirely accept that in a financial sense, certainly for the big professional clubs, receipts from fans who turn up at the ground are not particularly relevant.
I also have no SKY Sports subscription.
What do you think about SAF's treatment of the BBC?
Complain about this comment
Cartman:
Food and drink at all venues, be it sport, music or otherwise, are ridiculous. I was actually quite surprised at the Oval for the World T20 to only pay £3.50 for a pint in London. It was a lot better than many music venues I could name. However, the ticket prices really have shot up in the last few years.
I'm not a BBC neophyte and I'm not opposed to Sky on all levels. However, it is frankly absurd for people to say that the Sky millions hasn't led to a massive change in how sporting bodies and teams are run and also how agents demand more cash for players. After all, didn't the Aussies get a pay rise?
http://www.theashescricketlive.com/tag/cricket-pay-rise/
Complain about this comment
I see they are playing at Old Trafford today, and if I'm not mistaken on the same pitch. Were there sunny spells overnight?
Complain about this comment
I wasn't at OT last night, but I've been to many England and county games so I know the feeling of seeing a game washed out or cut short by the weather.
I've got to say, I really don't like the idea that the game can be "abandoned" then replaced by a meaningless hit-and-giggle knockabout. I go to cricket matches (and any other sport) to see a contest, to see players trying their best to win, to share the delight of victory and the disappointment of defeat.
If this was replaced by an exhibition game as an excuse to keep my £50 I'd feel a lot more cheated than being given my money back when the game is called off for whatever reason.
The time the ECB and counties see fit to pull stunts like that will be the time I stop paying these prices to go to their games.
Complain about this comment
To be honest, I think the big factors behind ticket price rises in the last couple of years have been the interest generated by the 2005 Ashes and the birth of T20. Not really Sky at all.
Complain about this comment
21shergar - Tim Vickery makes a very good point on this on his latest blog, and I quote: "I recall an English club chairman indignantly saying some 20 years ago that the fans were mad if they believed their ticket money paid the players' wages.
"It was a classic case of someone knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. True, in cold, economic terms he might have been correct. Money pours in from other sources - TV rights, sponsorship deals, corporate boxes and so on, but take the fans away from the stadium and all those other revenue streams instantly dry up.
"That is because the football supporter is part of the show. Without the atmosphere created by the fans, the TV rights and the corporate boxes lose their value. The supporter is not a spectator. He/she is a participant, whose actions have an effect on what happens on the field."
Complain about this comment
after Saturday's wash out they must have seen the potential for this to happen?
So why not prepare another pitch a few yards along? I appreciate a new wicket wouldn't quite be up to 'Test' standard but this is T20 - teams getting bowled out in 20 overs is par for the course.
Utterly ridiculous that they couldn't get a game on.
Complain about this comment
@ JLindseyGreen
'If you read my comment properly you would note I did not at any time blame the IPL for last night's debacle but I think you must agree that it does have a bearing on professional cricketers seeing it as a "golden goose" and therefore not being prepared to put themselves at risk.'
So you are saying, people would be willing to take more risk and play in these conditions but for the IPL. Well, cricket has been around for a hundred years and IPL has been around for only two. Tell me one instance where cricket has been played when the umpires thought the ground was unfit to play.
Forget international cricketers, forget the lucrative IPL, forget even an action sport. Would someone step into an office to sign a million dollar contract if she thought the building was unsafe?
The point is simple - stop blaming the IPL for all ills. Doing that would take the focus away from the real issue and finding a solution for it.
Complain about this comment
Hey Thistlemancity, I made virtually the same comment an hour ago, but everyone here seems to be so up themselves slagging off Sky, ECB etc to worry about mere details! LOL!
Complain about this comment
It now seems doubly unfortunate that the ECB are removing future matches from Lord's, which is by far the best quick draining ground in the country, and awarding ever more international fixtures to those grounds which have barely adequate covering let alone any decent drainage.
Why is the ECB so against Lord's ?
Complain about this comment
21Shergar:
It is important to make the distinction between the actual attending viewers and the armchair viewers. When I talk of the fans, I'm talking about gate receipts, those fans actually at the games. It's those people that have been frustrated at Old Trafford by a lack of play and I understand their feelings. They sit there and have a drink, watch it rain, and get fed up.
The armchair fan switches over to Hollyoaks for 20 minutes, flicks back to see if there's any play, and doesn't suffer the same way. Yet it's the armchair fan who the ECB probably wants more because more subscribers to Sky = more chance of the ECB negotiating a bigger contract for sporting rights as the ECB could point to the cricket viewing figures increasing and say 'Look! Cricketing demand is up! More viewers for you so we want more cash'.
The IPL to me is something that doesn't depend on gate receipts for its financial success. With all those TV contracts being signed, the gate receipts were largely irrelevant in the wide picture of things. I'd hate for cricket to go like that in this country.
With regard to Sir Alex Ferguson, I'm glad he doesn't speak as I find him to be boring and hypocritical to say the least. I usually watch MOTD on a Sunday morning on my laptop and not having his cherry-red nose poking into my life at that time of day is most welcome. His attitude to diving is always one that gets me giggling, almost as much as Aussies complaining about sledging.
Hence my point about SAF's attitude to the BBC. I entirely accept that in a financial sense, certainly for the big professional clubs, receipts from fans who turn up at the ground are not particularly relevant.
I also have no SKY Sports subscription.
What do you think about SAF's treatment of the BBC?
Complain about this comment
If it was just a small section of ground that was muddy, could they not have just laid down some firm matting for the bowlers to run over? They would have had safe landings and the game could have happened.
Cricket is fast becoming a joke in sporting circles. Footballers/rugby players run round on wet muddy pitches, with tackles to deal with. A cricketer can't run over a soft patch of soil because the risk of injury is too great... absolute joke.
I feel sorry for the people who went to the game yesterday. I certainly wouldn't go back, but having said that, I wouldn't pay £50 to watch a T20 match anyway. Talk about overpriced.
One final point - I note that as of right now 28 overs have been bowled on the Old Trafford wicket in the game between Lancashire and Sussex. I've seen no mention of injuries, yet I doubt the problem area is much better than it was at 9pm last night. In fact, given that it is day 1 of a 4 day game it will only get worse.
Complain about this comment
Good article. If players were payed for every ball, the greedy sods would jump on the chance to play last night.
Complain about this comment
There are a lot of things frustrating about last night's situation. For me the key issue is that far too many cricket grounds around the UK are at the mercy of the weather. How many times do we lose hours, days, matches to rain across a cricket season? It must be frustrating for everyone involved (apart from the odd occasion when the rain saves one team from defeat).
Why is more money and effort not pumped into effective drainage systems at cricket grounds, especially the international grounds?
We don't have sunny weather that we can rely upon like the Aussies or Saffers. We have to accept that more money has to be spent on the basic equipment that the ground staff have to help them prepare a strip suitable for playing.
Yes, I know money is tight but there are surely economies that can be found across the board for each ground to try and get the cash together for better drainage and rain protection. Charge the corporate boxes a little bit more, don't refurb the boardroom this year, spend a little less on committee meetings.
One point that seems worth making is this - Old Trafford lost £50 per crowd member last night. Would they rather lose all that income or would they rather invest in a decent drainage system that allows more games to be paid and increase the chances of more revenue?
Old Trafford hasn't got a test scheduled til 2013 someone commented earlier. Last night's performance is not going to help their case for more international's of any sort in the future.
It's Manchester! It rains! A lot! Bring in better drainage and rain protection equipment and they will have taken a big step forward towards securing more cricket played at Old Trafford, more revenue and more games in the future.
Yes there are other issues that should be discussed too but how many hours have we lost to rain this summer? It baffles me that we can't reduce this to a minimum and quickly.
Complain about this comment
Point taken Andy :)
I have a bit of an issue with people telling me what to spend my hard earned dosh on :)
Complain about this comment
Matting? On mud? Safe? Try telling that to Nicky Boje.
I'm glad you're all there and observing the state of the affected area in the Lancs Sussex game. Is it so close to the pitch? Does it affect bowlers' run-ups? Have there been blowers on it all night?
Or do you in fact not know anything and are no wiser than I am?
Complain about this comment
What point is Ben Dirs trying to make in this confused blog? Yesterday we should have had a bunch of trundlers like Hussey open the bowling so that we get a game? Is that international cricket? Is that £50 a ticket cricket?
Or do we risk injury just so that we get a bit of entertainment from an already thoroughly entertaining summer? We've just won the ashes, and you're complaining a silly little knockabout gets 2nd class treatment? Priorities!
Everyone knows the score with weather and cricket, if you don't want to run the risk, don't go. Simple as that.
Complain about this comment
"Why not tell Brett Lee he's not going to bowl? It's just a game after all, or am I being hopelessly naive?"
Mate, you are being ridiculously naive, or just plain ridiculous! This is SPORT we are talking of, not some dumb entertainment programme or reality show, where the 'public' have a 'vote', and can draw merriment from injuries suffered by the participants, who are SPORTSPERSONS - lest we forget! So what next? Football being played on frozen pitches, perhaps 5 a side in the half that is slightly mroe fit to play on? Phillips Idowu taking part in a standing broadjump if the track is not fit to run on? Or golf being decided by who can hit the ball furthest, perhaps with one hand behind their back to make it more 'entertaining'!
Sports is headed for chaos if, as you suggest, we keep changing the rules of each game as we please just so the 'public' get their full value of 'entertainment'! This is demeaning of sportspersons and all sports if your "naive", nay foolish, ideas are adopted by sports organizers!!
Complain about this comment
Dirsy at 130 (now there's a nightclub name for the future):
Top link and quote from Tim Vickery. That's entirely the point behind all of this. The attending fan isn't a financial kingpin. It's more than that. To a club financially, the fan is a cheerleader, albeit one being paid and one who is more entertaining that those majorettes Sky used to have before games (Mr Dirs, you should find old members of the Sky Strikers and find out what they're doing now or perhaps interview some former nPower girls to see where their career developed). I have a dim memory of the average corporate day at a Test match being £400, possibly more. For every one corporate client, that's around about the price of maybe 7 or 8 'normal' attending fans.
"Money pours in from other sources - TV rights, sponsorship deals, corporate boxes and so on, but take the fans away from the stadium and all those other revenue streams instantly dry up.
That is because the football supporter is part of the show. Without the atmosphere created by the fans, the TV rights and the corporate boxes lose their value. The supporter is not a spectator. He/she is a participant, whose actions have an effect on what happens on the field."
Very true, which is why they let fans in free to the Chinese Grand Prix and why Turkey got such a kicking for its Grand Prix. Remember the whispers of large amounts of free tickets for IPL matches? They knew a packed stadium was worth more than the gate receipts from selling only 20% of the tickets.
The danger is that clubs and leagues forget this aspect. You price out the fans, you're left with a hollow shell.
Complain about this comment
About 30 metres from the wet area was a huge mat with Nat West written on it. Why didn't they put that (or another one!)over the wet area and then get on and play.
Complain about this comment
At the end of the day we can blame who we like for last night's debacle...It still boils down to some silly sod not setting the covers up right and water being allowed to seep through on to the ground.
Complain about this comment
Megaspur:
Hope you didn't take offence! My griping at Sky is principally because I do feel the fan has been fleeced dreadfully in recent years. If people did boycott Sky, then your average team would have to look at ways of retaining fans and making sure they stay there. I'm in it for the fan who wants to attend matches but can't because he's paying out some serious coin. Take me next week at the Rose Bowl. Because the trains are so poor in Southampton and the stadium is miles from anywhere, it's likely to be a train down there from Bath, a late train back to London after the game, then a train back. I'm expecting to shell out nearly £125 just to see the cricket, let alone food or drink.
Amusingly, I shoul dhave been out on a 30 mile cycle trip today but it's bucketing down, perfect weather for writing on a blog talking about a cancelled cricket match. Anyone know the forecast for the Rose Bowl next week?
Complain about this comment
Didn't have time to trawl through all the comments, so apologies if someone else has said this, but the John Player League of the 70s/80s restricted bowlers to 10 yard run ups. As 20/20 is just hit and giggle cricket wouldn't that have solved the problem?
Complain about this comment
mambono5 (117), how can you possibly say that "Old Trafford is one of the best grounds in the world" ? I can only assume you don't visit other Test Grounds. Anyone who has visited the Test Grounds in England / Wales (never mind in other countries), would not share your view. When you consider the fantastic improvements at Trent Bridge, Oval, Lords, Chester-le-Street etc.
Old Trafford is, apart from the pavilion, a run down relic, and in great need of the refurbishment & redevelopment recently started. It may indeed one day in the future be one of the best grounds, but to say that is so in its current decrepit state is surely taking parochial bias a bit far
Complain about this comment
Having been a lifelong cricket lover I have to say that this latest farce sickens me.
As cricket tries to drag itself into the twenty first century to keep up with other, more commercially viable sports, the fact that this is allowed to happen at all seriously undermines the sincerity of those people who claim to have cricket's best interests at heart.
With the vast number of televised sports available to most viewers, how long before even the most hard-hearted cricket fan looks elsewhere for their entertainment?
To apportion the blame on any one person for this latest debacle is wrong. EVERYONE involved in this sporting joke is equally to blame.
The ground, the umpires, the captains, the groundsmen, EVERYONE.
Do not let anybody wriggle out of their share of the blame, let all stand up and be counted, for all are to blame. Wow, steep soap box that!
But, honestly, who can be absolved from this? As for everyone who mentioned the lack of refunds available, this is totally disgusting! No refunds is just unacceptable, and something that could be stopped in future if the television stations got behind the fans in demanding a refund for the sake of the sport's future, if it even has one? Let's hope it has, maybe just not at Old Trafford.
Complain about this comment
No offence taken Andy :)
I only pay my Sky sub to watch Cricket 'cos I can't afford to go and watch at the grounds, ironically enough, because of the exorbitant ticket prices. My wife was trying to buy me Ashes tickets at The Oval for my Birthday...She nearly passed out when she was told the price for all 5 days...plus travel...plus beer and food...plus programmes...plus commentary earpiece. At least She has stopped moaning about my Sky Sports sub now :)
Complain about this comment
I don't believe Collingwood has earned the right to comment on anything. He must be the most overpaid and average cricketer ever to play so many internationals. It's the media hype which has really got to the heads of them all. Looking at it, have cricketers improved over the past 10-15 years due to more media coverage, hype, bloggs etc Are we all just massaging ego's? When i was a kid, there was newspaper coverage, TMS on the radio and Richie Benaud & Co on BBC 1. If you wanted to keep in touch with overseas matches you bought a Wisden. Overseas players were exotic and interesting thosedays and there were full crowds at Test Matches. The world has gone consumer mental and cricket really has fallen for it!
