England/NZ draw first Test

Almost inevitable that it should be bad light that brought an early close to the final day of the Lord's Test. There weren't too many spectators in the crowd, despite final day prices of £20 and below, and the match had been saved by New Zealand by the stage it was called off, but even so it was typical that the match would barely squeak past 5pm.

In all, 284 overs were bowled in the match out of a possible 450 and while there was a fair bit of drizzle on Saturday, spectators will no doubt feel rather let down by the eagerness of both sides at various stages, but especially by England, to run off as soon as bad light was offered. Something needs to be done by the ICC to ensure that play continues where at all possible. I cannot accept that there is much risk to the safety of established batsmen who have been at the crease for some time (as Strauss and Cook were during Friday and Saturday), especially given the amount of protection batsmen now wear. Exposing a new batsman to bad light is another matter, of course.

Strauss and Cook took the light purely for strategic reasons. They were afraid of getting out. Yet why is bad light not viewed as just one of those things that batsmen have to deal with, in the same way as a wearing pitch or humid conditions that help the ball to swing? It may not be easy, but if spectators can see the ball well enough to see where it goes when it is bowled or hit, then the light conditions are good enough for the batsmen to have a stab at staying out there. Test cricket gets its name because it is meant to be a bit of an ordeal for the players - not for the spectators.

Perhaps the pink ball could be one answer to the problem. It was being thrown around at Lord's during an interval and seemed to stand out very clearly. Another option is to start play early if time has to be made up, rather than trying to add it on at the end of the day.

Oh well, game drawn and on to OId Trafford. England are unlikely to change their side, although Chris Tremlett, left, has been added to the squad to replace Matthew Hoggard (how unlucky for poor old Hoggy to have his thumb broken facing Stephen Harmison in a county game - just shows how far away from the wicket he must have been backing). Tremlett adds height, pace and bounce, which are useful skills to have at Old Trafford, but I suspect that the same XI will turn out.

Michael Vaughan answered his critics, even if some would have preferred that his eighteenth Test hundred had been scored a bit quicker. The middle order still worries me, with Paul Collingwood in desperate need of runs. Dim shot first-ball by Tim Ambrose to Vettori, too, but he still deserves a run in the side.

New Zealand, meanwhile, can take some heart from this. Jamie How batted maturely and with enough composure to suggest that they may actually have two Test-level batsmen in the top six (Ross Taylor should be a third but he has not had an impressive match). The New Zealand opener provided a good laugh on Thursday when the Kiwi woman I'd taken to the game looked at the new scoreboard after New Zealand lost their first wicket and said "Why does it say How Out? I thought Redmond was the one who was dismissed."

Comments

[Will H.]

"Exposing a new batsman to bad light is another matter, of course."

The infuriating thing is, the batting side already have the option - even if they've refused the bad light offer before - to only walk off after a wicket has fallen. From the ICC rules:

"After deciding to play in unsuitable light, the captain of the batting side may appeal against the light to the umpires before the next call of Time. The umpires shall uphold the appeal only if, in their opinion, the factors taken into account when making their previous decision are the *same* or the condition of the light has further deteriorated."

The batting side's common excuse that they'd love to bat on, but don't want to expose a new batsman to the bad light, is a false one.

[Jim]

England should consider two changes for the next Test: 1) Bopara for Collingwood, and 2) Tremlett for Anderson or Broad.

The Collingwood change would be partly down to form, but also because he clearly needs to address his injury problems. Even if he can play a full part in the Tests (which seems doubtful given how little he bowled at Lords), he is the limited-overs captain and should focus on being fit for the start of the one-day series.

If the Old Trafford pitch offers pace and bounce, Tremlett should add a cutting edge to the England attack, as well as the sort of physical threat it sometimes lacks. "Horses for courses" isn't an ideal approach to selection, but look at what Harmison has achieved at OT in the last couple of seasons...

[Homer]

Are we seeing a repeat of the Pataudi Trophy from last year?

England holds all the aces going into the first test, dominates the rain affected test for the most part, fluffs its lines by taking the light while on the ascendancy,the lack of penetration shows up in the bowling on the final day, captain mouths homilies on how his team had the better of the exchanges but were just a tad unlucky, and then go on to lose the next test ( courtesy swing at Trent Bridge, bounce at Old Trafford?)..

And then the recriminations begin in earnest!

[Rohan]

Just some thoughts on the low attendence yesterday having been off work yesterday (unusually). First up lets get the obvious ones out of the way:

1. Weather. It was rather cold.
2. State of the match. Possiblity of result but only 50/50 at best.
3. Opposition. Actually this should be a positive with NZ being right up there for ex-pat communites over here. So the ECB has obviously managed to lose those fans as well.

Now the more general issues and serious issues:

4. Cricket is on Sky. I can't explain how much of a difference that is making amongst my generation(I'm currently 27). Before Channel 4 took over there was very little interest in cricket apart from cricket tragics like myself. By 2003 75% of my mates were fans and would quite happily defend the game, and bunk Mondays at work whenever a London test match went to the last day. Since it went back to Sky the interest has nose dived again. This is a real issue and I'd be worried if I were the ECB in that they've lost (in London of all places) that Channel 4 generation and are starting to lose Twenty20 generation as well.

5. Prices. They're going to kill the golden goose of Test cricket. Look at the empty seats. And to top it off £20 for the Monday (instead of £10 up to and including 2005) is laughable. Attendences are already nose diving outside London - it won't be long until capacity crowds are only seen against SA/India/Pk/Aussies.

There is a real issue here and having the Saffers in town this year and Aussies next may paper over the cracks but after that there may well be a rude awakening for the game.

[Rob]

Englands bowling attack is inexperienced, and whilst it has potential, will take 12-18 months to mature. England really need a 'wicket taker' like Flintoff or S. Jones to come in and add some firepower.

The Batting should be firing, but is not. Collingwood looks in all sorts of trouble. Strauss appears to have been worked out. Give Shah a run, maybe Bopara, or even Ramps.

[Ann]

Do you think it might help if they introduced a rule that half-blind umpires cannot officiate at Test matches? He really is a disgrace.