Cricket misses the point again

Wasn't it the Old Trafford people who were the most indignant about missing out on a Test in favour of Sophia Gardens? Maybe they're just a little complacent there.

If the players and umpires were paid per played over we would have seen a game of some sorts last night. Sad but true.

Totally agree, in the winter we had the farce of a coach pulling his side off thinking he had won on the D/L, there was what 3 overs left the light was still playable but no to hell with the paying spectators many in Guyana have to travel by road and boat to get there.

That was a case of a coach bringing the game into disrepute and showing total contempt for the game and its spectators, cricket is dying 20/20 is supposed to bring new life, fat chance.

viewfromthevale. What a waste of ink!

As soon as I realised the condition of that run-up area, I knew that they would abandon the match.
I said to anyone prepared to listen, (mainly the dog), that if it is abandoned as an official international match, then just have a 'hit and giggle', even if it meant bowling from one end. Oh the inhumanity of it all. For the sake of cricket, think of the fans.

Well said Ben and Rick, my guess it's a view shared by 99% of the supporters of the game of cricket and every other sport. I played rugby in conditions that were more suited to mud wrestling without a thought of abandonment mainly because a few hundred hardy souls had turned up to watch. Now that filthy lucre has entered into the equation you would have thought that the paying customer deserved even more consideration. So much sport has been corrupted by the self-importance of its performers that I'm seriously wondering whether to cancel my over-priced Sky subscription. If a few thousand of us took a similar line maybe Sky would withdraw their funding and perhaps our pampered 'sportsmen' would recognise that their only role is to entertain and if they can't stand the heat they should, get out of the kitchen.

Why does Collingwood need to keep reminding us thats its a game of 'international' cricket?? Do they think they're something superior to the rest of cricket or something??
I am so angry at the contempt of these people. Who do they think they are??
Maybe we needed Ricky Ponting back - an experienced captain who would probably have appreciated the gravity of the situation. Instead we had those 2 chumps, messrs Collingwood and Clarke calling the shots!! :-((

Jim Cumbes is absolutely correct that the cricket administrators need to wake up and start showing some consideration to the needs of the spectators. First time I have heard someone dare to say such a thing.

How ridiculous for Paul Allott to say that he could have played on it but it was not fit for today's players.

And what about the game on Sunday. Cut off time was 6:14 - why have a cut off time? People have paid good money to watch a match. If it's fit at 7:30 then play then - and play the full 20 overs.

Cricket administrators are a joke.

Why not have two strips prepared at either end of the square?
You could see a few days ago that the forecast was going to be bad all weeek so why not be a bit pro active?
The worst that can happen is that a pitch is prepared that doesn't get used.
First time visitor to OT last night and I won't be going back.

It's not just international cricket that forgets its audience. On more than one occasion I've seen this at county level. The most recent was a T20 match at Canterbury three or four years ago.

This was a Saturday with an early start, mid-afternoon. About half an hour after the match began it started to rain. It continued to rain for the next couple of hours. One side had already had 5 overs, so with the rain having slowed the covers came off just in time for the other side to get 5 overs before everyone went off, now in bright sunshine, and to choruses of boos from the crowd.. What had happened is that everyone had done just enough, partly whilst it was still raining, to keep everyone's money.

We now had three or four hours of good light, but on a bright, sunny evening no further cricket was played. Kent said their hands were tied by the time allowed for a T20 match. Stupid, but at lease the County weren't wholly to blame. However, what stopped the teams coming out and entertaining the crowd for an hour or two anyway?

That was the last time I went to see a Kent match. I used to go regularly and took friends and family, none of whom have been since.

Collingwood clearly has ideas way above his station--he is an entertainter not a brain surgeon--what's brave about calling off a game !

Erm no Dirsy, you are missing the point. There were "20,000 paying customers" inside Old Trafford, and then the match was abandoned, and there were "20,000 people due a £50 refund"

Still, hardly Old Trafford's finest hour...

I think to be fair they had to start by a certain time as they are tied in by local authorities, the issue being getting everyone out and away from the area in a reasonable time

Not sure why this is such an issue it's always been a possible occurance in T20 cricket and anyone who bought a ticket with a thought it was highly unlikely to rain in Manchester in September is living in a dream world

You pay your money and hope for the best sometimes you get stung that's just the way it is with criket, the only issue I have is with the fixture list, I mean a whole 7 ODI series in September?? A summer with matches in Durham book ending the season?? If you need two matches in Durham fine but why in May and September it's beyond mental

it was incredibly annoying that the had it not been for a few square metres of mud the game would have happened. What is even more ridiculous is the way all the umpires and sky commentators (Paul Allott) kept on prodding and stamping on the muddy surface only making things worse. no wonder it never has any time to get better as they keep on stamping on it!

It's a fair point that it is an international match that will count towards world rankings. However, there is surely an obligation to entertain the paying public. If the only problem was that the run-ups were unsuitable for the likes of Brett Lee, why not play a 'friendly' (if there is such a thing between England and Australia) with limits to the run-up. That way the players get a game and the spectators get some entertainment. Simple really!

I went to a Glos v Somerset 20/20 match a couple of years back. It was raining but they started the game and after 10 overs had been bowled they walked off. The rain hadn't got any heavier and the conditions hadn't got any worse but of course after 10 overs had been bowled they didn't have to give anyone any money back. They then had the cheek to ask the crowd to give the players a big cheer for trying to put on a game!!! I've not been back to a cricket match since. When will they learn?

Cricket needs to wake up to the competition from other sports and other forms of entertainment generally. Its biggest problem is failure to deliver on the promised quantity of overs, possibly due to light, rain or captains deliberate slow play. Instead of so many playing regulations, which try to cater for all eventualities and always fail, there should be an overriding "common sense" rule, which allows the umpires to make fullest possible use of good conditions.

In tests, play should start at 10.45am and a minimum of 30 overs bowled before lunch can be taken. Then 1.30pm and 30 more overs, then 4pm and 30 more. sides can bowl more overs of course, but this should be an absolute minimum. Finish times should be abandoned altogether. If lighting and weather allow, then why stop if the minimum overs have not been bowled.

Everything should be geared to getting the overs bowled, even if it means ball changing, artifical lights (and a swap to a coloured ball), a huge tarpaulin cover over the entire ground for 24 hours prior to start of play etc.

The game needs to balance the risk of injury - which is tiny - against the risk of the whole game slipping away in the punters affections - which is very real. A Simon Jones style injury, which is awful, can happen in perfect playing conditions, so don't over play the risks, think about the paying customers!!