Complain about this comment
Two things going on here.
(a) People getting understandably narked about a seeming inability to keep a small area of grass dry enough for play, and/or to make viable alternative arrangements (second pitch, matting, whatever).
(b) Suggestions that the laws of the game are temporarily tweaked to allow the authorities to get away with their incompetence as regards (a).
Every sympathy with (a), but (b) is just plain daft. What next? "The ground at deep mid wicket is waterlogged but the rest of it is fit. Therefore, no-one will field there and any shots in that direction will be called dead ball"...
Direct your anger at the folks who clearly didn't do enough to keep an obviously critical part of the playing area dry, not at the players for being unwilling to stage some kind of contrived pseudo-contest.
Complain about this comment
I just don't get all the hatred sent towards the players. They are well within their rights to refuse to play on a potentially dangerous pitch, the last thing they want is to injure something in a game that is little more than an exhibition
Complain about this comment
Re: TT debacle at Old Trafford last night - Couldn't a strip of green matting be pegged down at the Brian Statham end to provide a secure footing for bowlers? Similar to the matting that is used to protect wickets and for advertising on the outfield. Or is this concept too difficult?
Complain about this comment
I imagine they considered the potential options, yes, being experienced cricket people. On mud you might slip. On a mat on mud you're almost certain to slip. Please think.
Complain about this comment
Diddley99 The phrase "Common Sense" and initials ICC and ECB are well-known to be mutually self-destructing!
Complain about this comment
Diddley99
I can assure that the force with which a fast bowler takes off with would still allow the matting to move underfoot...the safest option for the players was the one taken...abandonment
Complain about this comment
LCCC royally cocked up yesterday, and it makes me sick to see Jim Cumbes (whom I had the greatest respect for as an ex-WBA goalie) try and shift the blame to somewhere else.
For gods sake, the players, umpires as well as the ground staff had been there for 5 days! Who was supervising the ground staff? Who was making sure covers were placed properly? Who was ensuring the wickets were prepared properly and the run ups were properly covered? Do you know, this reminded me exactly of Antigua and the slur on the name of Viv Richards that stadium provided. Exactly the same conditions - unsafe ground on the bowler's run ups. Exactly the same result - match abandonded. Why is everyone so upset?
The people who need to get upset are the LCCC management, and they need to get upset with their ground staff. Heads should roll. It wasn't the "covers sweating" - the ground was unplayable. Why? That's surely fundamental.
I wonder if the reason people are saying they should have played has more to do with why people watch skiing and F1 - it's interesting when people crash. Car crash TV. Do people really want to see Brett Lee's career ruined? Or Stuart Broad's career, for that matter? Because that's what it sounds like reading this blog.
Complain about this comment
As a punter, am I right to think attending cricket in September is too much of a gamble?
Complain about this comment
@ 159: it is in Lancashire....have barely had a drop of rain here in Essex for the last 3 weeks
Complain about this comment
The problem seems to be that last night none of the players or umpires seemed willing to think about alternative ways in which the game could have gone ahead, and that a couple of small wet areas were sufficient to prevent the game when otherwise conditions were acceptable.
As has been pointed out, 20000 people travelled to the ground, with all the consequential costs - for that they deserve to at least see that every effort is being made to get play going. The fact that this was only a 20/20 game should have made the players and umpires a bit less precious about the conditions they were playing in.
I wouldn't advocate going as far as preventing the quick bowlers coming in off a normal run-up (although remembering the old county Sunday league games, where bowlers were restricted to a 20m run-up, it can be done), but surely there was another strip available somewhere on the ground that was playable - is the county game today being played on the same strip as was supposed to be used last night?
In the longer term, LCCC need to address the provision for covers of the pitch and run-ups, especially as Old Trafford is one of the wetter grounds. Why isn't there a large inflatable cover that extends across the pitch and the critical last few metres of the bowlers run up, with sensible drainage?
Complain about this comment
I've seen a few posts with hyperlinks to other sites and quotes. I'd appreciate it if somebody could post one of Jim Cumbes bemoaning the fate of the 20,000 punters who were robbed of a meaningful game on Sunday. He said "...there comes a time when you have to think about the people who paid £50 to come in to the game".I'd hazard a guess, that on Sunday, he stopped thinking of the 'people'around about the 60th ball.
Complain about this comment
How about darts cricket in the pavilion? Oh, no. I forgot, sharp pointy things again. Brett Lee could throw left handed to slow it all down a bit.
Or what about that rolly dice cricket game. I think it was called Owzat...
Mike Oxley-King
Complain about this comment
they could always have got the Wii out :)
Complain about this comment
Once the customers have turned up it is the duty of the cricketers to play if it is at all possible. If conditions are not suitable for a fast bowler, use a spinner. This was essentially a one-off Twenty/20 bit of fun. Nothing is at stake, not even the reputations of these very important people. Perhaps somebody should tell these cricketers that they are only important so long as people bother to turn up to watch them. Scheduling these matches at Old Trafford was stupid anyway. It has had new drainage installed and it rains a lot there in September. I don't really understand why the contracter didn't saturate the pitch to see if it worked; because it obviously doesn't. Who is he, the Chairman's cousin?
Complain about this comment
Hope all those at the ODI at the end of the week boo Collingwood all the way to the wicket for his comments.
But then, why bother, he won't be listening to the mere spectators.
Complain about this comment
I know this is "not cricket" and probably very controversial with the purists, but if the soggy patches were there, can't they use some sort of carpet(like with XXXX Beach Cricket).
I know you wouldn't have the nuances of the game, with the spin and imperfections of the pitch, but at least 20,000 people would have a game to watch. Even if it's not an official match.
A £50 refund is your match day ticket, but it doesn't account for travel, parking, food, grief from the wife, etc. It's a complete shambles.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps those that run cricket have forgotten why 20/20 was created. It was to draw in crowds of people and make desperately needed cash for the counties. It wasn't seen as 'serious cricket'.
If this had been a test, then obviously you couldn't have played. A test is serious cricket. But 20/20 cricket is, and always will be, Mickey Mouse cricket. It is for entertainment pure and simple. The same rules do not apply.
How many county 20/20 matches have you seen where the rain is belting down? For the most part they just get on with it.
Maybe a muddy run up means you don't see international bowlers at their best. But then this isn't about players playing at their best; it is about batsmen throwing the kitchen sink at every ball in an attempt to entertain an audience weaned on fast food, and mindless entertainment.
Complain about this comment
there are some serious inferiority complexes that follow Ben Dirs
Complain about this comment
I feel strongly for the paying customers who attended Old Trafford, and agree with the comments posted about both captains and they're so called 'brave' decision. However another point that has barely been raised is the entertainment value to some of us (again paying) customers at home. Some of you, like me, would have taken time out of other activities - such as work, spending time with family, exercise or whatever your plans may have been - in order to watch an enjoyable game of cricket. It enrages me to have to watch over an hour of discussion with people agreeing with all forms of the paying public that the game should be underway, only to find a 'brave' decision at the end of the line.
Complain about this comment
165. At 1:33pm on 02 Sep 2009, thosknapp wrote:Once the customers have turned up it is the duty of the cricketers to play if it is at all possible. If conditions are not suitable for a fast bowler, use a spinner. This was essentially a one-off Twenty/20 bit of fun. Nothing is at stake, not even the reputations of these very important people. Perhaps somebody should tell these cricketers that they are only important so long as people bother to turn up to watch them. Scheduling these matches at Old Trafford was stupid anyway. It has had new drainage installed and it rains a lot there in September. I don't really understand why the contracter didn't saturate the pitch to see if it worked; because it obviously doesn't. Who is he, the Chairman's cousin?
If I had paid £50 for a ticket and then a exhibition had been put on I would not be happy at all. I would want to see both teams best bowlers trying their hardest to get players out, not bowling so we could get some entertainment
Complain about this comment
Oh dear Grimvald, you've completely missed the point. You've got it all wrong. Mickey Mouse never played cricket. I think he might once have played baseball in an episode with Jiminy Cricket.
Mike Oxley-King
Complain about this comment
This is rediculous, they should stop being such big girls and get on with playing the game. It's this cheeky political rubbish that has ruined football as a game, let's hope it does not ingrain in cricket further.
If the pitch is unuseable after a shower, especially in Britain, then whoevers bright idea the pitch was should be slapped with a big thick legal document asking for the money back.
Drainage is not rocket science nor even is matting or astroturf.
"Oh the pitch is wet guess we have to get off easy"
"Look, we put three inches of astroturf on it, guess you still have to play..."
Complain about this comment
At 130 (Ben).
Tim Vickery may be correct with his comments, but I'm not entirely convinced in this ever changing world of media experience that what he says will always continue to ring true. I do, however, accept that at this point in time for most broadcast sports spectators, wherever they view, are an integral part of the system without which that sport may not survive. Given that fact, what do you think about SAF's attitude to the BBC, which was the subject of my original post and connects with the topic of your blog? I couldn't help but smile at AndyPlowright's take (post 135).
Complain about this comment
The focus should be on why an unacceptable playing area was allowed to result in the first place. This was a stage for an international game of cricket and the administration failed. All these suggestions about playing the a 'lesser' game (Lee not to bowl or bowl spinners) are absurd. The questions would have then been asked why people should pay their full ticket prices for a dimished version of the match?
Complain about this comment
AGnomeCalledJimmy, the problem is the transition between hard ground (the pitch) and soft ground (the run up) - fast bowlers put their bodies under serious strain, something the cricket "intellectuals" on here seem incapable of understanding
Complain about this comment
I really do not understand all of the fuss.
This version of the game is very exciting and well worth watching, but do the results matter - no is the quick answer.
People did pay good money and take time out of their schedules to go and see it, but there is no way the game should have been played if the ground was in any way dangerous and unfit.
All of the players from Fast bowlers through to dodgy tail-end batsmen and fielders have to be able to partake of the game without them having the state of the pitch in the back of their mind. If this becomes a consideration, then the game is compromised and meaningless.
Do all fo the whingers on here believe that the abandoned test match in Antigu should have been played or are people saying that as this was a 20/20 that it is entertainment. Cricket in whatever format it takes is a sport that has consequences. Exhibition matches do not exist at this level and a poor display from Denley or Bopara or one of the others that are on the edge of the one day or test squad could result in them never being picked again. That should not happen when a player cannot trust the pitch he is asked to play on.
In my view, it was the correct decision, made for the right reasons and unfortunately it is tough for the paying public!!
Complain about this comment
Time for Cricket to Join the 21st Century. It rains in the UK rather allot, time for a cricket staduim with a closing roof perhaps? Under pitch drainage with pumping systems to rapidly drain the surfaces? All these are used in other Sports, Tennis, Football & Rugby. So why not cricket?
Complain about this comment
Another well thought out suggestion - a roof.
2 points:
1. Name a ground that is suitable to have a roof (don't forget cricketers can hit it a fair old way now)
2. How much will that cost to re-develop? For what? 1 or 2 international games a year...Cricket is not awash with money (would be nowhere without Sky's input)
Complain about this comment
I don't get aall the criticism of the captains/ players - surely the umpires abandoned the game?
Are all those posting suggesting that the players were supposed to tell the umpires "we don't agree with your decision we're playing anyway". Isn't this just the same as saying "no umpire I don't think I was LBW. I'm just going to stay in until I agree with any decision to give me out"?
If the ground wasn't fit to play - despite the fact that the weather was good enough in the evening following an afternoon of rain - the fault lies with Lancashire CCC and it's ground staff, pure and simple. I can't see how this can be debated.
Complain about this comment
To all those advocating covered Cricket stadia...have you got any idea of the size of Air Con unit it would take to remove the excess moisture from the air over a 2+ acre cricket pitch? If the moisture was not removed games under cover would become a swing bowlers paradise...imagine Umar Gul curving an 85mph yorker from 3ft outside off stump and hitting leg? (sounds cool I know....but a touch unfair)
The stadia would also have the carbon footprint of a small country from running the Air Con.
Complain about this comment
@178 / covered stadia...
Because cricket grounds are much bigger than soccer or rugby pitches or tennis courts. They also hold fewer people than the first two. It'd never pay off... the Millennium Stadium regularly sells out 75,000+ seats and still barely turns a profit. A stadium like Lord's which is getting on for twice the area with less than half the capacity wouldn't stand a chance, even if MCC followed the WRU's lead and allowed rock concerts, speedway and monster truck racing on the hallowed turf in the off season, which I rather doubt.
Complain about this comment
The most interesting comment so far is that about the run-ups. Instead of spending vast amounts on new stands etc. why not just use a couple of old covers to protect the run-ups? Wouldn't cost a penny. Or have I missed something.
Complain about this comment
Can I please knock this on the head? Law 8 of The Laws of Cricket states: "8. Fitness of ground, weather and light.
The umpires shall be the final judges of the fitness of the ground, weather and light for play."
How unambiguous is that? Anybody still having difficulty with any hard words?
Put another way: The captains had absolutely no say in the DECISION to abandon.
Complain about this comment
@ 183
They did have covers on the run up at the Brian Statham end....they were either poorly laid out or had a hole in
Complain about this comment
Cricket + Rain = Worst of Enemies...this isnt the first time something like this will happen and not the last. My main problem was brought up, i dont understand why the ECB is selling off test/odi matches to grounds that are in the middle of nowhere..sophia gardens, rose bowl....the stadia that were consistently used in the past 2 decades like trent bridge and edgbaston have been increasingly left out. You just have to look at next year's visit by the Pakistan team who will be facing both England and Australia...all that trent bridge/edgbaston has received so far are 20/20 internationals...these are world class grounds with such a good history of hosting events!
Complain about this comment
I'm sure the Telstra Dome in Australia has held some ODI's ? I think it has a roof? Could be wrong.
The issues in these posts doesn't only affect T20 games. I've got fed up of watching (sorry not watching) other formats of the game in such farces with poor refund systems. Sure things are better than 20 years ago - but still not good. A 5pm on the first day of the third test to get the 25 overs in left a bad taste in the mouth as the players ran up and down the pitch to keep the over rate up. The sun shone well in to the evening.
There are many examples of cricket hideing behind safety to cover up a shambles. The sport is playing russian roulette with the spectator and the TV companies who have purchased the rights to show the game.
Collingwoods comments were a PR disaster.
Hey ho - at least the 4 day championship game at Old Trafford got off to a prompt start this morning !
Complain about this comment
My dear Auntie Ethel used to say "Nzverdicrer jrupdip smar tocrat". Mind you, that was after her stroke. If only I could find out what she meant, it might be relevant to this debate.
