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.

Cricket Australia XI - almost a good idea

Cricket Australia's decision to relegate the domestic one day tournament to little more than a pre-season competition has had some upsides. Getting domestic cricket back on free-to-air is one, but the idea with the most potential is that it creates space for more teams to enter the competition. Because all the teams are in the same city for a few weeks, the travel costs are lessened, and every team can play games every few days. Because CA wants to have each team play six games, rather than five, in previous seasons each team would have to play another twice instead of once. In light of this, 2015 saw a seventh team introduced: the Cricket Australia XI.

You would expect such a team to be a best-of-the-rest squad, a group of players which didn't quite make it into their respective state teams for the tournament but are still good enough to get a spot. Along with these players you could also throw in a few young tyros, so they can gain some experience from players who have been around the traps, and so they can put their talents in front of selectors and the watching public. 

Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Just as the reserves competition was wrecked by turning it into the 'Futures League' and promoting young players before they were ready, so it was with the CA XI, which consisted only of players aged 23 and under who did not make their state squads. To be fair, some players that didn't end up playing were only pushed out of their state squads because of the cancelled tour of Bangladesh, but there is hardly a shortage of potential veterans and fringe players who could have been called up, in a similar vein to the old Unicorns team that once played in the English domestic competition. This change also strengthened the CA XI squad, as some good young players (such as Marcus Harris and Jimmy Peirson) were dropped from their state squads and could still qualify for the youth team. But really, this is how the teams should've been in the first place, as cramming in a tour of Bangladesh just before the home summer felt like it was done out of obligation than desire.

The changes also weren't enough. As it was, the CA XI were absolutely demolished, winning only one match (by a mere three runs) against Tasmania on a low, slow surface. This was following the biggest ever defeats in terms of runs, and then in terms of balls remaining, which happened against New South Wales and Victoria respectively. Their remaining opponents also remained mostly untroubled, leaving the CA XI with a rather lopsided results card, and few encouraging signs for their players, while leaving us spectators wondering what the point of it all was.

This was, like with the Futures League, the brainchild of Greg Chappell, whose obsession with youth is putting actual development and stability of the game at risk. It would actually do a world of good if state players were put up against players of experience and quality who were pushing for their spots and just missed out - so they can be reminded of the standards required - and for those select few young players to gain as much experience as they can in the abbreviated tournament. Imagine throwing Ben Rohrer, David Hussey, Jon Wells, Josh Lalor, Fawad Ahmed and Nathan Hauritz into the squad. Would it make them world-beaters? By no means. But would they be more competitive? Absolutely.

This is not the only potential solution, either, if CA was willing to look beyond our shores. There are two Associate nations, one of which is particularly nearby, who have One Day International status. They don't get to play many games, and could do with some experience. Why not have them join in the tournament? Papua New Guinea already plays in the SACA Premier League, which finished before the Matador Cup begins, so transport is hardly a massive issue, while their First Class competition only begun after the final. Hong Kong is even more cricket starved and, although further away, would be a worthwhile addition. It may also be worth considering an ACT/Country NSW team, at least for the Cup, to account for the disparity of talent coming out of that state. Having said that, doing such a thing could give other states the belief they can relax their standards, knowing they will remain unpunished off the field because the best performing state has been split in two.

In any case, all of these are better alternatives than what we were given. The one day competition is already somewhat of an afterthought for Cricket Australia, but that does not mean it deserves to be treated with such a poorly thought out idea.