One could ague that because both captains have the same chance of winning the toss, then it is a level playing field over the length of a series.

That's what the organisers would have us believe anyway.

Myself I believe all one day matches should be 40 overs, with the 50 over and 20 over format scrapped.

The 50 over game gets false results in any case - because they last so long, one siade is batting in the dark, or alaong comes the rain and the DL system determines the result.

And 20/20 is not even cricket IMO, day or night that game is just as poor.

__________________
Ern

I don't mind the day nighters; sport under lights always provides a slightly different feel and atmosphere. Also not wanting to be a pedant but why are we discussing this in the test section? Has someone suggested test should be played under lights? If so then that is going too far IMO.

Well actually the laws of probability would have you believe it also.

The rain would destroy the game if there were 40 overs too.

And even with 40 overs in a day/night game, one team would still be batting under artifical light.

They are not batting in THE DARK!!!

The recent action in the 20/20 WC just held, praised far more than criticised by those who saw it, would disagree with that opinion.

Okay then. Here's an argument in favour of getting rid of Test cricket.

"Test cricket is a joke. It should be obvious to everyone that the conditions are not the same on each day, or in each innings. The pitch gets worn down over the course of five days, therefore the team batting first on day 1 has a massive advantage over the team batting second on day 5. It's effectively nothing but a lottery based on who wins the toss and bats first. It's clear that Test cricket exists only to satisfy the traditionalists."

The conditions aren't meant to be the same. Yes, there's an advantage to the team batting first in a day-nighter, but no more than there is for a team in a Test batting first on an unbroken pitch. And as someone who's seen virtually all the Warriors' home games over the past three/four years (speciffically the second innings, of which almost all of them have been played under lights), I've seen the chasing team win quite a few matches. Plus, there are the advantages that I've already mentioned in comfort and convenience, and someone else mentioned the different atmosphere which is incredible. I can't believe that anyone advocating getting rid of Day-Nighters has actually been to one in person.

Post of the week for me. In fact, the unfairness of Test cricket extends not just to pitch conditions, but also to ground conditions, daily temperatures and so on - how often do we see Tests being interrupted or affected by rain and bad light? Completely unacceptable. Let's abolish them all!

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

But the changing conditions add to the interest in Test cricket because both teams have the opportunity to try and use them to their side's advantage. In Tests, there are no fixed field settings, no fixed over quotas, no over limitations etc. So, a batting side can choose to push on or block depeneding on the situation while the bowling side in turn can go on the attack or defensive, depending on how the individual captains read the situation. Strategy can make a difference in Tests and while it can do so to some extent in ODIs there are far too many restrictions to make that real cricket.

The SA v Pak Test just gone gives an example of how strategy can create the sort of see-saw situations that can never happen in limited overs criclet. Smith declared believeing that he had set Pakistan a very difficult target, yet tempting them with enough time to have a go at it if they dared. Younis Khan did dare, took up the challange and hammered a century during which there must have been some sweating in the SA ranks and raised hopes on the home side. No doubt YK and his teammates hoped that putting pressure on the SA bowlers might make them choke and be wayward - not a bad idea knowing the Proteas history. To the visitor's credit, they bowled and fielded very well on the final day, initially on the defensive to stifle the run rate and then, once a Pak victory seemed remote, going on the attack to bowl them out. That is what cricket is really all about.

ODI's, whether 50, 20 or 40 overs for that matter, are little more than baseball played with cricketing tools and rules.

But there are Try having six men behind square on the on-side and see where that gets you!There is a requirement for 90 overs to be bowled in a day, so a quota of sorts exists. Similarly, the same bowler cannot operate from both ends at the same time; there is a requirement for overs to be alternated between bowlers.

There are many other restrictions at the Test level; its just that ODI or T-20 cricket have other restrictions in addition to many of those in Test cricket.Agreed that Tests are the real cricket. I also don't disagree that the nature of 'test' and challenge posed by proper, ie Test, cricket, is completely different to anything offered by limited overs cricket. However, with respect, your comment about the restrictions in ODI is completely irrelevant. What makes strategy in Tests so interesting and intriguing is the length of the format. ODIs could operate with exactly the same rules as Tests, have no additional fielding restrictions or bowling quotas, but still be a poor cousin strategically, since they do not have the luxury of time.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

My objection isn't against one dayers, I have seen some of the most dramatic cricket in one day games.
My objection is against conditions changing dramatically in day nighters and every pretending it makes no difference. Its a fraud, bowling and batting conditions change.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Of course they change John, you are absolutely right. But how is it a fraud or unfair, when both captains are aware of it before the start of the game? The toss decides who gets the better of the conditions, and statistically, a "fairer" method is hard to imagine

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Why thank you Maranello.

I spent yesterday evening with my parents watching the Mighty Warriors taking on the Blues at the WACA for the Warriors' first home game. It was delightful. With a decent crowd of 5000-odd, there was plenty of atmosphere under the night sky, as the crowd had at least doubled since the first innings. At around 6:30 we had fresh, hot beef burgers (if you ever go to the WACA you have to try the burgers) and chips in a 15 C breeze, followed by lovely warm coffee which we brought in our own furnace. Meanwhile as the game went on and new possibilities for the match arose, the atmosphere changed and got more intense as the match condition got tenser. It was one of the most enjoyable evenings I've had this year, and once again I have to wonder how anyone attending a day-nighter can advocate their removal.

Although John, you are right about one thing. The team batting first- the Warriors- did win the match. By a single, solitary run. And the funny thing is that that match isn't even close to being the only similarly tense game I've seen under lights in the past two-three years.