Mike Oxley-King
Complain about this comment
WarleyBear, should we in future ship all our ODI fixtures over to Australia's Telstra dome? Do you know that it is a multi-purpose stadium? It's not exclusive to cricket
For a stadium to have a roof, it would need to be built from scratch, and it would be an expensive job. I'd much rather we write off exhibitions like these 20 over games and spend the money developing the game in communities.
Complain about this comment
Bowlers used to be limited to 15m (yards?) run-ups in the good old John Player League so that should have been an option
Complain about this comment
Whatever the rights and wrongs of last night's debacle, various contris already made have a point when referring (as Jim Cumbes did) to the attitude to entertaining the public and how things have changed over time.
I recall as a young lad attending a group match of the inaugural World Cup in 1975 - West Indies v Sri Lanka at Old Trafford (a 60 over game).
WI rolled over SL (then very much minnows of world cricket) for 86 in 37 overs, and then knocked off the runs in 20 overs. The crowd (not huge but at least 5,000) had seen a full game over by mid afternoon for less than half the max number of overs that could have been bowled.
However, and the immense credit of such stars as Kanhai, Kallicharran, Boyce, Roberts, Richards, Lloyd etc etc. both teams then came back out and put on an exhibition match to make up for the brevity of the real match. Most spectators (according to Wisden: http://www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/150267.html) stayed on to watch. What are the chances that this would happen today??
Oh, and by the way it was sunny and warm in Manchester (OK it was June but it was also only 5 days after snow stopped play in the Derbyshire v Lancs county game at Buxton!).
Them were t'days!
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
I was at Old Traffold on Sunday and watched on last nights non-match on TV: Yes, I was disappointed it rained on both days (at least folks got their money back yesterday, unlike on Sunday): the weather was unfortunate and I agree, it didn't look fit enough to play, however it simply added to the general feeling of a facility that wasn't upto international standard. Hour long queue to get in, having arrived an hour before start of play. One of our party stood in the queue for drinks for an hour, missing 14 overs (of 21.1 bowled), put simple down to a lack of staff (Inglourious Bar-Stewards) with toilets in porta-cabins.
Please don't tell me about a multi-million £ drainage system - as of about 7.30pm last night it appeared to be a lovely summers evening
Complain about this comment
I am in agrement with Shane Warne who suggested bowl at one end. Why would that have been such a bad ides. The cricket would still have been at international standard. Cricket authorities continue to live in the old 'Gentlemans' era. It is Twenty 20 that has brought new fans to the sport.
Complain about this comment
You said it, Mark. "Sunny and Warm", not "thin watery sunshine and rather damp underfoot with some patches of unsafe muddy ground".
The sense of entitlement is doing my head in. Cricketers now have to behave like performing seals because some people spent a few quid getting to the game, or had consumed a few pints at high prices while waiting. Sorry, you went to a game but the weather got in the way. Bad luck. It happens, live with it.
Complain about this comment
It is Twenty 20 that has brought new fans to the sport.
===
Judging by the crassness of some of these replies, I wish they would go away again
Complain about this comment
hi everyone this is my first blog i joined because i feel i had to say something against this madness. I live in ireland and in may i went to see ireland vs hampshire friends trop on one of the most sunny days in may. It had rained a bit in the days running up to the match but the day of the match the weather was perfect. At 2 on the day they called it off too wet a pitch on summer afternoon. I felt so angry that people had taken the time, effort and hard earned money to get to the game. That the ecb people who the show are so far away from the world of real people that they do not understand that puting on a show is the key to customer happiness. These people do not care about keeping the customer happy they just care about taking there money or drink or food and wasting there time. They waste 20,000 people evening for nothing. They sold them a programe and beer and let them enjoy a no show. what customer service is this no product in the world does this only cricket in the uk. i HATE CRICKET IN THE UK NOT TO BE TRUSTED AT LEAST WATCHING TV ON SKY YOU CAN CHANGE CHANNEL YOU TIME HAS NOT BEEN WASTED. CRICKET SHOULD BE PLAYED JUST FOR TV WITH EMPTY STADIUMS NO POINT IN HAVING A CROWD THE ECB DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THEM WHO DOES CARES ABOUT THE CROWD? ANSWER ME THAT
Complain about this comment
Hi Kapnag (post 189) - I wasnt suggesting we had a roofed stadium built .... just that one possibly exsisted. However if anyone wants to build one.............
By the way dont they bowl at one end in some Derbyshire games because of the sun in summer evenings? I'm sure the rule book was changed..... I could also be wrong?
Anyway currently Lancs 105-4 at Old Trafford.
Complain about this comment
@CartmanEazyE
Don't misunderstand me - the weather is unsuitable, the spectators miss out (heaven knows I did this enough in my youth at OT too!). I don't expect players to perform whatever.
The point I make is a wider one that even in favourable circumstances, the attitude of today is perhaps so much different to 30 odd years ago (Jim Cumbes' point to a degree - although somewhat flawed in the context of the pitch conditions last night).
Complain about this comment
kingjoe60.
What 'show' would you suggest they put on, then, when they can't put on any cricket? Volleyball? A big game of British Bulldog? A Kerry Katona concert?
Far too much me me me me me me me going on here.
Complain about this comment
This whole situation annoys me, i mean professional sportsmen need to man up a bit. The skysports commentators discussed fast bowlers bowling from that end taking their run up back a couple of feet to avoid the puddle and bowl from 1 or 2 feet behind the crease like they had too in the days of uncovered pitches. Whilst this would change the game for bowlers from that end it would be the same for both teams and so i dont see how that would make the match farcical, unlike the first day at edgbaston where it would be one side suffering the bowling penalty and having an unbalancing effect on the match.
If a match can be played in a SAFE AND FAIR fashion, which i believe the above solution to allow then it should be played.
I recently read a blog which reflected the importance of fans in sport aimed at the premiership. It pointed out that with empty stadiums you lose the vast sums of money that come from in stadium advertising, you lose the atmosphere of the game, which has a huge impact, you would subsequently get a drop in the TV money and then less income in general. The same can and should be applied to cricket.
It's a shame for Old Trafford, they have, and are continuing to put VAST sums of money into their ongoing redevelopment meant and knowing the ECB it is OT who will be blamed for this and it may have a massively detrimental impact on the international future of the ground.
p.s. with respect to Brett Lee bowling from that end..... is there a reason he can't bowl from the other end?
Complain about this comment
the show they came to watch was cricket so a cricket match of some sort could of been played. It was not rain stoped play but players stopping play
Complain about this comment
MarkRyburn:
Players now get a grilling for getting injured in a pre-game kickabout. How do you think the press would react if a player was injured in an exhibition match just before an Ashes Test series?
The attitude of today is different. In a more romantic world, an exhibition match would have been great. Those days are gone along with smoking on aircraft, football players getting hammered after every match, and loon pants. The same people who bark and shout 'Lordy, they're so unprofessional' if the England team has a beer in public after a defeat seem to be the same people demanding that the teams should do something totally unprofessional and have a meaningless pub knockabout to satisfy the punters.
Complain about this comment
kingjoe, you would rather watch players run in hard and injure themselves? How is that entertainment?
Complain about this comment
No, it was the umpires stopping play.
That's what happens in cricket. I suggest you watch some and learn something about the game.
Complain about this comment
The fans get back the ticket price MINUS an admin charge of around £1.40. On top of that they have to pay for transport, food etc. In farce situations like this maybe they should refund the ticket PLUS a percentage to cover the above.
Complain about this comment
And who pays for that?
Complain about this comment
Carior:
Why should a bowler have to bowl from 2 feet back from the crease? Absolute piffle from the Sky team. You don't change a rugby or football pitch dimensions and make goalkickers kick from further back because of puddles.
What would happen if Old Trafford had dried out then in the seocnd knock and bowlers were able to bowl from the normal crease position? One side would gain an undoubted advantage and the whole thing would disintegrate into farce.
"If a match can be played in a SAFE AND FAIR fashion, which i believe the above solution to allow then it should be played."
It wouldn't be fair as the bowlers on both sides wouldn't be operating over the same pitch dimensions.
Complain about this comment
"What would happen if Old Trafford had dried out then in the seocnd knock and bowlers were able to bowl from the normal crease position? One side would gain an undoubted advantage and the whole thing would disintegrate into farce."
By abandonning the match the captains and umpires have clearly stated that this wasnt going to happen!
Complain about this comment
Carior:
Yep, and the abandonment was the right decision from a safety point of view.
People calling for artificial wickets: dudes, have you ever played on a plastic wicket when it's wet? They're OK if you're a slow bowler but someone like Lee or Johnson would go A over T within seconds. On the other hand, that might help Big Mitch's radar...
Complain about this comment
This is crazy having a go at the players for not wanting to play a "summer" game in crud conditions created by mucho rain in the north of an already wet country.
I like all sports and you can compare none of them in reality. Some guy is talking about it not being right to stop Gerrard playing footie in windy conditions as the ball might swerve. What??? Bunkum. S Gerrard plays football. That is a game that is played in winter, in all conditions barring crazy snow or frozen or completely waterlogged pitches. The players wear studs and it matters not if the ground is torn up too much as the players will not be expected to receive 90mph deliveries.
Cricket is cricket. A warmish and most definitely dry environment is required for play to continue. This is the case at all levels of the game. I played as a kid and when it rained, we stopped playing. If certain areas were not suitable for cricket, they were not suitable.
Dont get me wrong, I would be peed right off if I was out of pocket too. That said, I would not be spending my hard earned dosh on a ticket to watch mickey mouse cricket in the North of England.
Blame the fool who thought he had the ground preperation under control. Blame the actual cricket club for not ensuring that it could provide adequate conditions. Lastly, you might just need to blame the weather. Lo and behold it might just have rained so much that is was impossible to produce a decent outfield.
Who knows, but you sure as hell can not blame a player of any level for not wanting to compete in conditions that at best would be described as foreign, nor the Umpires for acting in the best interests of the players. After all, they are there to protect the players from danger.
Complain about this comment
I agree with artifical wickets being useless, as a slow left armer they offer you nothing but grief, you can get more spin from a tennis ball on a polished wood floor.
Complain about this comment
Carior:
Former leg spinner here, I hated artificial wickets when trying to bowl spin. I found it far more fun trying to get the ball to pop as few places ever laid their wickets down on a good foundation. Hours of fun watching the keeper getting them on the chest!
Complain about this comment
Cricket is on a very slippery slope.
The ECB give Test matches out to the highest bidder regardless of spectator numbers and remember everyone, tax payers paid for the developments in Cardiff and also the £3m+ Glamorgan paid for the privilege of hosting their Test.
They charge approx £50 for a slog fest (20/20) and after this farce, how many of those paying customers will never return?
I for one won't.
As for player safety on this issue, if it were truly dangerous, then fair enough, the problem is, everyone could see that the danger was minimal, at most.
Complain about this comment
In response to CartmanEazyE - The ECB pay as they do now through cancellation insurance. It would not beyond imagination to believe that they are making enough money out of the circus of ODI's and Twenty20's to finance a good will package. It might even mean that we play in conditions such as last night.
Complain about this comment
My 10 year old son was hoping to see this summer's stars in his 1st cricket match he's been to. (so dissapointed) in my nievity couldn't they have played on a different wicket! (if that's feasable) surely if it was just a couple of square metres that was causing the problem moving to an adjacent wicket would have resolved this. i can definately say my son has gone to school today, late nights watching cricket have gone, will he be interested in future years? Has cricket lost a potential new supporter? who knows!!!!
Complain about this comment
It might also mean that you bankrupt the ECB through your own unwillingness to accept that bad luck is bad luck. Be a little less selfish and appreciate that these people have a job to do.
Complain about this comment
No, jacksheroesof90, it's not feasible.
Complain about this comment
60. At 10:22am on 02 Sep 2009, PulpGrape.
"Its a simple solution to play internationals in the south then we wouldn't be having these discussions over a farce like last night."
Thats a great idea, the national football team don't venture beyond the gates of Wembley and, the national rugby union side don't venture beyond the gates of Twickenham, so let's alienate the public further by taking away the one national side that does bother to play its games north of Watford Gap because of a few unfortunate days of bad weather. Also it may rain a little less in the south east (yes, the south west receives as much rainfall as the north west!) but it is hardly the gold coast! All in all a ridiculous comment.
Complain about this comment
So CartmanEazyE which makes more "economic" sense. The people who will never return and get back £50 - £1.40 or those that get back £60 and may go back?
Complain about this comment
The option that doesn't involve the ECB giving free money to greedy people who can't accept that they were just unlucky.
Complain about this comment
Look everyone!.....It rained.....the field of play was considered to be dangerous.....the match was abandoned. Simple.
Why create a debate over something so trivial? I have to say I find it absolutely hilarious that all these people who had tickets for the game are now coming on here moaning, not least because of the price they paid for the ticket, but also because they had to use the petrol to get to Old Trafford in the first place!
We live in England, it rains occassionally, so the match was abandoned. Big Deal!
Ben, the way you have written this article and the analogies you have used are completely out of context and just emphasize the media hype that gets created around such a trivial issue.
At the end of the day, it was decided that it was too dangerous to play, in my view thats perfectly acceptable. People who bought tickets, tough bloody luck! Things happen, deal with it and stop complaining!
Complain about this comment
@AndyPlowright
Andy. Please don't take it literally I'm not advocating ehxibition games all over the place - I'm merely pointing out that, without any prompting, players (and officials) did something way back when that was more focussed on spectators than duty called for, and that this is unlikely to happen today.
I agree with you there are illogical folk around who expect the earth without considering or even caring about the consequences. I am not one of these.
Yes, you're right things have changed, some for the better and some for the worse. If we realised what had changed for the worse and sought to change it back to make it better then lots more would be better. And NO this is not merely a romantic viewpoint. Not that there's anything wrong with romanticism (if that's a word!) - we wouldn't be where we are today in all sorts of advances if dreamers hadn't dreamt and settled for being pragmatists - there's room for all types.
Bottom line - the whole approach to considering the spectator in any game at any level needs to be more subtle and communicative - and by saying this I'm not advocating a 'spectator is king' approach and nor am I joining the ranks of those who seek entertainment at any expense. Some get it more right than others (consider the rearranging of the test in the Windies last winter as perhaps an example of considering joe public a little more than normal?)
Oh and by the way, I completely do not condone the attitude of the media in this type of debate (viz your comment on players being given hard times over injury in kickabouts). It's the 'say whatever suits whenever' attitude of the media to create big headlines and win market share irrespective of the facts that is part of the whole attitude change (the for the worse bit).