I have loved watching the game for 40 years, but even I am getting frustrated by how often I get short changed!

Come on ECB and ICC - WAKE UP !!

As 1st time 'international' 2020'ers on Sunday, we were very disappointed with a lack of information being shared with the crowd between innings. Apart from the tremendous RAF Falcons (parachutists) there was no entertainment, something I thought 2020 was all about? My son described the cheerleaders as 'weak', sorry but that didn't work, the two groundstaff guys driving the carts around the ground with a rope tied between them to clear the rain from the surface was more interesting. Long queues for food, drinks and toilets and even the TVs were switched off in the club shop because people were watching the Sky cricket coverage to find out what was happening! With no refund available for an abandoned match, we won't be going back.

You do wonder if the old school tie is at work in the allocations of tests ODIs etc. These grounds like Headingley and Old Trafford are famously poor and have done nothing to improve and stop this bar relying on bigger and bigger squeegy machines. Whilst competent grounds are excluded seemingly personal matters these grounds are on the roster on a nod and a wink. The ECB effectively played Russian Roulette with the weather.

Edgbaston whilst it did have a lot of rain probably only got play on a first day of mostly bright sunshine because the umpires realised there was a full crowd there and England had to bowl a wet ball and the Australians got an easy 123-1. Yes they had more rain after but at Lords you would have seen far more play with far more rain. Edgbaston had 3 years notice and has spent money on stands but just left the drainage as poor as when I lived near there 25 years ago. Indeed the groundsman Rouse kept appearing on TV laughing 10 days before he'd be lucky to have a decent wicket (what a sense of humour) - how do you get sacked short of a row with KP when boasting of competence issues is allowed? - ironically the only thing that was fine at Edgbaston was the wicket. then he did the same on the day as we frustratedly watched no cricket in sunshine saying how they'd worked all night to be nowhere near ready (hey like every bad manager I ever worked for you bust your back for deadlines you can not meet).

Headingley called off an ODI this year in bright sunshine because its drainage is toilet.

Now Old Trafford they've started building new stands. Great prioritisation great seats no cricket.

Really the fault is the ECB incompetence and silly excuses about 'lots of rain' will be allowed to wash. No action will be taken no penalty applied. ECB and co will get together and laugh at the people who turned up over a decent claret when assigning the grounds to these places again.

Think how bad these people would have fared without these giant sponge machines. Edgbaston actually was probably only a day short of being a very interesting test.

For the not particularly au fait England has frequent rain but not lots of rain by most country's standards. Nevertheless for a people who witter on and on about rain you'd think drainage would be sorted. After all it's probably cheaper than the fine wine collection of the ECB and each of these rotton grounds&counties.

A few hundred grand pennywise pound foolish the new motto of ECB. We will see no change. No sacked groundsmen. Don't aim at players and umpires what about an ECB who think they are competent as the money rolls in.

Spot on.
Collingwood made me cringe when he said it's not fit for 'international' cricket. What arrogance, what humbug! Its T20 man! The trouble is, none of this centrally contracted, muddy coddled bunch of Primma Donnas, ever actually play County T20. Live is very different it seems in their Ivory Tower.

The refund of the ticket price does not reflect the wasted evening, the cost of transport, parking, food, drink.

Cost of these is likely more than the ticket, but there'll be no refund for those.

Rac21ers --

Collingwood - an entertainer?????

While Jim Cumbes does have a point that the players and officials should feel morally obliged to provide the paying public with a game of some sort - even if it's not counted as a real Twenty20 international and they only bowl from one end as Shane Warne suggested - he should also stop trying to deflect the blame from Lancashire CCC.

It is their ground staff who failed to sufficiently protect that crucial part of the playing area. If they had done their job correctly, we'd have had a full game last night despite the afternoon deluge of rain.

I feel sorry for David Lloyd, he's been championing the cause of Lancashire and Old Trafford whenever he's had the opportunity on the mic, and now they've been given a chance (despite half the ground being a building site) they've made those who backed them look rather foolish.

Just as with football referees, the first responsibility of the umpire is the safety of the players. Imagine the criticism that would have been leveled at them (not to mention the lawsuits) if an Australian or an England player had slipped in this mud and seriously injured themselves.

RE ThereWeSaidIt - LCCC have recently had a brand new drainage system installed, and will be turning the pitch to take advantage of the angle of the sun. To say they haven't done anything in untruthful - but it still comes too late for those afftected yesterday.

I live locally and was speaking to fans last night who had travelled 300 miles and paid for a hotel from Sunday until this morning. Yes they will get their £50 admission back, but not the petrol money and hotel expenses incurred.

I agree with the 'have two pitches' ready idea...and to use 'sweating under the covers' excuse after how many years of covered pitches?

peter_couch - "Erm no Dirsy, you are missing the point. There were "20,000 paying customers" inside Old Trafford, and then the match was abandoned, and there were "20,000 people due a £50 refund"

And the travel costs? Overpriced food/Drink purchased while waiting for these clowns to make a decision? Are there any refunds for these costs....?

The ground staff have failed miserably. Old Trafford have proved their inability to host even a 20/20 game.

stevegrant1983 - spot on.

I wait with baited breath for articles saying that tennis/golf/football has missed the point again next time Wimbledon or the Open stops for rain or a football match is abandoned due to a waterlogged pitch.
Will there be calls for Andy Murray or Tiger Woods to 'get out there and play anyway' in order to 'entertain the crowds'. Maybe Murray could not run about as fast or Woods could play with only his driver. Maybe the footballers could just walk about the pitch.
ALL sport is subject to abandoment and postponement because of bad weather, but it does feel, sometimes, that cricket is criticised far more heavily when it is effected than other sports are.

Whilst I understand that international cricketers don't want to get injured they could at least have tried to play last night at Old Trafford. Michael Clarke and Paul Collingwood did not appear to be very concerned that the crowd nor the wider viewing public would not see any cricket last night. I have always been a Paul Collingwood supporter, indeed I am his no. 1 fan, but his display last night has upset me tremendously, I always thought he was so gutsy now I am not so sure. It seemed to me that both captains were relieved that they didn't have to play any cricket. I think it is so sad that international cricketers today are more worried about their T20 status for IPL contracts and not about the paying public. It is high time the ICC got together with IPL and sorted this situation out. Once again money talks and unfortunately it is the poor cricket public who miss out bearing in mind some of them will be unemployed and in relation to last night spent considerable amounts of money incidental to the ticket price to support cricket in this country. I cannot for the life of me understand where we go from here. Debacle is not strong enough, for example the Allan Stanford situation, Sir Viv Richards stadium situation and now this. Bring back the oldies is all I can say, at least they got out there and played because they loved the game of today's cricketers I am not sure.

