For the players and the crowd at Kingsmead, the frustration was not a collapse or a controversial decision. It was the sky. More than 60 overs of Test cricket were lost across the first three days of the first Test between South Africa and Australia in Durban, wiped out by bad light in a match that had, by all accounts, been fascinating while it lasted.
The timing could hardly be more pointed. Only last week, the International Cricket Council amended its playing conditions, allowing the pink ball to be used in Tests after a trial earlier in the year. The change was designed for exactly the sort of scenario Durban has produced. Yet the new option went unused, and the gloom rolled in anyway.
The pattern on the ground has been remarkably consistent. Play began at 09:30 local time, an earlier start than usual, but this is the first October Test at Kingsmead, where the sun sets shortly after 18:00 at this time of year on South Africa’s eastern coast. On day one, clouds built and play was halted at 15:23, with only 65.2 of the scheduled 90 overs bowled and no return possible. Day two was better, running until 16:25, though that was still 35 minutes earlier than it could have been. Day three ended at 16:31. Each time, the first two sessions were played in hot, sunny conditions before afternoon clouds gathered, a familiar weather pattern in the city.
BBC weather presenter Chris Fawkes explained the mechanics behind it. “Very quickly in the morning, as temperatures have risen inland as the sun heats the ground, a sea breeze has formed with winds coming from the sea into Durban,” he said. “This has increased humidity levels through the morning and brought some cloud in. As temperatures have started to fall again towards the evening, this has increased the relative humidity with the air getting increasingly saturated. That has caused the cloud to get thicker and lower.”
So why was the new rule not used? Crucially, it does not allow a red ball to be switched for a pink one when light deteriorates, an approach previously suggested by former England captain Michael Vaughan. Instead, teams must agree before a Test starts to use the pink ball throughout. No such discussions were held between the Proteas and Australia.
Former South Africa bowler Shaun Pollock, who sat on the ICC committee that recommended the change, believes a “stigma” still clings to the pink ball. “They say it moves too much,” he said. He pointed to Australia’s first innings as evidence of how narratives form: had the tourists stayed at 124-6 under a pink ball, everyone would have blamed it; having reached 390, people in South Africa would have said the ball went soft. “The pink ball would have meant we played 45 more overs of Test cricket and that is why I am keen to introduce it, and not just for day-night games.”
There are real reasons for hesitancy, though. Various batters have said the pink ball is harder to see, and batting averages are lowest in the evening of day-night matches. Australia have played in 15 of Test cricket’s day-nighters, 10 more than anyone else, and the four leading wicket-takers in such matches are all Australian, led by left-armer Mitchell Starc’s 89 wickets in 15 Tests. Teams facing them might reasonably prefer the red ball.
Former South Africa bowler Vernon Philander would rather see a mid-match switch if conditions demand it, but accepts that raises questions over a Test’s integrity. His answer is to remove the decision from the players entirely. “You are always going to have the argument of who is ahead of the game,” he said. “I would like to see the ICC enforce it on to the officials to make that call.”
Until something changes, spectators in Durban will keep watching the clouds as closely as the cricket.