Complain about this comment
CartmanEazyE -
You call me selfish - not quite sure how you can make that comment. I wasnt at the match and dont have a ticket but was just thinking of what might be better in the long run.
You say its bad luck. I think the vast majority of people think it was incompetence.
I get the impression you trawl sites like this looking for an argument. Id spend less time at home with your cat and get out a bit more.
Complain about this comment
@CartmanEazyE
What's greedy about wanting money back when you haven't received the service you paid for?
Would you not complain if you ordrered, and paid up front, for a fillet steak and received a burger?
Or if you sat through half a film and the screen went blank?
Or would this be bad luck too?
It must be easy to take that attitude when you weren't actually there being ripped off.
Complain about this comment
Sorry folks but people have got to realise, Cricket is an outdoor sport and is covered by the weather conditions. If the Umpires decide that play cannot go ahead, that is it, it is tough luck. Fine everyone should get the price of their ticket back (without any admin charge) but to expect travel and food costs back is a no no
Complain about this comment
The point I was really trying to make will, Im sure, be reflected next year. Lets see how many empty seats there are at the Bangladesh matches and to a lesser extent the Pakistan matches. It was originally due to be the West Indies as the main attraction... I dread to think. The spectators last night were badly treated by the incompetence of the groundstaff and the "preciousness" of players and officials. It would not have taken much to have reduced run ups, bowled spin etc - Paul Allot asked the question as to whether any bowler had actually seen if they were going to land on the affected area and from what I saw, didnt get an answer. Reap what you sow... unfortunately an Ashes summer obscures the realities of whats to follow...
Complain about this comment
Martinsc, if someone can't be bothered to read terms and conditions for tickets, and fail to consider that it might, just might, be wet, it really is only them who is to blame.
If you don't like the "no refund" term, don't buy the tickets.
Complain about this comment
Nope, Andy, not contributed to a blog in a while. I've just been moved to comment on this one by the ignorance of some of the comments. I just think the demand for some free money from an organisation that has no control over the cause of the cancellation is unrealistic and, yes, a little grasping.
Complain about this comment
MArtinsc.
Please read the post before commenting. I'm not objecting to people getting money back. I'm objecting to people demanding more money than they paid because it must be someone's fault. It isn't. It's the weather's fault.
Complain about this comment
Its not the weathers fault. This is 2009 and we cant keep a patch of grass dry! Sweating my A***
Complain about this comment
What would the point have been in playing a game for the sake of it? I know that people had turned up for it but if they were to be treated to a massively sub standard game then they’d have been screaming for a refund! If the pitch was unplayable at one end then its unplayable full stop, its part and parcel with being an English cricket fan that games get called off due to weather, if we wanted to see all of our home games in perfect sunshine we’d change nationality and become Australian!
Also not sure what the worry is its only T20, we won the form of cricket that really matters, the rest is irrelevant....
Complain about this comment
I fully agree with Mikeyohno - it rained so get over it ...
However , if we're going to have 1 day games in this country we need to be a bit more sensible about where we play them and make sure the grounds are suitably capable of play after heavy rain. (e.g. Lords this year.!)
So - sorry Manchester etc (where it rains a lot ... quoting Bumble last night) if you can't provide the facilities then you shouldn't be awarded the matches - bring them all back to London where we’ve got the infrastructure and can fill the grounds.
As an aside - if there had been a 5 over thrash and I’d paid to get in I’d have been seriously hacked off - it's bad enough comparing 20-20 games with cricket, let alone swinging a long handled bat for 5 over’s and 5 bowlers with 1 over each - it’s a bit like a beer match in the amateur game.
I’d rather have my money back.
Complain about this comment
Three problems with rain and cricket.
1) Starts wet, stays wet - it is mostly reasonable to cancel. I suppose there is a definition of how wet is wet? Could the game start and continue in drizzle?
2) Starts dry, then rains. Didn't Kent lose on D/L to Sussex not so long ago when they batted the second innings in worsening conditions, and after the D/L qualifying overs, for the first time Kent were behind the run rate and Sussex declared winners? Come on, folks, there is such a thing as a weather forecast. Options - shorten the first innings if rain is forecast to give both teams the chance to bat in the dry. Also, if batting second, get well ahead of the rate as soon as possible and stay there - you will not lose on the whim of a statistic.
3) Starts wet then dry. A problem, but not insurmountable. Delay the start and play a shorter match. Rule out the damp patches. Can't bowlers run short of the damp, or run round them?
OK Old Trafford 2009. Sunday's game should have been declared 10 overs per side at teh outset. The rain was not a surprise. Better to getr a result than rely on false hope that the rain may stay off. Tuesday - there should have been a game somehow.
Lessons
- umpires and captains - be flexible. SOrt out a playing solution if there is one available. Be innovative - the administrators can catch up later. Even if the result is declared "unofficial" because some divine cricket law has been breached, there is a result and something for the paying customer to watch. All laws are stupid in some circumstances.
- let's have a wet weather version of the game. Rules - all bowlers restricted to a 5 pace run up (or as agreed). If the outfield is wet, move the boundary so wet patches are not in play. It is the same conditions for both sides. (Antigua also comes to mind with those sand patches). Reduce the number of overs if the forecast is bad and more rain likely. Get some wet weather cricket boots.
- let's also change some precious attitudes - Twenty20 is not test cricket. Some might not say it is cricket in a pure sense. But it is entertainment, and designed to enthuse a new audience. Not so in Manchester it seems.
Complain about this comment
People like me who consider 20/20 as nothing more than a "whackabout" and a giggle (and a handy fund-raiser) want 20/20 matches to go ahead regardless of how the weather reduces the standard of play that can be played (within reason)- after all "it's only 20/20". If necessary use only spinners - and only one end! But mostly I follow Test matches and First Class cricket, the result of any 20/20 match doesn't bother me too much. But I have to face the fact that for many people cricket IS 20/20 - and these (often new) fans take it more seriously. 20/20 doesn't get much higher than two national teams meeting; so perhaps they were right not to play. Perhaps there should be some ICC ruling on what adaptations are acceptable for international 20/20 matches when the weather is poor.
Complain about this comment
One of the reasons I was happy to leave the UK 20 years ago, was because so many people I worked with or for, seemed intent on finding reasons why something couldn't be done rather than finding a way for it to be done.
Nothing seems to have changed!
Complain about this comment
I am genuinely flabbergasted at some of the proposals put forward by some contributors...run round the wet patches.....bowl off 5 pace run ups...stick matting over the top. It really does sound as if a lot of these people have never played the game...this is international cricket and as such the rules are pretty much set in stone and cannot and should not be changed on a whim. the ground was considered by the umpires to be unsafe...end of story...and Dirsy you deserve a swift kick in the behind for writing such a load of codswallop.
Complain about this comment
I live in Antigua. When we (West Indies)were playing Australia here and half of one day's play was abondonned I remember all the stick we got. And when the match between us and England was abandonned the stick and fallout was even greater (and rightfully so). But now a match is abandonned in mighty Englnad i hope the officials get the same stick as we. On another note first off we can't beat mother nature. No matter how much the drainage systems improve. Secondly the captains and umpires are right. How can you expect players to play and risk injury? And then to ask them to play a half competitive game with short run ups is almost an injustice. Cricket isnt just about entertaining the fans, it's about both teams going all out to win and that is the best entertainment and if the outfield canot provide for that then the game has to be abondonned. Blame the Old Trafford officials, not the umpires and captains.
Complain about this comment
@MarkRyburn:
The rearrangement of the Antigua test match was less about keeping spectators happy and more about saving West Indian face. The game at Sabina Park that was caleld off in the past due to the wicket being a nightmare was a huge black mark on West Indian cricket. To have another one cancelled game at a time when pressure was mounting on the WICB for its perceived and actual incompetence in just about every cricketing matter going would have been suicide for the WICB, not least as I imagine som ekind of financial penalty from the ICC would have occured.
I totally get your point abou thow the exhbition game in 1975 was above and beyond the call of duty and how it wouldn;t be done now. As I've said much earlier in this blog, the spectator is not the primary concern of the administrators. Everyone accepts professional sport is ruled to a degree by accountants. Those acountants look at who pays the biggest bucks, and it isn't the spectator. Again as I've said earlier, the spectator loses out, the television money is king, and the spectator is gouged repeatedly in any number of sporting events.
With that in mind, I don't believe there should be a greater emphasis on the players to get out there in poor conditions or to play exhibition matches to make up for expensive ticket prices, expensive food prices, and everything else hat occurs in international grounds. If the players play badly, you don't get the ECB saying 'Right lads, we'll give the spectators some free pies to make up for your performance' so why should the players be expected to do the same to make up for poor ECB performance? The players don't set ticket prices or demand hot dogs are sold well over the odds. Too many people lump everything all together when it is totally clear that you have the actual sporting element to the England team and then the commercial side. The ECB should be castigated for the poor scheduling over this entire season of just about everything and they should be questioned over ticket prices too.
Complain about this comment
I was there last night, having also attempted to get to day 4 at headingly, so probably my fault.
However, there is a simple answer to this. Its not LCCC's fault, its not Colly, Clarkey or the Umpires fault, its simply the fault of the ECB.
Cricket is a SUMMER sport, played in DAYTIME conditions, if it had rained at 11am for a 2:30 start, then cleared up and been sunny like last night, we would have played, as warm sun would have dried up the pitch, at 6:45 last night the affected area was shaded and in teh shade it was 12C.
Common sense needs to prevail with the schedulling. And if any brummies are having a pop at Old Trafford, don't forget the farce of a ground they have!
Finally, why are we even bothering with an ODI series now? The real interest is now gone, as with an Australia tour, the interest is in the Test Matches, the rest is padding. Why weren't these played in June? Because we had to have a yearly T20 tournament, Why? to please the BCCI who want lots of T20 to help flog their IPL on Setanta or ESPN or Dave whichever channel will show it now.
Cricket needs to sort itself out or it will kill itself in a fit of greed.
N.B - play started to day in lancs vs sussex at Old Trafford before the rain came in the afternoon
Complain about this comment
Robc112:
-No captain would go for a dead game right now when there is nothing at stake whatsoever.
-A wet weather version of the game: oh come on. 5 paces, shorter boundaries.... I tell you what, why not just have Sian Lloyd and Anne Robinson as umpires too with a section of singing penguins from Mary Poppins instead of the T20 dancers?
The sand patches in Antigua are irrelevant to this debate. The reason play was stopped there was because those sand patches were dangerous to both sets of bowlers. Would you have made both sets of bowlers bowl in dangerous conditions? The place was a sand-riddled pit. It wasn't simply a case of relaying turf. You'd have needed to do much of the outfield.
Complain about this comment
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article2112937.ece
Complain about this comment
Yep, over a million quid gets you some play. It takes time to install though.
Complain about this comment
I think the UK in general is just a bad place to play cricket other than the fact that they boys messed up the cleaning work its just a miserable place to play. Why do u think they moved the IPL and ICC trophy to sunny s.a. where the sun is hot and the girls are pretty.
Anyway SA for life...
Complain about this comment
§237. Dirs writing codswallop - nothing new there then.
The article headline should be :- "Dirs misses the point again"
Complain about this comment
I hope someone has already suggested this seemingly simple solution to last night's 'problem' with the pitch. Why not use ONE OF THE OTHER PITCHES!!
Complain about this comment
This is a joke. I was there for the game on the sunday that was abandoned after drizzle.
this was after missing 6 overs because the queue for the bar & food was 45 minutes long due to OT not organising anything correctly.
I had driven up after being to Wembley the day before for the Rugby final & was appauled at the way the crowd were treat by what laughingly calls itself a "test venue".
Why play the game in Manchester at all? the ground is under development and we paid well over a ton to sit in temporary seating that was so small as to not fit most bums that tried to fit on the seats.
I for one will be giving OT a VERY wide berth (no pun intended) from now on.
Headingley is also under development and is in a much better state than OT.
Complain about this comment
This article is nonsense
Only 6 months ago players and boards bent over backwards to get a game on in West Indies when a pitch was deemed unsafe, moving location using a football ground instead which had inadequate facilities to give fans a match, they will do what they can to get a game going
Seen as it's a T20 knockabout it's pretty hard to find alternatives at such short notice, even if they used another strip chances are someone would have to field in that mud so it's not really a solution is it
Complain about this comment
I agree that to stage such a game at this stage in the year is a mistake, but this seems to be the norm. The last of the 7 (7!) one day games in up in Durham, the most northerly international cricket ground, at the end of September. That seems like poor planning at best.
I received an email today from Lords, saying that tickets are still on sale for their one day games - at £75 each. That comes as little surprise.
Complain about this comment
Re 246 - the problems were with the pitch, not the wicket. The pitch is the outfield, so there's only one!
Complain about this comment
Should have played both games at Chelsmford Good crowd and dry. Why on earth play north of watford this time of year if you cannot even play 20Twenty because of the weather. We have grounds good at putting on 20Twenty games down south as well.
Complain about this comment
dr_miles wrote: Re 246 - the problems were with the pitch, not the wicket. The pitch is the outfield, so there's only one!
OK, I got the terminology slightly wrong! But the idea stands.
How come the football match I watched recently was played in teaming rain and no-one even considered cancelling or abandoning it? Seems the officials at OT (and the ECB) need some basic training in common sense - as do the players - who could have adapted to the situation instead of worrying about getting their trousers muddy.
Complain about this comment
Paul Collingwood is an average cricketer and a poor Captain and clearly needs to learn a bit of humility to those who pay his wages (ie the paying public and Sky TV).
Complain about this comment
supajarwen, it is too much of a risk to the fast bowlers like Brett Lee, pounding in on soft ground, then suddenly hitting hard ground. These players have to put everything into their bowling action (hence all their injuries over their career). Most fast bowlers are carrying some sort of injury in every game anyway, so why on earth would they want to risk any further damage for the sake of an exhibition match?
Complain about this comment
Everyone seems to be aiming there frustrations towards the players, im a true lancastrian, i love Lancashire and the ground i call my 2nd home. However questions MUST be asked of the ground staff, how on earth was it posible for the area just befor the stumps on the BrianS side! With the hover cover and the massive ground sheets covering every single part of the ground how was it posible for them to allow the water to seepe so close to the wicket? You could see the new head grounds man hiding on the super sopper for the most part, only electing to get out when under duress from the umpires! Would this of happened whilst Pete Marron was in charge? NO not a chance! If were too look anywhere to point the finger of blame, point it no further than the ground staff! The players are only protecting there lively hood, as are the umpires, it is the job of the ground staff to have a ground sutable for play, and they failed!