#27

Its because cricket matches get abandoned a lot more easily than other sports. A sport you cant play at all in rain really cant be that good.

Cricket, alongisde golf and tennis is very overrated.

At least last nights spectators will receive some kind of recompense - I took my son to the game on Sunday at a cost of £80 + expenses, for this I received 21.1 overs of cricket, ten of which I missed while queueing for drinks at the woefully inadequate facilities. Works out about £8 an over in a match with no result. It suddenly makes taking him to the other Old Trafford seem like great value! Never again.

Quick Blue Turtle makes a valid point. This is a first class ground, not the village green and has a vast number of pitches on the square. Surely, there must have been another strip (covered by the square tarps), recently used which could have been pressed into action when it became apparent that the run up area would not dry. I appreciate that this would be a used pitch, but what would that really mean? The ball might move off straight occasionally?

I agree with the original article and the majority of the subsequent posts, that this is the latest in a growing line of incidents where 'match regulations' have defeated common sense and the authorities have shown absolutely no respect for the spectator as an important part of the event.

This was not a county championship game played in front of 2 men and a dog, this was a T20 international in front of a packed house. T20 is an entertainment business - Fireworks, dancers and million dollar salaries testify to this and i'm afraid the players can not be entertainers when it suits them and pampered children when it does not.

The saddest thing about the whole debacle however is the number of people - many posting comments on this thread who will never return to watch live cricket. It is this - a situation created by the adminstrators lack of foresight and imagination which is international cricket's greatest threat.

Simple solution, stop trying to play these international matches in the north of England where the weather is notoriously bad. Is it that difficult to work out? Both Twenty20 matches would of gone ahead and been completed if they had been played in Bristol and London respectively. It's a no brainer, better weather in South England, better chances of play.

I was at Old Trafford yesterday evening with my wife and son. The organisation was, I would suggest, a shambles. From the temporary, uncovered, stand where we were seated it was impossible to understand any of the public address announcements. The redevlopment of the ground is partially completed and services are poor.

The decision to abandon the game came after 2 hours of clear skies with no rain. Cynics might say that the decision was delayed for 2 hours so that the maximum amounts of overpriced beer and food could be sold to the punters, whose bags had been searched on the way in to make sure no "illegal" food or drink was smuggled in.

The final insult has to be the fact that a full refund will not be given; we have to send our tickets to a PO Box in Leicester, wait for a cheque and then have £1.40 per ticket deducted for "administration costs". What a nerve and what a way to treat the paying public. Customer care - they must be joking.

If they're gonna play up north then make sure its not in May or September, simple as that.

Having paid £50.00 for a ticket I would be more than cheesed off if the players agreed to play a game of "slap and tickle" as suggested by some people on this page- any one of us can go and do that down at the park. This should be a meaningful T20 (yes I appreciate that in itself is an oxymoron) or nothing at all- not a beer match! Why would I want to pay £50.00 to see Brett Lee et al. have what amounts to no more than a square practice? I'd rather have the £50.00 quite frankly. The fault here lies a) with administrators for picking a seasonally soggy dinosaur for a venue and b) for the seasonally soggy dinosaur not evolving sufficiently to have waterproof skin!!!!

I'll admit to having a little sympathy for the players yesterday - yes, the ground wasn't that bad, but no, it was not up to scratch for an international match, 20-20 or otherwise. The ground staff have most to answer for, in my view.

As to the suggestion that they should have improvised some form of contest for the sake of the spectators, have to say I don't see how that solves very much. If I've paid 40-50 quid to see an international 20-20, and I end up being treated to a joky game of beach-cricket, I'd want my money back.

As a Saffer, too, I must remember with some wry satisfaction that the IPL faced a choice of playing the competition in SA or England this year. Apparently weather was the decisive factor in swinging it SA's way, but after last night's debacle, it seems remarkable that England was even considered.

If there is anyone to blame for last nights fiasco it is Lancashire CCC. Why were the bowlers run ups like a bog whereas the rest of the ground was perfectly playable ? They have spent a lot of money on new drainage yet a small part of the ground was sodden.
Hearing Jim Cumbes explanation for this as 'the footmarks had sweated under the covers' is utterly laughable. Sadly the incompetence of this Club, the worst of all the Test Grounds, shows they are still unfit to hold International Cricket. The people of Manchester deserve better.
Yes, the players should have gone out & played some sort of game, but the real culprits are Lancashire CCC.

Can anybody tell me why I'm not entitled to any kind of refund on the tickets I had for Sunday's game?

Cricket must be the only sport that get's away with this when a match is abandoned with no result being reached.

It's a farce and I don't think I'll be spending my money on cricket tickets anytime soon.

It is interesting that the blogger compares theatre to sport. Sport has become more and more results orientated, focussing less on the quality of the participants involved at the expense of giving the audiences formatted entertainment akin to going to the theatre or cinema.

Maybe the 2 sides could have chased each other round the boundary (conditions permitting) throwing custard pies. That would be entertainment, no?

This isn't the first time fans have been shafted at an international match at Old Trafford.
I remember the Saturday (day three) of the Ashes Test in 2005 when it rained nearly all day yet they deliberately went out to make sure there were just enough overs bowled that fans didn't get a full refund, then went off again.
A mate of mine, mainly a football fan but who loves his cricket, said they could stuff it and hasn't been back to a Test match since. I bet many fans will be saying the same again after yesterday, full refund or not.

Thank you Hoggy-Bear. Ben Dirs I hope you do not describe yourself as a sports journalist to anyone.

Utter stupidity all round.

1) Why schedule games in the North of England after September? They could've played these ODIs/T20s earlier in the summer instead of a pointless Test "series" against the WIndies... where we'd just come back from.

2) How did the run ups get wet?! Surely they're the next most important area other than the actual wicket?

3) Surely they could've agreed to call it a non-international game (a glorified beer match) and bowled from one end? Then they'd only have to refund say half the ticket money, saving them a lot of money and grief whilst putting on a show for the thousands of paying spectators. This also would've saved me from watching CSI Miami last night with the missus...

