They see a red ball and they want it painted pink

The first ever day/night Test match was a roaring success.

This was, at least, the opinion of Cricket Australia (as if they would ever say otherwise) and the media (who know which side their bread is buttered on). It was also the opinion of the players...until it wasn't. 

After the Test match all the players were using words that sounded like a ringing endorsement of the concept. They may well have been only that - a ringing endorsement of the concept. 

Then, a few days ago, David Warner and Nathan Lyon began sounding less than enthusiastic. 

And now, the results have come in from the players who played in the Test match, and it turns out the majority of players actually don't think it worked very well at all. 

What gives?

All eyes are, of course, on Cricket Australia, who were absolutely dead-set on having the match happen, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the lack of evidence that it worked in the Sheffield Shield, regardless of the opinions of the players who had already used it.

Their reasoning appears simple: it will work well enough for people not to complain too much while it's happening, and crowds will flock as it is such a novelty. Often, the introduction of day/night one day cricket was used as proof of the game evolving and that there was nothing wrong with Test cricket doing likewise.

Unfortunately, as long as the ball doesn't work in an already widely existing form of the game, any such format should not reasonably be supported. This is why the actions of Cricket Australia should draw such ire. Channel Nine, which gained enormous ratings gains from the match, was naturally not interested in putting forward such criticism. Cricinfo, which is more or less independent, became particularly excited for the format as it approached - but it was more likely a mix of genuine belief it would/did work and a realisation there wasn't that much point in fighting this battle when there are bigger fish to fry in world cricket right now. The general public doesn't follow cricket that closely, and is unlikely to notice anything significant, other than the game finishing a lot quicker than the last two, and may even see that as a positive given how awful the first two matches were.

This leaves only the members of the public who are keenly interested in this great sport and its future to argue against the work of CA, which are almost entirely drawn from the AFL. And really, given the latter's last few years, who would want to copy that? Corruption, uninteresting results, constant rule changes, questionable administration with no watchdog and a focus on promoting the game instead of producing a good game. This cannot be cricket's long term future. It will only kill the game.

World Rugby confirms their internationalism

It's quite nice when something you write gets confirmed by one of the organisations you're writing about. Last month, this article of ours discussed what the point of a World Cup was, the crux being that cricket was the only sport to deny internationalism, attempting instead to keep the sport entirely in the realm of those who already play it.

One of the examples of a sport opening itself up was rugby union. Lo and behold, the head of World Rugby confirms this by saying that "As the sport grows and we conquer new markets the discussion is about looking towards expansion, rather than contraction."

And then some more harrowing logic:

"A larger World Cup would offer the chance to sell the sport into new markets, as well as increasing the potential revenues from the tournament in terms of TV deals, sponsorship, hospitality and ticket sales."

Yes, it seems the head honchos at World Rugby understand the idea that more markets = more money in the long term.

Few sports can claim so similar a background to cricket as rugby can, so to see their philosophies on expansion be worlds apart underscores just how short-sighted cricket's administrators are.