Complain about this comment
I'm going to defend Ben here, he hasn't missed the point just seen it from the punters point of view. I like the theatre / showbiz analogy. Surely it's acceptable to be peed off at wasting everyone's time through poor planning.
Complain about this comment
Kapnag wrote:
supajarwen, it is too much of a risk to the fast bowlers like Brett Lee, pounding in on soft ground, then suddenly hitting hard ground.
I agree. That's why I suggested that (for the sake of the paying customers) the players should have adapted to the situation. Cut the game to 10 overs each and ban anyone above slow/medium pace.
(By 'ban' I mean get an agreement between the 2 captains).
Complain about this comment
it's not showbiz it's sport. How can a sports columnist suggest the umpires get their heads together 20 minutes before an international game to draw up a list of unofficial rules and restrictions that maintains balance between the sides and keeps the game competitive?
Who would want to watch Hussey open the bowling? Perhaps Prior could have got a couple of overs in, with Jimmy behind the stumps? That my friend, is a genuine farce. But Ben Dirs thinks this was the way to go!
The punter has been hard done by, but they run those risks when buying tickets by assuming weather will be fine, and failing to realise the tickets were non-refundable.
Complain about this comment
Excellent article, particularly "...But in this splintered and cluttered age, with its myriad forms of entertainment, it really can't afford to be so haughty..."
How arrogant the players & officials were last night. I went on Sunday with my son & other then the RAF parachutists felt short changed, I also noticed the drinks & food prices had shot up since the Lancs game I went to earlier in the season.
It will be a while before I go to an England game again
Complain about this comment
If I had travelled to the match it would have involved a 500 mile round trip. (£60 fuel + entrance + parking + food. So I wouldn't have cared if the tea lady had opened the bowling as long as I got _something_ for my money! As it was, several thousand paying customers were effectively fleeced of their hard-earned cash - and many won't fall for that again.
Complain about this comment
PS, 56 overs bowled at Old Trafford today, what a dreadful day's weather it has been!
Complain about this comment
Cricket by far has the prissiest prima-donnas of any sport, I knew at 7pm last night that no cricket would be played just by Collingwood and Clarkes body language, they simply had no interest in playing and for that matter no concern for the people that ensure they have the best of everything, the paying public. Now I donot understand why no dryer was used on that one bad spot? I've done it on grounds and a small 4 foot by 4 foot sqaure could of been hit with heat lamps or hot air and dried it out enough for play within an hour. Now what bothered me the most was Collingwoods attitude towards the whole situation, he just simply didn't care. The other thing that concerns me with Cricket is their inability to think on their feet, sure you deem the ground unfit for an International match, but with both Teams there and ready to play(supposedly anyway) match officials there and ready, and over 25,000 paying fans why can't you switch to an exhibition game? Does it really take an administrator somewhere to tell these grown men what is right and what makes common sense? I do agree with another comment made, it is Collingwoods best outings as captain.
Complain about this comment
I can't imagine you'd be on here today satisfied with the game you watched if it ended up a tea lady match. If you would have been, you might as well have stayed locally and watched some village cricket instead.
This is international sport, these teams wouldn't want to operate at 40%
You know the risks, don't complain when you end up missing out.
Complain about this comment
I, on the other hand, spent £36 watching 3 days of Kent's tussle with Surrey. Enthralling stuff, keeping us on the edge of our seats till late on the 4th day.
Oh, sorry. I was forgetting - 4 day cricket is boring.
Complain about this comment
To COVENTRYBRIAN
I indeed have been to many cricket grounds in England and abroad so please don't make assumptions about me. Note I said "one" not "the" and it's my opinion so feel free not to share it.
I agree Old Trafford has suffered and badly needs redevelopment. It doesn't have the best facilities but it has the history to afford it some respect and some of the best crowds in world cricket.
Complain about this comment
It is doubtful as to whether the administrators and rule makers within such august institutions recognise that spectators at the ground and through TV 'pay their salaries'. It is a clique and bureaucracy which is self serving. Many highly trained, well educated and highly paid people manage a complex and rigid set of processes which has entertainment as a very low priority. It is like many 'public' bodies really - they serve themselves not the public and are unenterprising in the extreme. Otherwise common sense would have prevailed.
As not a ball had been bowled, the game (and Twenty20 even at International level is just a game) could have been started with agreement between the captains and umpires to bowl all the overs from one end (so avoiding the 'dangerous' run up). It's probably what we'd do if we found large cow pats in the bowler's run up in village cricket. There is a comment about cow pats and these administrators I'd like to make but instead had better just say many of us share your anger Ben. Keep going.
Complain about this comment
After the Ashes it is not surprising 2 x 20Twenties and 7 x One day international mean very little to either team. These teams play too much cricket (so that Sky/Foxtel can fill its channels) and they are worn out and do not care. If they played less they would make it happen. I think overplaying has taken the fun out of cricket for the players.
Complain about this comment
The ECB are indeed the Brittas Empire of the cicketing world. Have they forgotten that cricket is an entertainment - if it's not why are we all shelling out hundreds of pounds a year to watch. I sat there for two hours after paying £40 a ticket, £25 in petrol to get from Birmingham, lost half a day's work to be able to get to the ground, paid £8 parking, £5 for a radio and now they tell me I have to pay for the privelidge of asking for my money back. I even had to find out the game had been cancelled from the BBC. The ECB have really lost touch with the fans.
Complain about this comment
It appears that the ECB is refunding tickets for the 2nd 20/20 and it is the right thing to do. Whether there doing it because it is the right thing to do or are trying to avoid future ticket sale losses is still to be seen. I just finished watching a great cricket match between Sri Lankha and The Kiwi's, and the ECB and Aussie board could learn a thing or 2 from that game, it was extremely hot, humid, rained before the game, rained during the game(the players stayed on and played,) the wicket was so damp at one point Oram threw the ball into the pitch after a great catch off his own bowling and the ball jjust stuck there, but they played the game and entertained the hell out of the capacity crowd!
Complain about this comment
To Skris606
As I previously stated IPL and ICC is a debate for another time but once again I was not blaming IPL - get it. However may I congratulate FrontandBack for reminding me what cricket is all about, not that I had really forgotten but the cynicism of Paul Collingwood and Michael Clarke last night disturbed me greatly. Of course umpires are responsible for whether a game goes ahead or not but judging from the body language of the two captains on the outfield it was obvious they just did not want to play. AussieJeoff is probably right - they are worn out bless them and how they are going to cope with the next 7 ODIs and then the ICC trophy and the other matches I just don't know. I cannot stress how disappointed I am in Paul Collingwood's attitude - I have supported him from the time he came into the side in 2005 through thick and thin and I agree with others he was a PR disaster. However at the end of the day I am reminded that cricket is just a game (what do they know!!).
Complain about this comment
Good grief, what a silly lot!
Some of the excuses for not playing last nite were ridiculous:
PLAYERS COULD RUN IN ON THESE SURFACES 30 YEARS AGO, WHEN PITCHES WERE UNCOVERED BUT MODERN PLAYERS AREN'T USED TO THIS.
Poppycock! - we're just talking about running in are we really supposed to believe that, er, running has undergone some king of revolution in technique? - toss.
YOU CAN'T ASK FAST BOWLERS LIKE BRETT LEE TO BOWL ON THAT RUN UP
er, yes you can, its only 20/20, lets see Lee could -
run in more slowly
or, shorten his run up
angle his run up
be switched for a spinner/slowbowler
remember he wears spikes, will only bowl for 4/5 overs, and not to be such a big girls blouse.
ITS 20/20 - no-one minds if bowlers slow down 10 or 20 mph - you could consider this part of the natural quirks of this form of cricket, - its 20/20 its meant to be different.
BUT, BUT – YOU CAN’T LET WEATHER CONDITIONS ERODE THE POTENCY OF FAST BOWLERS
Tell that to spinners and swing bowlers whose art is marginalized by all short forms of cricket anyway.
ITS FULL 20/20 INTERNATIONAL
Yet again, no-one expects 20/20 to have the same integrity as full test cricket - the big hitting, dismissal heralding music, and sexy cheerleaders have already seen to that. Methinks some people are taking this far too seriously. People accept that in comparison 20/20 is a bit of fun – and it should have been the perfect opportunity to celebrate the ashes returning.
THE EVENT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BEER MATCH, A HIT AND GIGGLE, OR ONLY AN EXHIBITION
So what? again that’s what the crowd are expecting – what would have been the worse of two evils? – having a jolly heave ho and hit with fast bowlers compromised – or waiting until fully 20,000 people were settled down and then summarily sending them home?
Complain about this comment
So Ben, cricket is just entertainment? But I don't see you rating the England players Ashes performance on entertainment value in your last blog. You can't have it both ways. Professional sport is entertainment, but the result and sporting performance matters more than entertainment, especially in international events. With an unsafe pitch all the players could have done was play an entertaining, but non-competitive, exhibition game. But you would still have written a whinging blog, wouldn't you?
Complain about this comment
I can't help but feel that many people do not quite realise the significance of an international fixture! I will probably get shot down for this, but I don't think international cricket (or any other sport for that matter) is played to entertain the public! It represents the pinnacle of a country's achievement in that sport and should not be taken lightly. Conditions should be perfect so that players can demonstrate their skills! International sportsman feel immense pride when representing their nations - they would be most unhappy if improper conditions resulted in a poor showing. Furthermore, cricket is cricket! I am sure club players would find it difficult to be told they would have to bowl from a shortened run-up or only use one end. These suggestions are preposterous - would you tell man u or arsenal to use only 1 goal or to have a quick game of "wembley" to entertain the crowd - I think not!
Having said that, what happened on sunday and tuesday was inexcusable - but I do not think the players can be blamed. The ECB has once again shown its ineptitude! Doesn't need someone with a degree to tell you it rains in manchester in september!
Complain about this comment
Not sure what all the outrage here is about. Surely anyone who follows cricket (and especially someone who is paid to write about it) is aware that cricket is weather (rain) dependant. It is not in anyone's interests to call off a game, so the decision would have been made for the right reasons. And yes I'm afraid that is is tough for everyone who has turned off, but that is part of the risk of watching cricket and at least they are getting a refund.
I find the idea of the teams having a hit around or playing with just spinners incredible! Cricket if first and foremost a sport then an entertainment. The game would lose any credibility as a competitive sport if this were to happen. Imagine telling premiership teams they could play but only the full backs are allowed to shoot.
While groundsman techniques will get better and make pitches playable more quickly following rain, cricket is always going to be victim to inclement weather, unless we suggest it should be played indoors!
Complain about this comment
The vulnerability of cricket to the weather goes much deeper than last night at Old Trafford. Back in the 1950's in an altogether slower world we didn't mind too much if the climax of an exciting match was washed out by the rain. We didn't mind sitting for three hours after the rain stopped for the pitch to dry out.
We do mind now and demand instant results, and with 20-20 and one dayers that's what we usually get. The time has come for artificial grass on the outfield allowing instant starts and even play during not too heavy rain.
I can already hear the purists screaming "Heavens above!" Just remember, you read it here first.
Complain about this comment
very blog. Cricket shoulkd be taken as seriously as cricket journalism. This game (or lack of) was a huge and yet typical disappointment.
Complain about this comment
Lets consider the facts from last night.
1. Part of the ground was not safe for play.
2. The ground is the player's workplace, every workplace in the country has a legal responsiblity to abide by health & safety regulations, just because it is a sport there is no difference.
The real issue is why was 1% of ground unfit for play, surely the ground staff have to take responsiblity for this. If a production line at a factory stopped then the manager/department head would have to take responsiblity, surely what happened at Old Trafford last night is no different.
Finally, Clarke and Collingwood were perhaps being prima donnas last night, but consider this, if a bowler had slipped last night it could resulted in a career threatening injury.
Complain about this comment
One assumes that like test cricket these games are unwritten by an insurer.
I wonder how much the premium differs from 20/20 to Test match, and does anybody know what the rules are for them in a 20/20 game(ECB) to get a minimum number of overs "in" in order to constitute a game and what are the minimum amount of overs that need to be bowled in order to avoid giving the Mr. Angry's of this world a refund.
We've all got an axe to grind on these issues. I feel angry about what they do to the punters at Test match and 1 day games.
Complain about this comment
I understand your point on "International Cricket Matches," however whether the ECB, ACB, or even the ICC realize it by allowing the IPL and juggling schedules to make it fit into the FTP, not to mention the whole discreditting of the ICL, they've preached to us that 20/20 cricket is for entertainment and to attract new audiences. I'll bet you if this same circumstance had happened in India, Sri Lankha, Pakistan, West Indies, or South Africa cricket would of been played. I've heard comments from several key England Players over the last 2 years stating 20/20 was for entertainment and not looked at the same as the other formats. Like I said neither Team had any interest in playing those 20/20 matches and were in the ear of the officials from the start to call the match. The brave thing would of been to play and tell your bowlers to adjust so they don't get hurt, ie: the 20/20 match today in Sri Lankha the fast bowlers were using half a normal run-up. Personally I feel they hide behind the "not fit for International Cricket," cliche far to often and these type instances are what keep the sport from blooming in new markets. To the football comment, there has to be a near typhoon for a football match to be called for weather and if you watched the last round of World Cup Qual's there was a match at some small Asian country and the pitch and overall condition of the ground was beyond horrible, not up to International standards accordding to the commentators, but yet the athletes still played the match and I didn't hear one mention of it in any of the post-game player/manager interviews.
Complain about this comment
This blog misses the point in a number of ways. One, cricket is not 'entertainment' its sport. Sport is not solely 'entertainment', it is a blend of things which includes entertainment. Two, if the conditions are unfit for cricket, they're unfit. Cricket is a fragile game that needs the right conditions in order to be played to the right standard. Three, bowling from one end, shortening run-ups, only bowling spinners etc. would have been a complete farce, a waste of time, and actually would have been treating the supporters with contempt. You might as well say they could pick 22 people out of the crowd to play and take the £50 of the punters for watching that. People who go to a cricket game know, or should know, that there is a chance of it not happening due to the conditions, and they get a full refund (unless I'm missing something).
Also, with regard to your analogy, Jude Law getting a sore throat is the equivalent of a player getting injured, in which case the understudy would play. A leaky roof is the equivalent of, well, a leaky roof and the creaky stage is the equivalent of the grass not quite being perfect. None of which would see a cricket game cancelled. Unfit conditions is the equivalent of the stage being declared unsafe as the actors might fall through it due to rotting floorboards or the light rigging being unsafe and in danger of falling on the actors. I'd bet the show wouldn't go on then. Cricket's problem is that its far more likely to have unfit conditions than most other things. This is a populist, lazily written and ill considered blog.