As long as the ground is ok for the upcoming Coldplay concert I don't mind ;-)

I can't believe that Lancashire have half got away with this. Shows that attack is the best form of defence. Why aren't people getting at them for not covering properly? And would Lancashire have paid the claim if a star player's career had been ended?

Sympathy to the spectators, but Law 22.1 says overs must be bowled from alternate wickets. Bowl from one end if you must, but it wouldn't be cricket. Sort of baseball, perhaps?

A couple of friends travelled from hertfordshire to manchester yesterday with their 3 children to watch their first game of 20/20 yesterday...

After an 8 hour round trip,£50 petrol,£50 food and drinks,they got back at midnight and had watched 4 grown men looking at a bit of pitch for an hour.

They are all agreed that from now on they will stick to going to the footie with the kids,congratulations collie on the brave decision,you have lost the goodwill of 20,000 people yesterday by treating the paying public as mugs!!!!

I don't agree. I don't like to see cricket abandoned just as much as the next guy, but, your point Ben, has a flaw. The money people pay to watch the cricket, as we talk about so much, is not spent to watch Voges run in and bowl medium pace. It's spent to watch your steam-train Brett Lee's and Mitchell Johnson, if i were 8 years old and saw Australia's opening attack of Voges and D Hussey then I might take up football. I also might take up football if I saw my idol Brett Lee running-in on this wicket and breaking an ankle in the process, not a risk worth taking over a damn T20.

On Sky last night David Lloyd explained the laws regarding decisions to play or not play an international Twenty20 match. He stated that any decision has to be made by the umpires collectively (i.e all four in agreement) and that this decision must not be influenced by any player or players. It seems to me that it was the players who had the most influence here.

To be fair, Manchester's only the ninth-wettest city in Britain. Swansea takes that crown (and I'm vaguely proud of that, given I live there). Cardiff's wetter and they played a Test there this year - and it was mostly dry! It's all luck of the draw: plenty of Tests have been interrupted by rain at Lord's.

To people saying that international matches should only be played in the South: that's a pretty offensive statement, on a par with the Tories saying a year or so back that people living in the North should move to the South if they want jobs. Headingley and Chester-le-Street don't even get that much rain! And after the number of England players Durham, Lancashire and Yorkshire have produced in recent years, too.

i can understand the umpires and Captains being concerned about where the bowlers 'land' on their run-ups, how would they look if someone was seriously injured. I think the main question is why, when the rest of the ground looked perfect were these 'critical areas' soggy - give me a few large family tents to pitch over these areas and i could keep them dry, i was at old trafford last night and the grass looked immaculate- there was no spray at all when the rope was being dragged over the outfield. I also liked the idea of an exhibition match from one end- at least the kids i took would have something to remember

R. 42.

A pointless test series against Windies? Yes,they are rubbish, but, it was our only chance to play test cricket in England before the Ashes, worth it.

The men's international cricketers quickly distance themselves from their roots and the people who pay their salaries.

That's why I now prefer watching the women's cricket...

Ben, I love your writing and you even make boxing seem like a decent sport, but this blog is bang out of order. Quoting from you here:


====================================================================
"The inference is that international cricket exists in a vacuum, for its own sake, above and beyond vulgar entertainment. How brave, I wonder, did those 20,000 paying customers find the decision to pull stumps without a ball being bowled?

The brave stance would have been to put the risks to one side, agree to bowl spinners, tell the pacemen to shorten their run-ups. Former Aussie speedster Jeff Thomson reckoned there was nothing wrong with the pitch. Former Aussie batsman Greg Blewett advised them to play in football boots. Shane Warne suggested they bowl from one end. Ridiculous? Try telling that to the 20,000 paying customers.

"If Brett Lee was running up to bowl, I can't imagine it being safe enough," added Clarke.

Why not tell Brett Lee he's not going to bowl? It's just a game after all, or am I being hopelessly naive?"
======================================================================

Yes, you are being naive, to be frank. What's the point of a game where one of the true quicks in the world is told 'Sorry lad, not bowling you, too dangerous' and instead you get four overs of Michael Hussey bowling instead. It'd be like going to see Pele play in his prime and ending up with Peter Kay going 'Have it' instead.

When a game of football or rugby has is in danger of being called off due to a frozen pitch, I doubt you'd be posting up a blog saying 'They should have gotten out there with restrictions on tackling and made each player wear several layers of padded clothing. Oh, and they can't use their wingers'.

Many people have said that an exhibition match should have been played. If the ground is unfit for a T20 game, why on earth would the same players turn up to bowl pies at one another and run about unenthusiastically around the pitch in a facile meaningless contest?


"When did international cricket become so self-important? If Lancashire chief executive Jim Cumbes is to be believed, it has been a gradual process over the last 30 years. "We would have got out there and played," a clearly upset Cumbes told Sky presenter Paul Allott. "Yes, but things have changed," was the gist of Allott's reply.
Maybe things need to change back."


It's nothing to do with cricket feeling self-important. It's fairly obvious why things have changed, and that is because of the threat of litigation. Imagine the scenario: Brett Lee goes out to bowl on a pitch that the umpires aren't sure is fit for play but they're pressured into playing. Lee goes up to bowl the first over, slips during his run up on a muddy spot, damages his knee and cartilage so badly that he never plays again. The first port of call Lee would make would be to his lawyer. There would be the loss of future earnings from playing for Australia and the loss of potentially huge sums from not being able to play in the IPL, possibly in the Champions League, loss of sponsorship, merchandising, etc etc. It would go on similar lines to Gordon Watson in the past (https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-watson-awarded-damages-1092274.html%29. As Gordon said, "At the end of the day I go to work. If you get injured at work things like this have to be taken into account and this is what this judgment is about today."

That's it, the bottom line. Old Trafford yesterday was a workplace for two sets of cricketers. If that workplace was felt to be unsafe and those workers had been told to go out there when the ICC representatives were unsure about the safety of the playing conditions, you're walking on a precarious legal tightrope.

Now Gordon Watson's victory was back in the day way before we got out the bunting for the start of the new millennium and before the days of those vile accident insurance 'Will sue for you' adverts. Nowdays the cash payout would be even greater as we saw with the case of Ben Collett (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/08/12/manchester-united-footballer-awarded-record-4-3million-115875-20693992/%29. Ben was a young defender who hadn't even made a first team debut for Manchester United. He was playing in his first reserve team game yet still managed to get £4.3 million to cover loss of future earnings after Middlesborough claimed negligence for the tackle that broke Collett's leg.

£4.3 million for a bloke who never played for the full team?!?

With that in mind, how much would Brett Lee be able to claim in he were injured at work through an umpire's negligence? Ashes winner, internationally regarded quick bowler, potential for many more years of cricket with Australia and the IPL... phew! Lawsuit City! Lee versus the ICC, as I'm sure the match referee and the umpires as appointed ICC representatives would be up in the dock.

Litigation is a worry in all sports. Why do you think golf courses are so eager to whisk players off at the merest hint of thunder and lightning? You should also look at Formula 1. Ever since Senna died, the FIA went on a mission to improve driver safety not just to prevent its drivers from getting mashed in accidents but the threat of legal or criminal cases being launched against them. It has led to significant safety improvements in both car design and driver safety through the HANS device and sadly has also led to some truly dismally boring circuits being devised. The circuits and equipment are safer for drivers and the threat of death/injury with accomompanying legal action against the FIA is reduced. Again, with reference to Ben Collett, if a non-first team Man Utd player can get £4.3 million for a negligent opponent, how much do you think Senna's estate would go for now had he died in dangerous conditions in this current legal climate?

Ben, you can quote Rick aka Mr Angry from Cheshire all you want. The paying public need to wake up and realise that they aren't the real breadwinners for the players. The television money is the key here. Spectators do not play player's salaries. If there was a drop in crowd figures, the clubs would find another way of screwing the coin out of the pocket just as the wonderful football teams do. Rick can waffle on about how the players should ball off shorter run-ups all he wants. It is a ridiculous idea. Rick, you live Oop North in an area of high rainfall and you've bought tickets for September. You run the risk of no cricket, just as I run the risk of having no cricket next week when I'm down in Southampton with my £65 ticket. If it gets rained off down at the Rose Bowl, you won't see me moaning and demanding the quick bowlers bowl off of five paces and get smacked just to entertain me. I paid my £65 demanding a full-on cricket experience, not the equivalent of performing sealions gallivanting about on a damp field just to make me feel like I've got something for my money.

All the Glamorgan fans crowing are a tad hypocritical. Yes, Old Trafford has seen some drainage problems. So did you when it came to your first big game, you messed up, and you were given a second chance. So hush!

The real question that should be focused on is why Old Trafford was given both T20 games. It's been a horrendous summer in terms of scheduling. The Friends Provident Trophy started on April 19th to sparse crowds (people don't want to watch cricket in mid April when the weather is dodgy? Shock!), the West Indies Tests were a farce, the domestic T20 competition has been somewhat squished by the World T20 competition, and now we're having all the one day games coming after the main Ashes event, thus making the ODI games feel even more like a huge irrelevance. The scheduling of this summer has been very messy indeed and I hope lessons have been learnt.

I have thought for some time that the concept of playing limited overs international cricket in England in September is far fetched.

It is down to the ECB and the ICC desperately trying to get as much money as they can from us mug punters. Trust me the same thing will happen next year with limited overs games against Pakistan scheduled for September.

Anyone who has seen or watched limited overs cricket played in September in England will know that the shortening day, possibility of dew coming up and the effect this have on the ptich as well as the possibiluty of rain means it is a lottery. I can remember that often the old 60 over one day final was decided by the toss rather than the play on the pitch.

Next year there will be five one days and two 20/20's from the 5th of September onwards

https://www.ecb.co.uk/ecb/about-ecb/media-releases/ecb-unveils-2010-format,307430,EN.html

Next summer England are due to play six tests plus 13 one day days plus 2 20/20 internationals.

Logic surely dicates that if you are going to try to get 2 test series and two one day series in then you are asking for trouble.

Hasn't the time come for an early test series followed by a tri nations one day series then the second test series.

Also hasn't anyone else wondered why if we continue to play internationals in September then give players no time off before an early auturmn tour then a winter / spring tour that so many international players are always injured or carrying injuries.

I was at Old Trafford last night and with the very heavy rain is was pretty obvious that the ground was going to be unfit, and I for one do not want to see a micky mouse game (T20 is micky mouse enough!). My only comment/criticism is that the game could have been called off mid afternoon - the cynic in me says LCCC wanted some money through the bars and food outlets, if I am being kind the ground staff and umpires were genuinely trying to get a game on. It's pretty tough on those that travelled a long way but a game played in those poor conditions would not have been "entertaining" at all - It was the right decision to call it off, just a little late in my opinion

What is this? International standard cricketers should represent their country, but not play to their abilities, but tone the game down to suit the audience. This isn't American Wrestling, it's the greatest sport on earth!! Umpires being paid to extend games could lead to deliberate bad decisions, which would undermine the status of the umpires. There are bigger fish to fry than this. Rain is not unusual in Manchester. Last I heard, Old Trafford had more Test days lost to rain than all of the rest of the Test grounds combined. Why are people surprised when a 20/20 (about 3 hours) is lost, when Old Trafford has lost an entire Test to rain?

1) Lancashire have previous here. Some years ago a championship match v Yorkshire was abandoned because the covers had not been effective. They had basically created pools as water leaked through a gap or something. It was a farce and robbed Yorkshire of a likely win.

2) I do tend to agree with those who say they'd rather have the refund than watch some farce of a match with spinners only, short run ups, one end, etc. Yes you can't get your petrol, hotel, time back...but that's the gamble you take with cricket.

3) Those who say 'don't have matches in the north' lack some basic knowledge. The wet/dry divide is much more west/east than North. Yes you're more likely to get rain in Manchester, but if cricket matches were always held at the place where rain is least liekly, they'd all be in the Atacama desert. The people of the NW love their cricket and deserve to have an international match (whether this is at OT is another matter - given my point #1).

Is it not time to include meteorologists in the team who plan these events? Currently Tests are played at Durham in May when it is freezing cold and One days scheduled in Septermber in the North West when ex-hurricanes tend to deposit rain on the Old Trafford ground while the East of the country remains dry. Lancashire continually cite the number of days lost to weather as a reason that they do not win the County Championship so perhaps a study of seasonal weather records might allow more cricket to be played.

International cricketers should sometimes think about what they are saying, and how consistent this is with previous comments. Collingwood was happy to criticise the Stormont pitch as being useless and wet. Stormont is a part-time pitch, and the best an associate member with no funding can hope to provide. First Edgebaston, now Old Trafford, a spot of rain and unplayable. Kettle, pot etc?