Complain about this comment
20/20 is being touted as the new form of the game. Surely if it is to be taken seriously it must be regarded in the same way as test cricket in terms of competivity. Surely a "hit and giggle" match, where the players are not going 100% for the win, would undermine 20/20's aim to be taken seriously. Either 20/20 is a serious new form of cricket or just a bit of a laugh- you can't have it both ways!
Complain about this comment
This was my (and my sons) first visit to watch a "professional" cricket match.
It's quite simple to see that better drainage or under soil heating was needed. It didn't rain for 2 hours before it was abandoned. Cricket needs to come out of the dark ages.
p.s. It's still raining in Manchester
Complain about this comment
The answer is don't play any cricket further north than Watford, where everyone is complaining about our summer, here in the south east summer has been here since June !!!!!
Complain about this comment
Why not have a synthetic/astro strip ready next to the real one, including the run up? 20/20 is synthetic cricket anyway so what difference would it make?
Complain about this comment
Seems like the ECB need to rethink their policy regarding refunds possibly, as well as their simply stupid schelduling of matches.
More CAN be done to help the spectator - just look at county cricket. For example, last week in the Pro40 kent were schelduled to play a day nigh match, so rented out (at their expense) the ECB's regulation temporary floodlights for this match. However, when they started to set things up during the afternoon, it became apparent that the windy conditions meant that it was unlikely for the lights to both be fully erected and then switched on. Due to the lateness of the decision, the ECB were consulted ragrding the number of overs the match should be shortned to, with 20/20 being considered as it would allow both sides the same number of innings, get 50% of the schelduled overs in, and maintain the integrity of the sport. However, due to stupid ECB regulations, this was not allowed, with the ECB ruling that the game had to be shortened to 27 a side, with any over played after the 10th of the second innings seen as a "bonus"
This was not kent's fault, a`s the lights were not theirs, it was an unlucky coincidence to be played during one of the windiest days, and the ECBs stupidity regarding the reductions in overs played. Due to this, despite 47 of the 80 overs being played, KENT, out of their own goodness, declared that all spectators whom had attened the match could get free entry into the next home Pro 40, effectively getting a refund. WHy couldn't the ECB had done something similar and announced that ticket holders could get into one of the remaining OD matches this "Summer" (or next year if they had preferred), and offered a "complimentary" amount of money to cover for expenses. This would have at least left the crowd feeling a bit better, and less likely to lose faith in the management of the game by the ECB
Complain about this comment
If I had paid £50 to see an England/Australia match, I want to see a proper match. I wouldn't want to see some farcical shortened game with part time spin bowlers being smashed around the park, nor do I want Brett Lee bowling with half a run up in case he twists his ankle. Where would the 'entertainment value' mentioned by so many of the above comments be in that? I'd rather have my £50 back, thank you very much. The match either has to be played at full steam with all players completely committed to winning it, or it's got to be abandoned. Anything in between would be a boring joke, rather than a proper - and entertaining - game of cricket.
Complain about this comment
Stupidly niave Ben. Usually enjoy your blogs and I am sure I will enjoy further blogs, but you've gt this one badly wrong.
Complain about this comment
The more southerners harp on about 'northern weather' the better, i'll enjoy a better life here.
I love the thunderstorms :)
Anyway, as for cricket, maybe im being silly, but why not have dome roofs?
Put a net below the roof, so the ball doesnt smash into the roof, and then you can play in any condition!
Simples.
Complain about this comment
A simple solution: do not let the captains have a say in whether they want to play or not! Leave it to the umpires and groundsman/ground authorities to decide with a direction that play is to proceed unless it is dangerous. And finally, refunds of tickets should be for more than the face value of the ticket to recompense specatators for travelling to the ground etc. I suggest a 150% refund of the tickect price for spectators, now that would make everyone think hard before abandoning a game!
Complain about this comment
Cricket fans need to be provided with a fair deal. Governing bodies of the Gentleman's Game, players and the local organizers need to uphold the spirit of the game. The realm of justice and fairness is paramount in all sports and games.
Dr. Cajetan Coelho
Complain about this comment
Hell hath no fury like a commentator scorned! And an internet commentator at that! Stop pouting and take your hands off your hips, you look like a teapot!
In case you hadn't noticed, this is the p.c. world we now live in. Which is why councils cut down conker trees in case a child injures themselves collecting conkers.
It should come as no surprise then that a cricket match should be called off because of a speck of mud. Maybe someone should have thrown a bit of old carpet over it.
More importantly, why does anyone bother to turn up to watch this stuff anyway? The other day a game could have had a rain reduced result off only 23 balls.
A farcical format deserves a farcical abandonment. Give us proper cricket again.
Talking of teapots, I'm off to have a cuppa.
Complain about this comment
Old Trafford, and UK test match grounds generally should be much better prepared to handle poor weather by protecting the strip and run-ups and then to conduct the necessary enabling work for play to begin in earnest. It is not just OT that has suffered, we have witnessed farcical events at all grounds at some stage in the past
The grounds need more specialized equipment and forward thinking. The ECB should provide a ‘weather Tsar‘, with terms of reference to ensure the latest equipment is purchased by each ground (through central funding) and to properly manage preparations for play and restarts in conjunction with the respective groundsmen.
Cricket is riddled by this type of debacle - bad light still stops play, umpires seem incapable of restarting games immediately after a break for inclement weather when the pitch is fit, or they trott off for lunch when they've only played 45 minutes out of 2 hrs and teams can deliberately throw away overs without too much fuss - all of which deprives the paying public.
The ECB, respective clubs and players need to wake up, or face further decline in the games popularity.
Complain about this comment
I Ama Deluded - "Stupidly naive Ben". Well, and this will be my final word on this, if I'm naive, then Jim Cumbes is naive, Jeff Thomson is naive, Shane Warne is naive, and all those people (the majority, I might add) who have come down on my side in this argument are naive.
Anyway, many thanks for all your contributions on this subject. I thought it would get a lot of response, perhaps not as much as it has. We've had a lively philosophical debate about international sport and its place in the modern world, now let's go and have a nice cup of tea.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, one last point - here's an excerpt from an article in The Times today: "Yesterday morning, after a brief delay caused by rain, play started at 10.45 and Robin Martin-Jenkins, the Sussex seam bowler, opened from the Brian Statham End and experienced little difficulty from the muddy patch. He described his take-off from near the affected area as “absolutely fine” and bowled an 11-over opening spell."
Complain about this comment
To: mambono5 (Post 265)
Sorry if I offended you mambono5, but I still dispute your statement that: "Old Trafford is one of the best grounds in the world". This is nonsense; it is currently the worst Test Ground in England, which is why it is currently staging no Test Matches. If as you say you have visited Test Grounds in England and abroad surely you must see how Old Trafford lags behind so many others?
It does indeed have some of the best crowds in Cricket, but, a crumbling relic of a ground does not deserve respect just because of its history. Your inadequate committee are responsible for allowing the ground to get into this state of decay whereas more go-ahead clubs have invested wisely.
Complain about this comment
Ben:
Rule number 1: never ever offer the question 'Am I being hopelessly naive?' in an article!
Seriously, I hope the debate didn't get to you. I know some people took it to a personal level which is disappointing. It's a really contentious subject and this entire blog aptly demonstrates what a difficult job the umpires did have. It also demonstrates how different people view sport. The notion that sport is purely entertainment still sits very poorly with me.
Shane Warne isn't naive but he has a touch of the Botham ability to state opinions and then backtrack (see his comments about how coaches are useless but then takes the plaudits when he's successful coaching in the IPL). Bowling from one end would have been absurd.
With regard to the County Championship game starting yesterday and the comments coming from Robin Martin-Jenkins, did Old Trafford actually get any further rainfall once the T20 match had been cancelled?
Complain about this comment
Ben re your comment no.294
I am gonna be pedantic and point out that that run up area at the Brian Statham end of OT would have had another 15 hrs to recover, with all the groundstaff working on it with heaters and so on (the covers properly placed this time)....so to point at the match played the next day and say 'well they could have played the 20/20' is bordering on childish.
Complain about this comment
Having sat in silence at the debacle on Tuesday evening after paying out a large amount of money ,my thoughts and those of the supporters I talked to as we waited in vain on Tuesday.
1 We had 2 Low Grade Umpires making the decision with no thought for the spectators.
2 We had a completely inadequate England Captain whose care qualities for the spectators could be adequately covered on the back of a postage stamp.
3 We had a stand in Aussie Captain not to fit to lace Ponting's boots who didn't care one iota about the crowd.
Lancashire should sue the ECB, who in turn should issue a public statement confirming that no thought is ever given to the spectators.
Both teams exhibited a namby pamby don't give a toss attitude to those waiting hours for some action. Lancs v Yorks or Lancs v Surrey etc would have been played that night.
Rubbish Umpires and rubbish captains meant 20,000 plus people were cheated of cricket. Simple as . End of
Complain about this comment
If robin martin-jenkins got injured, he wouldn't have to worry about getting his place back in his side when he recovers. The gamble was not anywhere near the same level as international players (like Brett Lee, who missed the test series through injury - would he want to perform at 40% capacity, or risk injury again? a simple choice)
Complain about this comment
There are many comments here slating T20 yet the same people are making a big hue and cry that there was no game. If you think T20 is rubbish, surely you should be rather happy not to see this 'rubbish' on display at Old Trafford?
You cant have it both ways!!
Complain about this comment
After today's loss of Denly as a result of yet another training-pitch game of football, cricket's looking like one big joke played out by a group of men without the wit to make any of us laugh.
In one breath, it's: "We can't play there, it's dangerous."
The next, it's fine to turn your attentions to having a go at a game which is renowned for bringing with it a risk of injury (Prior's back problem, anyone?).
Could someone please highlight to the ECB, its players and the rest of them, that you can't have it both ways and still expect the fans to cough up for the tickets or TV subscription that allow us to watch our so-called committed internationalists play.
Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
Re: Old Trafford - Of course the irony is while trying to protect the cricketers from the conditions, once again an idiot decision to play football as a warm up results in an injury. Who's running English Cricket - Abott & Costello?
Complain about this comment
so-called committed internationalists.
========
These two sets of players have just completed a tough series of cricket at the highest level. This should highlight that there is too much cricket for the international cricketer to stay committed to. Only 1 week to prepare for this
Australia have been playing non stop for a year now, an ashes series has taken everything out of these players and now they're being told to go and entertain the public in a meaningless 20 over game, or risk being called "part timers who simply don't care"
I don't know why you big mouths keep blaming the players for ticket prices - it is nothing to do with them
Complain about this comment
Cricket has to do much better in dealing with both rain and bad light delays. I don't have the answers but I'm sure some creative thinking would help, rather than adhering to the hidebound traditions of the game. The sport is innovating in lots of ways at the moment so surely it should extend some innovative thinking to dealing with the weather.
Complain about this comment
Just thinking about one obvious thing - the fast bowlers should have been able to operate off shortened run-ups. I remember seeing Michael Holding bowling very fast off a two-pace run up.
Complain about this comment
Magnetic_monopole:
Yep, fast bowlers can bowl off of two paces. Footballers can also play with their shoelaces tied together, swimmers can swim with a ball and chain around their ankle, and Grand Prix drivers can drive around a circuit with a bag on their head.
The reason they don't do it is because all those limitations mean that the athlete is not able to perform to their maximum potential, thus depriving the athlete of a good sporting contest and depriving the audience of seeing the athlete perform as well as they can.
Complain about this comment
This is why I never go to international cricket matches. You have to buy the tickets well in advance, which is fair enough, but there is always the possibility of the weather interfering and if it does the spectator is considered by the authorities to be an irrelevance or, at best, an inconvenience whose interests are far less imortant that those of 'the wider game'. It's twenty20 for heaven's sake - whatever the result or however it had been played, the match would have been forgotten about within a few short days. But the people who were let down in Manchester this week will remember it for a long time to come.
Complain about this comment
U14008720 It was arun up problem not a wicket problem, the wicket was fine, the runups at one end was not, due to a problem with the covers.
And cricket player prima donnas? I'm asumming this includes ponting who lost some teeth but continued playing, hauritz who contined palying in a match after that sickening looking incident with his finger, Brian Lara wh not so long ago after beeing retired hurn for beeing knocked out saw how badly the windies were dooign and at a fall of wicket evaded the medical staff, padded up and ran out and batted on with concussion. Flintoff putting hiself through noticiable poain in the later ashes test this series. THe fact that a batsman can be to badly injured to run but can still play on.
Out of skiing, diving, military training (including live fireing and explosives training) and cricket guess which of these activites I've partaken in was responsible for my only hospitalising injury?? THats right cricket.
Complain about this comment
Megaspur - Erm, it had actually taken more rain on between the Twenty20 match and the game between Lancs and Sussex - it rained all morning and there was a delayed start!
Oh yeh, Joe Denly... it's OK to muck about playing football apparently, full contact, with tackles, but running over a bit of mud in your run-up... as someone said above, cricket just continues to make itself look ridiculous with stuff like this.
Complain about this comment
Am I missing something here? The game was abandoned becuase a small area of the run up was considered too wet and therefore dangerous for bowlers? Forget matting or using adjacent wickets. Could someone not have - dried it? This is the 21st century! There must be some kind of industrial hair dryer type thing or heat lamp available in this day and age surely?! The area could have been bone dry in 10 minutes!
Complain about this comment
It's not cricket that makes itself look ridiculous, it is people like you telling us it is ridiculous. For starters, I think they would have properly covered the pitch this time to ensure that the lancs sussex game went ahead.
You have ignored all the points about the pressure of keeping your place (injury makes you lose your place), the uncertainty of the conditions (it is a gamble whether they would be ok or not - many bowlers HAVE developed injuries by bowling in conditions like these), the fact that these players have just completed a gruelling test series played at the maximum of their potential (with Australia having had no break since last September)
Too much international cricket means injuries never recover. You have absolutely no idea the condition these bowlers are in at the moment. You should be criticising LCC for failing to provide adequate facilities, instead of ridiculous "back of a cigarette packet" rules knocked up in 20 minutes.
Complain about this comment
Kapnag, please stop saying these players have gone through a gruelling test series when only six of the England players and four Australians in the twenty20 line ups played in the last test and even fewer in all five.
And only a week for those who did play to prepare for what so many people keep saying is there job? Seems quite a while to me.
I'm having a busy week (not really, or I wouldn't be writing this) so I think I'll ask my boss for a week off because I'm feeling a bit tired.
Complain about this comment
Just to prove it's not just fans and journos who never played a decent level of cricket with the same views as me, here's Mike Atherton in The Times today:
"Players bang on about being in the 'entertainment business' so often it would be no surprise to see them appear one day in oversize trousers, billowing shirts, wigs and red noses. But, despite the rhetoric, it is difficult to think of a game that treats its supporters with greater disdain.