57. At 10:17am on 02 Sep 2009, exiled-tyke wrote:

3) Those who say 'don't have matches in the north' lack some basic knowledge. The wet/dry divide is much more west/east than North. Yes you're more likely to get rain in Manchester, but if cricket matches were always held at the place where rain is least liekly, they'd all be in the Atacama desert. The people of the NW love their cricket and deserve to have an international match (whether this is at OT is another matter - given my point #1).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

No one is saying they don't love their cricket but of all the abandonments we've had this summer, every single one has been in the north of England while the South enjoyed sunshine or at least no rain. Its a simple solution to play internationals in the south then we wouldn't be having these discussions over a farce like last night.

The ground was wet, squidgy and muddy. It's all well and good going on about the bowlers being asked to run in off a shortertened run, but what about the fielders? What if a guy had slid, got his knee caught in a soft patch, and then ripped his knee apart much like Simon Jones did in 05 which has arguably ruined his career?

It is frustrating and costly as it is to turn up and then go home again without seeing a ball bowled, but unfortunately that's what bad weather and sporting events entails from time to time.

Can you blame the players for not risking their livelihoods running and diving around on a sodden outfield? Jim Cumbes is clearly more worried about how much £££££££ the ground makes, or in this case didn't. When rugby gets called off how about they play a game of tag instead? Asking Brett Lee to bowl off 4 paces isn't a spectacle for me.

Sorry guys, just my opinion.

As a former groundsman/greenkeeper I was watching the events unfold yesterday before the abandonment with interest. When the extent of the damage at the Brian Statham end was shown on TV it was obvious to me that someone had made a complete mess of placing the covers, it was fairly evident that there must have been a gap in the covers just beyond the edge of the Hover Cover...only 1 person should take the blame for the abandonment and that person is the Head Groundsman...so tough luck on his employers LCCC, they have lost money because one of their staff made a c*ck up, deal with it and stop trying to deflect he blame.

I like Ben Dirs, I usually agree with most of what he has to say but in this instance I'm not convinced by a few of the points made:

'Why not tell Brett Lee he's not going to bowl? It's just a game after all, or am I being hopelessly naive?'

I think you are being a bit naive, it's meant to be a serious international match and you want one, or both, team(s) to just not bowl one, or more, of their premier bowlers? What would this do for principles of competition and the standing of what should be a top class, meaningful match - I can't imagine a scenario where any other sport would consider something like this, imagine Liverpool being told not to play Gerrard because windy conditions were making his shots swerve too much (I know this is a stupid example that would never happen but the principle is similar).

As for shortened run-ups, yeah maybe, but this would most likely reduce the match to a half-hearted, going-through-the-motions spectacle that arguably diminshes priciples of competition as well. Considering that most fast bowlers have to reduce their run ups for ODI & T20 due to time constraints already, and that cricket should be as close to an even competition between bat and ball as possible this solution does not seem a particularly good one.

Ultimately I just worry about producing a sub-standard match that undermine's what should be top-class international competition.

P.S. If it seems like I am defending the ECB in anyway, I do not intent to, in recent times they have proven themselves to be one of the most incompetent organisations imaginable.

The whole north/south weather divide is fairly irrelevant in this case, isn't it?

If the ground staff had done their job properly on that one patch of grass (like they'd done on the rest of the ground), we'd have had a full game - albeit delayed by an hour - and nobody would have complained at all.

As a southerner, we're certainly not exempt from our fair share of rain at this time of the year either.

#1 Quesion here: Why were the covers ineffective in protecting the run-ups?

It would have been (at least) a bit silly to try playing a match on that pitch, beceause of that small area.

There have been a great number of very well thought blogs both for and against the decision last night and as a result on the basis of the very good point of potential litigation I have changed my mind and now support the abandonment. I guess the correct theatrical analogy is calling off the show when at the last minute it's discovered that the stage might collapse. All that said I'm still adamant that any sport played for wages in front of paying spectators is purely entertainment and has no other greater purpose. But perhaps another blog will convince me otherwise again?

Yes, the players should have gone out & played some sort of game, but this misses the point. If there is anyone to blame for last nights fiasco - it is Lancashire County Cricket Club. Why were the bowlers run ups like a bog whereas the rest of the ground was perfectly playable ? They have spent a lot of money on new drainage yet a small part of the ground was sodden.
Hearing Jim Cumbes explanation for this as 'the footmarks had sweated under the covers' is utterly laughable. Sadly the incompetence of this Club, the worst of all the Test Grounds, shows they are still unfit to hold International Cricket. The people of Manchester deserve better.
When Cardiff was awarded the right to host the first Ashes Test, and Old Trafford lost out there was no more vociferous critic than Mr. Cumbes; he would do well to reflect on why his club are often criticised.

Could they not have got the crowd on to mop up the rain...? (1968 springs to mind).

A friendly match would have been much better for the crowds - played on a different wicket perhaps - how difficult can it be to use the county one?

Clearly the players have forgotten that T20 is the lowest form of cricket designed to get people in the grounds and entertain them. This was not a test match and would have been forgotten the following day as being inconsequential in the history of the game. Therefore play some form of cricket and entertain. Very poor decision!

I think that this is the new 20/20 generation of fans who want cricket whatever the state/safety of the pitch. This is an international match and should either be played at full pelt on a safe pitch or not at all. Sorry for those you paid out but this is cricket, take it or leave it

Can anyone tell me why the OT Ground staff did absolutely naff all to try and dry up the puddle at the Statham end? No squeegees, no sponges, no sawdust, no effort whatsoever. Absolutely nothing. WHY?

BTW whoever replied to my piece and said LCCC had spent money on drainage it really does actually make my point they are totally incompetent. How many cases of claret did it take to get that contract for C Bodge, It & Run to do the drainage.

Again no sackings. No recriminations more tea, cake and drinks with Giles.

Sport in general, especially in Europe / ROW, often struggles to realise that it is just a branch of the entertainment business and that any athletes or sporting bodies cannot live in a bubble.. broadcasting, advertising and gate sales pay their wages, so if the broadcasters/advertisers/punters say play/run/fight they better start..

Two abandonments, that must rate as two of Collingwoods best results as captain.

Yet again you have all missed the point.
Ok, a game of cricket got rained off and thousands of spectators and viewers had a ruined evening - but I was able to enjoy the mentally stimulating debate amongst the panel of highly articulate and hugely experienced commentators and the poignant interview with the Chairman of Lancs CCC. Well worth my Sky subscription.
And I even made sure I got my money's worth for my Licence Fee by listening to the radio commentators empathising with the crowd by voicing their disappointment with the "powers that be".
That's entertainment.
Mike Oxley-King

Don't criticise the club for the bad weather. This summer has seen exceptional rain on the West Coast and the water table is so high even modest rainfalls causes local surface water.

Lancashire spent half a million quid last year on the outfield drainage. Last evening , despite heavy rain on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, the outfield was fit to play whereas in previous years the ground would have resembled a lake. The problem area was in the bowlers approaches where the square and outfield meet. There must either be undrained water from the square, or a damaged or blocked drain, causing the waterlogging at this point. Clearly Lancs CC need to sort this out with the drainage contractors post haste.

I was at Old Trafford for the Sunday 20:20 Int and know the disappointment caused to many supporters. Maybe the players could have made the effort to put on some sort of game - but it is not just the players. During the Sunday match the last 3 overs of the Aussie innings were played in light rain but, for some reason, the game Eng could not bat because of the same light rain! Despite numerous Aussie players practising on the outfield. Umpires and match officials note! This pantomime went on for more than an hour - all the time during dry/light rain - before the umpires decided play could start. Eight ball later the rain set in with a vengeance. What a wasted opportunity.

Oldfashionedrugby (Number 66):

I think I was the chap you were referring to for bringing up the litigation side of things. Health and safety affects everyone at work. It seems so many spectators seem to forget that sports people are also subject to the same regulations. We've all seen the daft accident damages adverts. If a lass can sue for negligence based on a damp floor without a 'Danger - wet floor sign' being visible, then a cricketer who suffers an injury on a ground that is dubious in terms of playing safety would have a very strong case.

"All that said I'm still adamant that any sport played for wages in front of paying spectators is purely entertainment and has no other greater purpose. But perhaps another blog will convince me otherwise again?"

I've never believed that. As a player, the spectators are irrelevant. You don't focus on them. You focus on your opposition and your own game. You don't get a footballer thinking 'Wll, we've got over 50,000 in this stadium today, a great turnout, so I'd better try a few stepovers just to entertain the crowd rather than sensible passes left and right of me'. A sporting competition is essentially a private competition that the public are invited to watch in exchange for their readies. A player does what he or she needs to do in order to be successful, not to give some people in Row D a thrill.

Spectators shouldn't obviously be treated badly though. They should be respected with proper facilities, decent toielts, good seating, good views, a decent choice of catering at the venue that isn't overpriced, and some recompense if the sporting action they have come to see gets cancelled. I've never liked the ECB scheme where a certain number of overs play means no refund. Quite frankly, it should be a lot easier than that. If a T20 match only sees half the game, the paying public should get half of the ticket back. If a day's Test cricket sees two sessions washed out, give the paying public back two sessions's worth of money or some kind of voucher system enabling them to money off future events.

The bottom line with this cancellation is the legal issue. You just have to look around to see that damages for injuries, be they sportsman or members of the military within the UK, have never been so commonplace. It isn't just the cases that actually go to court too. So many get settled out of court because it's prohibitively expensive for the defendent to launch a defence against the claim in the court system. I know of one case within my former employer in which a settlement out of court was made because the case itself would have cost £50,000 to launch. Just a search on Google for 'damages councils pavements' will show you how much local councils have paid out due to people tripping on pavements.

Legal issues affect all sports. No doubt. To me, the decision to cancel this game was no different to making under-16 players wear helmets when batting and keeping wicket. It's all done for self-preservation of the ruling bodies who are the ones who'd cop it in the courts when someone gets hurt. Personally I think you'll see more of those cancellations within amateur cricket in the future. It really would not surprise me if you get to the point where a player in an amateur league sues the league s/he plays for as he was injured on an unsafe wet pitch. I don't say it is right but it reflects the 'Must have someone to blame' society that has erupted around us.

A soloution to this rain problem is this: Build - in the Midlands, probably Birmingham, for ease of access for the whole country - a national cricket stadium - with a roof! So at the end of the summer England can play all their ODIs and T20s, knowing that the weather can't ruin the game. Further to this, if they made the stadium big enough, 50,000+ the ECB wouldn't have to charge so much for tickets and then low and behold people would be more inclinded to bring their families and friends and - OMG!!!!!! - T20 achieves what is suppossed to.

But it'll never happen sadly...

Absolutely spot on, Mr Dirs. This article should be required reading for the ICB.

I don't think the Institude of Certified Bookkeepers will much care for the article...

By the same token, how come Sir Alex Ferguson gets away with not talking to the BBC? That is a disgrace that should have been challenged years ago. It is the viewing public that makes football what it is and SAF has an obligation to set aside personal grudges and speak to the corporation as one of the principal football broadcasters.
The viewing public does not exist for the benefit of football, it is the other way around.

Was listening to Meeting Mr. Miandad by Duckworth/Lewis Method, which somehow got me thinking about Eng v SA at the SCG in 1992 and just how little seems to have changed when it comes to rain-affected matches - they always descend into farce.

Anyway, the point is, if these are international matches, why does the ECB go some way to ensuring consistency in the drainage and coverage systems used at the grounds? Being told that the drainage system is not as good as that at Lord's, whilst sitting above a wet outfield in brilliant sunshine at Edgbaston, hardly does much for crowd morale.

Is there not a way of leasing equipment for the hosting of international matches, or the ECB buying the kit and transporting it via lorry prior to the staging of international matches? I don't know about the exact logistics of such an operation, but there must be something that could be done.

And interesting to note that Old Trafford were charging £50 for a 20 over match, when it was £40 for a double-header during the Twenty20 World Cup...

The whole afternoon/evening was a farce and Lancashire CCC have to take a serious look at how they go about staging international cricket. My friends and I arrived slightly early and the gates were still shut. Being members I feel we should be able to go into the Pavilion to have a drink but we couldn't. At 5pm the gates didn't open. The pathetic reason was the teams hadn't arrived. Are they really that precious they can't be anywhere near the public when getting off a bus? As we didn't get in until 5.20pm considerable revenue must have been lost by the bars and catering outlets.
Once in the bar and having seen Nigel Llong emerge from the umpires room it was clear right from the outset that the vibes from him and the players were very negative and I think we knew from when the rain stopped that no play was going to take place even though the covers had not come off. It is a pity that alot of cricketers would still rather not play than actually play but that has always been the way of the game.
For Lancashire's covers to fail to give them the excuse not to play is a disgrace. We poured scorn on the West Indies authorities for the abandonment in Antigua but this was just as bad in a way.
There was also a lack of announcements in the ground and clearly Sky viewers found out before the spectators.
This farce will do little to encourage spectators back and makes me wonder what is the point in paying the full membership price every year for a club that won't even let me in for a drink and then denies me the spectacle I have paid extra to watch.