"The farce at Old Trafford on Tuesday, where one damp patch was deemed dangerous enough to send thousands away from the cricket-starved North West disappointed and angry, was merely the latest in a long line of instances where player sensibilities and/or arcane regulations are deemed more important than the paying audience. Soon enough, the punters will take their money elsewhere and the players will have only a television audience to /entertain'."
Complain about this comment
At 12:23pm on 03 Sep 2009, cen4pgb wrote:U14008720 It was arun up problem not a wicket problem, the wicket was fine, the runups at one end was not, due to a problem with the covers.
And cricket player prima donnas? I'm asumming this includes ponting who lost some teeth but continued playing, hauritz who contined palying in a match after that sickening looking incident with his finger, Brian Lara wh not so long ago after beeing retired hurn for beeing knocked out saw how badly the windies were dooign and at a fall of wicket evaded the medical staff, padded up and ran out and batted on with concussion. Flintoff putting hiself through noticiable poain in the later ashes test this series. THe fact that a batsman can be to badly injured to run but can still play on.
Out of skiing, diving, military training (including live fireing and explosives training) and cricket guess which of these activites I've partaken in was responsible for my only hospitalising injury?? THats right cricket.
**********************************************************************
I hope your head gets better. ;)
Complain about this comment
I can guarantee Atherton would be writing "where was the sense in risking players on an unpredictable pitch in a meaningless 20 over match?" should it have gone ahead. That's the great thing with pundits - "what SHOULD have happened was this..." - Atherton would undoubtedly be of a different opinion were he in Collingwood's position. If he made captaincy decisions based on what the public wanted to see, it's no wonder he never took England anywhere.
But what other sport makes their players spend 4-5 months in foreign countries every year, play many meaningless games, give about 4 weeks off before the entire process is repeated again?
What was the need for this second 20 over game? Why do the public need so much international cricket to be satisfied? Can't you wait 5 days?
Martinsc, if international sport was that simple, everyone would do it. Don't make out like they are pampered princesses when they are often on the receiving end of several injections just to get them on the pitch.
Complain about this comment
I didn't say they were pampered, I said they had a minimum of a week to prepare themselves.
Yes, they do have injections, by choice (it's not the USSR), because it's either suffer the pain, play and get handsomely paid for it or knock it on the head and find a different career.
Complain about this comment
they are pampered...what happened when the 4 day game got under way yesterday 15 minutes late, after more rain on exactly the same strip..? was there mayhem & carnage with bowlers lying, moaning all over the ground clutching at broken legs & snapped ligaments.. err no... they just got on with the game, no fuss, no problem, no injuries... the only injury has ironically been NOT from playing cricket but football...beggars belief really...
Complain about this comment
darbosian, maybe the ground staff did their job properly this time and ensured that no water got onto the run ups after all the trouble they had caused the day before? Just a thought...
Complain about this comment
Ahhhhhhhhhh the torture of being 'made' tour the caribbean, south africa, australia, india, pakistan during the cold English winter months playing a game of cricket for a living
and then only 4 weeks off! That's as little as someone with a proper job for heaven's sake and people have the temerity to call them 'pampered' !!!
Thank the Lord there are shrills like Kapnag to defend them !!!
by the way - out of football, rugby, golf, cricket, darts, snooker, basketball, skiing, sky-diving, bungee-jumping, swimming with sharks and sticking a pencil-rubber in my ear guess which of these activities I've partaken in was responsible for my only hospitalising injury?? Thats right, sticking a pencil-rubber in my ear.
I think there's a lesson for us all in there !
Complain about this comment
TommyOnion, spending 6 months a year away from your family as a routine, missing every christmas, having the public slate you if you bring your family with you for "being distracted". Having loads of public "spies" out on the streets reporting your every move to the press so that they have something to write about in the event of a bad performance.
I'm sure you ask them they will say they do have the best job in the world, but they are still human.
Haha, as for your sporting history, I don't think you have quite put your body under anwhere near the stress and pressure an international fast bowler has to contend with!
Complain about this comment
Point 1 - go and get a real job then
Point 2 - it was a T20 game - an international fast bowler would have had to send down 24 deliveries max. for crying out loud
as we've seen from today's injury to Denly - from playing a contact sport !!! - players are prepared to put themselves at risk when it suits them and when there's actually no need for it whatsoever.
You're defending the indefensible.
Complain about this comment
By spending don't you mean choosing to spend?
Complain about this comment
Point 1 - great response! You say "it's a 6 month holiday" I say it is anything but so now it's a case of "don't like it? go get a job" - brilliant! Anything else you can suggest for improving the game?
yes, great point. A player picks up an injury from an innocuous kick about and you argue that an injury is unlikely to happen in 24 deliveries, despite players and medical staff having experience of playing on conditions like yesterday, you know better. Well, I suppose you do have some Darts experience, so who am I to argue?
Complain about this comment
Oh and lets not forget what happened to Marcus Trescothick when he decided to retire - that's right, branded as weak, and a disgrace for letting his country down by the likes of you
Only happy when you're complaining.
Complain about this comment
facetious twaddle
I didn't say it was a holiday at any stage and you upping their time away from home from 4-5-6 months does your argument no good either.
They play cricket. If they wish to play top level cricket then that involves touring. It's not a chore it's a very well paid and enjoyable job. If they don't like it or the 'pressures' it brings they can do what Marcus Trescothick has done and step away from the International game. Simples.
Your second paragraph makes no sense by the way.
Complain about this comment
324 - more hysterical nonsense
Complain about this comment
how does a creaky stage compare with an area of the ground that could seriously injure a player?
and why is an actor losing his voice relevent - the game was not cancelled because a player was injured
and the rest of the article is little better - if you pay £50 to watch a top level cricket match (ignoring whether you think 20/20 can ever be classed as that) then surely you expect to see the game played properly - not with shortened run ups, bowling from one end, a player not allowed to bowl because he runs too quickly, etc - and would the batsmen not be allowed to hit the ball near the affected area so fielders didn't have to run across it?
if it was so important to play a game regardless of what that meant why not just drag 11 aussies and 11 brits out the crowd to have a knock around for a few hours - would the 20,000 who paid £50 gone home happy them?
Complain about this comment
It is an enjoyable job, but it certainly isn't easy. 6 months over a year are spent abroad, every year. Australian players have been in this country since the start of June, and will be here until the end of September, then they have to patch themselves up inside 4 weeks to fly out to India to play in 7 ODI's before their summer of cricket begins in December
What makes no sense? An innocuous kick about causes an injury, but you originally argue that an injury is "not possible" in 24 deliveries?
Complain about this comment
And also, Australian team had a short break between arriving here and playing a test/odi series in South Africa
Complain about this comment
327
i think the 20,000 would have gone home happy if they'd got a T20 game with the fast bowlers only bowling in from one end and the medium pacers/spinners bowling from the other.
Brett Lee had 4 overs to bowl - this was not a Test match - the integrity of the fixture would not have been severely compromised if conditions precluded him from being able to bowl at one end.
No-one would have gone home furious about Lee not being able to operate from the Statham end (Kapnag aside). They would have just got to watch a T20 - like they paid for.
Complain about this comment
328 - i didn't say it's not possible in 24 deliveries, did I ? quit making things up, eh?
I said he only had to bowl 24 deliveries. This is not Test cricket. It's not pivotal that Lee or any other bowler be able to operate from both ends.
Complain about this comment
So make your mind up then TommyOnion. Is it or is it not possible to injure yourself in 24 deliveries?
If it's a possibility, then as a captain of an international side, what do you think is in the best interest of your team members, considering you have another 7 games ahead?
Complain about this comment
I also note how you contniue to ignore the point made elsewhere that it's not all the same players that are here for Tests as well as One Dayers
and further to that
so they have to 'patch themselves up' to go and play a whole SEVEN one-dayers in India !!!
Big deal! If they're lucky enough to get picked for that that's 7 days of cricket in how much time? How many rest days? Those poor Aussie chaps that have been here since June - how much time off have they had during that time?
If they played all 5 Tests they would have spent half of the 25 days sat in their dressing room.
As i said - defending the indefensible.
Complain about this comment
332-What is the point of saying there's another game after this one, there always is. You could use the same argument if the same happens in all 7 ODI's. There's a winter tour after that and a home programme next Summer and so on and so on.
Surely it should be about that game on that day.
Complain about this comment
Lets go back to the theatre, you pay £50 to see Macbeth with Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellan. When you arrive the actors are not there but to stop paying out refunds they ask 2 hollyoaks actors to do some scenes from another play. Is this okay as they are keeping everyone 'entertained'
Complain about this comment
not all current players in the odi series were in the test, but still a sizeable amount. Plenty within England's side featured in the tests, and Ponting has been sent home by Australia to recover, and he is a tough character.
Yes you have said that, but you have also made no valid points in the process. Instead of calling me on "ignoring points" why not respond to a few I've raised in your direction?
Complain about this comment
i've answered one in post 331 - you seem to be willfully ignoring it.
and as for your question in 332
If the captain is that concerned about injuring his players what are we doing playing football in the day before a ODI ? Something that has injured our players in the past.
The 'risks' at OT on Tuesday night were easy to negate without seriously compromising the event at hand. That the players/umpires chose not to play was farcical, embarrassing and an insult to the 20,000 who had paid to watch.
Complain about this comment
r.e. 331, So what about Mitchell Johnson and Nannes? They all have to bowl from the same end as well? A quick bit of maths suggest that that doesn't leave enough overs from one end. Why would any captain go for that? 1 hand tied behind his back before a ball has been bowled
It is not the players/umpires fault the ground was not good enough, it was the club. A point I have made several times, the club failed to produce good playing conditions, captains were made aware by umpires feelings, and that's the decision they took. Blame the ground staff
Complain about this comment
my, my what a drama queen
10 overs of pace from one end
10 overs of spin/medium from the other
same for both teams
hardly tying someone's hand behind their back
all over in 3 hours
'Why would any captain go for that?'
I can think of 20,000 reasons
Complain about this comment
Forgive the ignorance of someone who has played cricket for over 37 years, all-be-it at slightly lower level than being discussed here, but I fail to see why that particular game could not have been played from one end.
All of you 'blind to adaptation-ers' should be ashamed!
Complain about this comment
The area of the pitch was so small. Could they not just put a small piece of thin plywood down. I know that that would be radical, but seriously. It wouldn't be the end of the world, would it?
Collingwood got my back up. I've been a fan of his attitude for years, but I'm dissapointed with his arrogance regarding the situation.
Adam
Complain about this comment
Of course it is tying the captains hand behind his back. Operating with spin from both ends further reduces fast bowler overs, can't get any bowling partnerships. Medium paced trundlers and spinners bowling the 16th/18th/20th overs.
It's a joke, particularly when Australia built their bowling attack around pace!
==
I can think of 20,000 reasons
==
It's not the players responsibility. It's the ground staff, a point you have consistently ignored.
Complain about this comment
Good grief, man ! I have blamed the ground staff !!
I have asked why they didn't see this coming? Why they didn't prepare another pitch?
The fact of the matter is the captains have fully backed the decision to cancel the match and as such are due their share of criticism too !
Apologists, like you, whining about the fearful amount of cricket they are forced to play in trying circumstances do them no favours either.
Complain about this comment
Why didn't they see themselves failing to protect the run ups? The pitch was fine don't forget.
What is wrong with pointing out to the impatient moaners like you that they put their bodies under stress (Flintoff retiring at 31 for goodness sake), so why take unnecessary risks?
The captains acted with the umpires advice that the pitch was unsuitable. The captains backed the umpires decision. Preparing the ground is nothing to do with them, and they should first and foremost put their players first.
Complain about this comment
313. Mr Dirs:
Atherton's comments are very valid. As a response, I'd ask Athers if, as either captain or player, he ever accepted the offer of the light during a Test match when it was more than feasible for play to go on. Pot and kettle perhaps?
MrTommyOnion:
Cricketers do work hard. I remember Harmison talking to members of the England football team in the past and he said that the wendyball lot were amazed at how long the cricketers were away from home. Footballers and rugby players don't tour anywhere near as much as the cricketing fraternity, let alone the days away when on county or home international duty.
I get very bored when people talk about 'proper jobs'. What exactly is the definition of a proper job? Nurse? Teacher? BBC journalist charged with covering rugby in France and eating a ton of brie? Mr Onion, obviously your dedication to your job, if you have one, is so great that you can write here.
The number of overs Lee would have had to bowl at Old Trafford is totally irrelevant. Simon Jones got injured on a sandy outfield in less than a day. I'm thinking he bowled somewhat less than 10 overs. David Lawrence fractured his kneecap after 13 balls of the second innings against New Zealand. Injuries can strike at any time. Indeed, you could make a case that T20 matches are potentially more dangerous given that the fielders are expected to put more in than a Test match and the bowlers bowl very short spells, meaning that it's a very stop-start environment and proper warming up for a second spell might not happen. Anyone who has seen the effort Jones and Lawrence put into their recovery and rehab would know that you want to prevent injuries as much as possible. Any sports physiologist would tell you an outfield of varying levels of hardness (ie. a solid pitch and a boggy outfield) puts more strain on the body and would increase the potential for injuries.
There seems to be so many arguments here. The players are getting blamed for everything from the covering to the ticket prices. Blame the ECB for the ticket prices. Just about all cricket writers would agree that there is too much cricket played. Any counter argument is pretty null and void. Any argument that involves comparing a desk job to a physical job is pretty void as well. A sportsman could easily say that sitting on your rear in a call centre is actually pretty cushy compared to playing, training and preparation.
The talk of bowling from one end is daft. If you set the precedent in this game, then theoretically you could have a scenario in which a bowling side has one end that is turning like mad and one end that isn't. What is there to stop them from saying 'Umpire, the non-turning end is a bit dangerous for our bowlers, the run ups aren't good, can we bowl entirely from the other end?' The umpire then makes a call, decides the non-turning end is safe to bowl, and the bowling side then makes a protest. You would end up with a serious farce of Pakistan at the Oval proportions. the laws of the game are there for consistency. We simply shouldn't tinker with them on a moment's notice in order to provide a staged fixture, which is what that T20 game would have become had the players bowled from one end.
Complain about this comment
The real culprIts of Tuesday night are being forgotten here, the real blame lies fair and square at the Pavilion Doors of Lancashire CCC. Why were the bowlers run ups like a bog whereas the rest of the ground was perfectly playable ? They have spent a lot of money on new drainage yet a small part of the ground was completely sodden.