Rather, why DOESN'T the ECB go some way to ensuring consistency...

If the viewing public makes football what it is, then the scenes from the Millwall-West Ham match should be enough to consign football to a landfill site, right? Football does not exist for the viewing public. They are private sporting clubs involved in a league system that the public are invited to watch in exchange for their money. The spectators are a resource to be used and mined. Their love of the game spells dollars in the eyes of those who runs the clubs and leagues.

As a sidenote, it's nice to see that, after the totally overblown media criticism from some snooty papers of the England fans at Edgbaston, we saw two cancelled games of cricket where there were no riots. Fans drank and sang but there wasn't any scenes of violence or racist chanting. Cricket fans have shown themselves in a good light after the Millwall-West Ham debacle.

Question why there was only a small area of the pitch that was unfit to play on.
Question why both matches were held at OT.
Question why decisions like this are made late on in the evening if it's obvious there will be no play.

But DON'T question why players and umpires deemed the pitch unfit to play and DON'T question why people didn't change the game just so the supporters would see some form of cricket!

In football, if a penalty area was frozen and considered unsafe, you wouldn't play on half the pitch and make it a 5-a-side just to keep the fans happy

@ JLindseyGreen

'I think it is so sad that international cricketers today are more worried about their T20 status for IPL contracts and not about the paying public'
Its quite fashionable nowadays to blame everything on the IPL. What has IPL got to do with ECB and LCCC's incompetence? They cannot even conduct one T20 and compare this to the IPL organisation of just moving the whole tournament to another country. Now that is planning & execution!
If Flintoff's knee breaks its the IPL, if Ravi Bopara cant score a run its the IPL...just sickening!! Wake up to the realities that being rubbish at something and finding excuses for everything wont go far.

Atrocious point-missing from Dirs here, and some of the most moronic comments I've ever seen on a BBC blog, and that's saying something.

Trotting out the same tired line about 'sport being part of the entertainment business' is cheap, fatuous and serves no purpose. Yes, maybe it is, but if conditions aren't fit for it, then they're not fit for it, and that's that. Suggestions that there should be a spinners-only, one-end only, mickey mouse game are absurd. These are professional sportsmen and should not be subjected to pinning the tail on the donkey to satistfy some drunken oafs.

Moaning that it took them two hours to call off the game? Would have been happier had they called it off BEFORE two hours of sunshine, and before the state of the affected area became evident, would you? Thought not. Think before you speak.

As for not getting refunds on games partially finished? Obviously if the game wasn't finished, there are no costs to the ground, are there? None whatsoever, no security, no capital outlay, no nothing. Think before you bleat 'it's just part of the entertainment business'.

People are forgetting that cricket is cricket, and that it is vulnerable to the weather. It always has been, always will be. You can never completely protect the game from the elements. Nobody should be expected to do their job in conditions that are unsafe, and coming up with all sorts of mickey mouse solutions to see 'a game', rather than the game you paid to see, makes a mockery of the game.

Cricket may be 'a part of the entertainment business', but it's a part called cricket, and it has its own characteristics, just like all the other parts. Twenty20 has seen it go far enough down the bland road of nouveau football and anodyne fa-mi-lee friendliness, and what-do-I-tell-my-kiddies. It's still SPORT. Comparisons with theatre and Jude Law are fatuous nonsense.

Just at in the test at Edgbaston, this is so frustrating!

Surely it must be possibly to put matting on the tiny part of the ground that was too wet, to create a stable enough surface for the bowlers?

Old Trafford was a fine venue until yesterday. 20-20 is a bit of an international nonsense in any case but the ground could have been better prepared than it was. Bowlers run-ups should be fully covered and if not then that is shoddy. There is an equal duty of care to the spectators as well as the players. I suppose that their tickets are reimbursed but travel and other expenses and can you put a price on disappointment ?

Be interesting to compare the state of the Old Trafford run ups to that experienced in this years and last year's IPL games?

Would Collingwood and Clarke have taken the same stance if they were getting paid £50k a game? Hmmmm.

I think people have missed the point with this. Yes it is entertainment but should it be diluted just to give the audience something to watch. Bowling only spinners or making fast bowlers shorten their run ups ruins what people paid to come and watch, would people watch football if the strikers were not allowed to score ? It should have been a spectacle to see lee, Johnson and nannes bowling over 90mph and would have been a farce to instead see hussey white and Clarke tossing it up instead. Lancashire is solely to blame in my opinion as they produced a unplayable arena. The interview with Jim cumbes shows how out of date administrators are in England and how we will never get the radical reforms in county cricket we need in order to produce the best players for international cricket.

To be honest, I wouldn't personally pay to watch 20/20, or, "tip n run" as it was called when I was a kid back in the 50's....but...the fans of that form of the game deserve far better than what they were served up at OT.
To the person who banged on about litigation and the paying customer doesn't count...that seems to be the view of the ECB who "administer" this great game by the principles of deception and thievery, creating the perception that the paying "customer" is going to get something he clearly is not.
When the "paying customers" walk away from the grounds fed up to the backteeth of being shafted. we'll see what the Devil , in the form of Sky TV does then!!
Well written Ben, though I suspect you were holding your feelings back due to the restraints of the National PC Corporation.

Just for everyone's info, Lancashire are 24 for 1 v Sussex, at, guess where? Yup, Old Trafford!! What a difference a day makes!!

I think the problem here is that people feel they're getting ripped off from every angle. It's one issue when a game of cricket is called off - but when you're getting charged over the odds for food and drink in the ground as well it gets irritating. All it takes is a gesture of goodwill - not necessarily by playing with reduced run ups etc - but perhaps some complimentary drinks and a discounted price for a future event. It's no real compensation but at least it shows that the organisers care a little

By the way, has anyone written an angry letter to the ECB about this yet? It's surely the only way we could make it a bit more english

If the stage is unsafe, in any form of entertainment, the show does NOT go on.

collingwood showed a lot of arrogance as he spoke about "international cricket". You would of thought he would make the most of it, as with his current form, it is not something that will be worrying him for much longer....
the people who run our great game of cricket should read the comments on this page. the amount of people who have been cheated and will not return to cricket should be of great concern to them. sadly, with the decisions the ecb, they probably cant read.