Hearing Jim Cumbes explanation for this as 'the footmarks had sweated under the covers' is utterly laughable. Anyone who has experieced queueing to get in/out of the ground, or trying to get food/drink/toliets etc. knows the other problems at Old Trafford. Sadly the incompetence of this Club, the worst of all the Test Grounds, shows they are still unfit to hold International Cricket.
Complain about this comment
This patch was obvious for a long time, everyone just stood round hoping the wind would dry it up ?
Options
1) Drop-in a new runup. Dig it up ! then drop in a nice dry bit 5ft square and about 8" deep. 5 mins with the heavy roller, sorted.
2) Get the players to use their hair dryers on it (apart from Clarke & Prior obviously).
Complain about this comment
344 - Flintoff's retirement is wholly irrelevant to the case at hand and if player's safety is paramount, I ask, again, what are these cricketers doing playing a sport on the day prior to an important match that has proven to cause injury to our players in the past?
345 - any job where a pastime isn't you career. For my own part i'm self-employed so have ample opportunity to write here, there and wherever i please.
And the number of overs Lee had to bowl is totally relevant - he only had 4 overs to bowl, he bowls them from the non-'boggy' end. No risk. Job done.
Both sides would have to compromise to the tune of only having 10 overs of quick bowling. Big deal. We get a completed match. 20,000 people go home happy.
I'm starting to repeat myself now so i'll leave it at that.
Complain about this comment
Dear Andy,
What on earth are you on about. Innovation for one meaningless game that was 'invented' to entertain the masses would not set a precedent.
Complain about this comment
i agree with all above re the players getting on with it , they are sounding like a bunch of politicians after the expenses row.. they feel they are justified in not going ahead with the game and thinking they are some elete group.A public relations disaster!!
it is frustrating when people travel from all over the country , and beyond , to see THEM , at great expense , we flew up from plymouth and stayed overnight just for this match!!!!
they could have bowled from one end or amended their run ups.
the crowd would have warmed to them for that.
but when your waiting for players who are worried about a puddle they may slip on,of which footballers and rugby players of all standards do throughout our winter,
my friends and i will probably not BOTHER to travel again as it is clear the players will not BOTHER for us .. STEVE PLYMOUTH
Complain about this comment
So disappointed about this game being cancelled - I really don't know where to start.
1) Expense. We had driven down from Edinburgh and paid for a hotel for the night. How distraught to drive all the way back the next day, while Lancashire were playing on that very same pitch.
2) Could not believe there was only one little roller going round the ground, and at the end of the day the problematic area was at one end of the wicket. Why didn't they concentrate on that? Where is the commonsense?
3) Communication. The people who had bought the radios found out before any public announcement. They were streaming out before we knew what was happening. I was ready to strangle the public announcer who must have mentioned about 10 times that there had been a storm at 3.30pm ie 4 hours earlier.
4) Inspections. Why did it need a second inspection at 7.45pm? As already mentioned, it was so that everyone could head back to the bar and spend their hard-earned cash. And by the way it was nearer 8pm by the time the official announcement was made.
5) Why on earth were Clarke and Collingwood involved in the discussion-making? What other sport allows the playing captains to say whether or not the game should go ahead.
6) One final point (honest!). Just wondering what the pre-match entertainment was!! Ticket-holders were encouraged to arrive at the ground early, doors opened at 5pm, to enjoy the pre-match entertainment. Standing watching various bods walking round the pitch with microphones, umbrellas, cameras, didn't seem very entertaining to me. Even the music wasn't loud enough!!!
Complain about this comment
I'm now of the firm opinion that Lancashire should be thrown out of first class cricket. They spent millions having the pitch relayed to improve drainage & what did they do? Let 250,000 Take That fans stomp all over it! They're spending many more millions building new stands. Anyone want to hazard a guess at how much the capcity will go up by? 10,000? 5,000? 100? Well, the answer is not at all. Not by a single seat. It's all going on corporate boxes & conference suites. Until LCCC decide Old Trafford is a cricket ground & not an 'entertainment complex' they shouldn't be allowed to play cricket there at all.
Complain about this comment
Wow what a fuss! I find it fascinating that some people contributing ot this site seem to feel a personal sense of affront by the fact that the umpires decided the pitch was not fit to play on. What's your next stage? The organisers of a fixture ask the crowd/BBC commentators to decide whether the pitch is fit?
The captains took advice from the umpires. Live with the fact that cricket is an outdoor game and is regularly disrupted by weather events; that will always be a risk. At least people got their money back. Had the game got under way and then been halted half-way through it might have been a different story.
I understand Lancashire benefited from a generous amount of cash from the ECB to improve their drainage system. Clearly the money was not well spent. Jim Cumbes is huffing and puffing to divert attention from the fact that the club is at fault (and he can see the county's bid for more international fixtures going out of the window).
The ECB have still not learned the lesson of 2005, when half the team went down with injuries - far too many pointless fixtures. Why on earth 7 one-dayers?
As to those who say of the players 'it's their job, let them get on with it' well let those dear people remember their words the next time they stay away from work for a few winter sniffles.
Complain about this comment
Mr.Durr, In "Cricket does it again" you keep refering to "International Cricket" and commenting about the mistakes etc. I agree with your views, bar for one, you do not see this in International Cricket, only in intrnational cricket in the UK!!!
Complain about this comment
In India the show would have definitely went on.
Its 20-20 cricket - surely can't have a slightly wet ground stop it!!
Spectators are Kings :-)
Complain about this comment
@306 Andy Plowright
If a shortened run-up is good enough for Michael Holding it's good enough for the likes of Lee, Broad et al.
Holding could bowl at around 90 mph off a shortened run so it no way debases the level the game is played at.
Your analogies are exaggerated for effect, but the fact is that high-level football games are sometimes played on quite poor surfaces and in adverse weather conditions where the players have to adjust their game to the circumstances.
Cricket has to get with the program and lose some of the preciousness about traditions.
Complain about this comment
It's a competitive sport. If you can't bowl with your stongest attack, operating to the maximum of it's abilities, then what's the point. If I want to see the ball tossed up and players having a slog on a dodgy pitch, I'll go and watch village cricket.
You may as well get 22 players of the street, dress them in "It's a Knock Out" style fancy dress and fire a water cannon at them whilst they bat. It'll have the same meaning as England v Australia played under resticted conditions.
Complain about this comment
That's right, it's a competitive sport - as long as both sides have to compete under the same conditions, bring it on. If there are restrictions, let's see them improvise, adapt, try new tactics.
To pick up one of Mr Plowright's rather fanciful earlier analogies, even F1 drivers have to slow down in heavy rain. Does that make the race less competitive? No, of course not. Does it make it less exciting for the fans? - probably the opposite.
(Off topic snippet here - Vettel for champion! Go Sebastian!!!)
Did Nicole Cooke complain about the rain coming down in lumps when she competed for and won her Olympic cycling road race gold medal in a monsoon in Beijing? Less than ideal conditions for a road race of course, but cyclists are probably made of sterner stuff.
Only quitters like Paula Radcliffe complain about conditions, only inveterate whingers like the Aussie Test team would complain about the Oval pitch.
Frankly, volgert and Mr Plowright are living in the past...
Here's a cracking cricketing innovation I've come up with which you guys are gonna love - it's a concept I've called "Gentlemen vs Players" - I think it's gonna be huge for the game. Basically what we'll do is select teams from the upper echelons of society to compete against teams from less privileged backgrounds. Sometimes we'll mix up players from each category to form a combined team - as long as they can have separate dressing rooms!
So, Straussy, Sourav - to the dressing room on your left -
Freddie, Harmy - on the right please ....
Complain about this comment
Cricket should look west to how baseball is managed, the similarities are there. Games that are rained out are played another day, double-headers if need be. Players earn good wages, so they can't whine about this or that, they know fans and TV/Radio are needed. Games played at night, may not finish until midnight or 1am in the morning, fans or no fans, the game goes on. Teams that have weather issues have indoor stadiums. Houston has a retractable roof and plays on grass. Baseball has figured it out...its time cricket does too...
Complain about this comment
magnetic_monopole - I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that not wishing to watch a compromised 20/20 match, is an outdated train of thought and somehow representative of "living in the past".
I don't think there are any improvisation techniques or new skills that could be learnt by an International Cricketer playing in such a contest. It would have been a slogathon to entertain the crowd and nothing more.
As has been discussed, modern day cricketers play throughout the year in an oversubscribed cricketing calendar. It is little surprise that they did not wish to risk injury on a suspect surface for the sake of a few overs of meaningless cricket.
Complain about this comment
I am in the minority I think when I say that I can see why the players called the pitch unsafe.
They are not "just entertainers", the are people who devote a lot of time getting themselves fit for what is a comparatively short professional life.
Injury has drastically shortened the playing life of Flintoff for example, and the absence of Bret Lee may have contributed to the outcome of the Ashes series.
Are our best players as expendable as that ?
After all it is only the short version of the game and it seems to me to be very easy to protest when one doesn't have to be out there doing it.
Complain about this comment
Sachins fantastic suggestion!!
"To save One-Day Internationals from extinction, revamp them by giving both sides two innings of 25 overs each. Think of it as a sort of 'Test T-25'! "
Looking forward for this to be implemented!!
Complain about this comment
# 360. At 11:39pm on 04 Sep 2009, volgert wrote:
..."As has been discussed, modern day cricketers play throughout the year in an oversubscribed cricketing calendar. It is little surprise that they did not wish to risk injury on a suspect surface for the sake of a few overs of meaningless cricket."
So you think that the players believe the game was meaningless? - interesting. If that is the case then cricket has an even bigger problem than some of the issues raised in this blog.
Fans are not going to support any teams who don't actually want to play and win a game where they are representing their country, that's for sure.
Complain about this comment
Might I disagree with most here?
A few points.
1. Cricket players are rewarded for playing cricket, and in particular, for winning games of cricket. The entertainment value is secondary. Not unimportant, but it has no immediate bearing on the remuneration of the players.
2. the laws of cricket and tour rules are set down before the players arrive to play. Months before, most probably. I would not think it open to the players, even with the umpires agreement, to change those rules on the day by, for example, bowling only from one end.
3. Teams are chosen, together with the squads from which they are selected based on the assumption that the agreed laws and tour rules apply.
4. I, together with most on this forum, am not qualified to assess the condition of the ground, even had I seen it, so I have to rely on the assessment of those most involved - the umpires and the teams. It might well be that soccer, rugby, rugby league (and certainly Australian Rules footballers) would happily play on that ground, but they have special footware to grip on muddy ground. I don't think bowlers would be permitted to wear such footwear as it would rip up the pitch. Nor would I fancy trying to bowl wearing the football boots I used to wear.
I used to play competition chess, and it is governed by laws regarding how chessmen are moved, games are recorded, rate of play, the general conditions. And the design of the chessboard and chessmen. If I turned up to play in a tournament and the conditions were unsuitable, I would not play.
The problem seems to me that the ground, for whatever reason, did not meet the standards required for international cricket. Either prepare the ground properly, or agree beforehand how such discrepancies should be handled. If bowling only from one end might be okay, expressly allow the players and umpires to agree that it will be so.
Complain about this comment
I could go on.
There are lots of people who don't think a lot of one-day cricket "because it isn't real cricket." The rules are different, and it certainly isn't the same.
I find it hard to be emotionally involved in any competition where 'my team" isn't participating. Apart from a general feeling that anyone beating The Poms is a Good Thing, that is.
A game played with impromptu rules, as some have suggested, just doesn't interest me. Nor can it be properly used for ranking teams or players.
In chess, a game played "all moves in 15 minutes" (allegro) isn't that comparable as "all moves in 5 minutes" (lightning). A player good at one isn't necessary good (as in ranking amongst others) in the other, and neither is a good guide to regular over-the-board play, and certainly not to correspondence play: CJS Purdy was an International Master in OTB chess, but world champion in correspondence chess.
If we're going to the T20 cricket, it must be played under the same rules all the time.
Complain about this comment
I'm a professional performer and HAVE to go on come what may: back injuries, broken foot, vomiting etc etc over the years, cos if i don't there ain't gonna be a show cos not all shows have understudys.
Wet ground, can't play? tosh. what about all those yrs playing on uncovered pitches with soggy outfields, squelchy run-ups, and Deadly Underpants at one end causing havoc on a sticky?
Brave? What like playing football as a warm up? And what about that famous occasion back in the 80s (?) when the heavens opened on a televised game nearing conclusion (railway line in the background was it??) and Dicky Bird soaked to the skin in the watery sunshine and driving rain.
Likely to hurt themselves running into bowl? DUH... then... R-U-N S-L-O-W-L-Y ! ! !
ECB, Colly, Clarke = idiots.
If this is how "Top Flight" cricket is run then it can go hang.
Risk? Bravery? Pathetic!
Complain about this comment
In every other sport, unless there is an unavoidable (!) risk of injury to players the game generally goes ahead if at all possible. We can all remember football games (especially those either live on TV or included in 'daft moments' DVDs) played in blizzards sufficiently severe as to require an orange ball. Rugby matches, international ones even, played on pitches which would be indistinguishable from a ploughed field. Old Trafford had one runup suitable for spin bowlers, and one runup which was in 100% playing condition. Why this crisis was sufficiently serious as to justify cancellation of a game people had already paid for (and remember their refunds won't include the 'admin fee' scam, or their travel + parking, or their food, or the time they took off work) is utterly beyond me.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree with your blog. How is it that cricket has been played in this country for over 100 years, yet we have done very little to improve facilities or take account of the poor weather. I watched Breakfast the morning after the 20/20 match was called off and Bill Turnbull suggested to the so-called sports presenter that they put a roof on the venues. The sports presenter replied, "You can't do that, it is too big", perhaps the poorly in formed sports presenter would like to take a look at the Telstra dome. It is tome that the fans decided not to turn up to these events unless there is some guarantee of playing.
Complain about this comment
Is it too silly to suggest that they could have moved to a different pitch ? Why not simple run a mower over an adjacent area then get on with the game. !!!
Complain about this comment
363. At 2:14pm on 05 Sep 2009, magnetic_monopole wrote:
..."So you think that the players believe the game was meaningless?"
I believe that the game would have been meaningless if played under restricted conditions. I thought this was the point we were discussing, with you holding the opposite view that a match in some form should have taken place.
I haven't previously offered an opinion as to what priority or value players place on International 20/20 matches but for the record I believe that irrespective of their personal opinions, they will always produce the maximum amount effort and play to the best of their abilities, when they pull on an England shirt.
From what I read most players enjoy the format of the game, whilst holding Test Cricket as the Blue Ribband format.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS