Independent Journalism • Global Truth
Nearly 61 overs have been lost to bad light at Kingsmead despite a new ICC rule allowing daytime use of the pink ball — a fix the teams never discussed. Shaun Pollock says it would have saved 45 overs on day one alone. The deeper failure is cricket's: inventing solutions it refuses to use.
There is a particular kind of frustration that only cricket can produce. On day one of the first Test between South Africa and Australia at Kingsmead, in Durban, the players walked off at 15:23 local time — not because of rain, not because of a waterlogged outfield, but because the light was deemed insufficient. Only 65.2 of the 90 scheduled overs had been bowled. By the end of day three, nearly 61 overs had vanished into the Durban gloom, and a Test that Australia had dominated from the start was drifting, absurdly, toward a draw. The weather did this, yes. But cricket did the rest.
Here is what makes the Kingsmead farce so galling: the sport already had the answer. Last week, the ICC amended its playing conditions to allow the pink ball — the more visible alternative long confined to day-night Tests — to be used in daytime matches when bad light is expected. The rule was written for precisely this scenario. And yet nobody used it. The two sides must agree to the pink ball before the Test begins, and according to reports, no such discussions were ever held. The lifeboat was on board. Nobody launched it.
The pattern was set on the opening day and repeated like clockwork. Hot, sunny mornings gave way to thickening afternoon cloud as the Durban sea breeze pushed humid air inland — a meteorological routine the locals could have predicted and, indeed, the BBC's weather presenter did predict in detail. This is the first October Test ever staged at Kingsmead, where the sun now sets shortly after 18:00; organisers had already brought the start forward to 09:30 to claw back time. It was not enough. Day one finished at 15:23, day two at 16:25, day three at 16:31. Each day ended while the evening session was still young.
The cricket that was played only sharpened the sense of waste. Australia, having been reduced to 124 for 6, recovered to 390 — a fightback built on an unbeaten stand between Matt Renshaw and Pat Cummins after a top-order collapse that included Nic Maddinson's miserable 33-ball duck. South Africa closed day two on 27 for 1. Then on day three came the moment that summed everything up: Maddinson flicked a delivery over square leg, fielder Ryan Rickelton lost the ball in the gloom as it sailed over his head for six, the umpires reached for the light meter, and stumps were called. Play did not end because the ball was unplayable. It ended because the ball was invisible. Shaun Pollock has argued that with a pink ball in hand, the umpires' light meters would have stayed in their pockets.
Pollock's intervention has been the clearest voice in the debate. The former South Africa captain, who sat on the ICC committee that recommended pink balls for daytime Tests, told SuperSport that the pink ball would have bought "45 more overs of Test cricket" on the first day alone, and urged the game not to be scared of it. He is right to call out the double standard at the heart of the pink-ball scepticism: had Australia's recovery from 124 for 6 come with a pink ball in use, everyone would have blamed the ball; had the innings folded, the ball would have been blamed for that too. The pink ball, in Pollock's telling, is convicted whatever it does. The red ball gets the benefit of every doubt.
Vernon Philander has pushed the argument further, suggesting umpires should be empowered to enforce the pink ball rather than leaving the decision to the teams. That is the crucial point. The current rule hands the solution to the very people least incentivised to use it. A team that is behind on the day may well prefer stumps to come early; a team that is ahead may not want to disturb its rhythm. Asking captains to negotiate equipment changes mid-crisis is like asking rival managers to agree on the length of half-time. It will not happen. The umpires — neutral, empowered, present — are the obvious arbiters, and the ICC's reluctance to give them that authority looks increasingly like cowardice dressed up as consultation.
Strip away the technicalities and what remains is the oldest complaint in cricket: the paying spectator. A ticket at a Test match buys, in theory, 90 overs of international cricket. At Kingsmead this week it has bought, on average, barely 70. Verity's sports section has covered a packed month of action, from Novak Djokovic's 102nd career title to England's 7-0 demolition of Croatia — sports where the paying fan at least gets what was advertised. There are no refunds for the light. Television schedules, already stretched by a format that takes five days to reach a conclusion, absorb the losses and move on. But the people in the stands — the ones cricket claims it is trying to keep as the format competes with T20 leagues for attention — go home early, again, for reasons that were entirely foreseeable.
This is where the Kingsmead episode stops being a weather story and becomes an existential one. Test cricket's great vulnerability has never been that it is too slow; it is that it is too fragile. A format that can be derailed by cloud cover, that loses a fifth of its scheduled play to conditions everyone saw coming, that possesses a ready-made technical fix and declines to deploy it — that format is not being victimised by circumstance. It is being failed by its custodians.
The fixes are not mysterious. First, the pink-ball provision should be an umpire's decision, not a pre-match negotiation. If the light meters say the red ball is unplayable, the umpires should be able to switch to pink without either captain's permission — exactly as Philander has argued. Second, the pre-match "agreement" requirement should be scrapped; it is a fig leaf that allows both teams to dodge responsibility. Third, venues with predictable light patterns — and Durban's October gloom is nothing if not predictable — should have contingency plans built into the schedule rather than improvised after the fact.
None of this requires reinventing the game. Cricket has already reinvented itself repeatedly: day-night Tests, the World Test Championship, white-ball revolutions that the purists swore would kill the sport. Each innovation was opposed, each was eventually absorbed. The pink ball in daylight is a far smaller leap than any of them. What stands in the way is not tradition but institutional timidity — the fear that acting decisively will upset someone, somewhere.
As the BBC's own analysis of the Durban Test has noted, the ICC changed the rules and the game still lost 61 overs. Rules that nobody invokes are not rules; they are press releases. Until cricket gives its umpires the tools and the authority to keep play going, bad light will keep doing what it did at Kingsmead: stealing the cricket, one afternoon at a time, while everyone involved insists nothing could have been done. More opinion and analysis is available from Verity, or start from our homepage.
!A pink cricket ball, the type proposed for use in fading light at Kingsmead
Credit: Aravind Sivaraj / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0
On day one of the first Test between South Africa and Australia, play was halted at 15:23 local time with only 65.2 of the scheduled 90 overs bowled. Day two ended at 16:25 and day three at 16:31 — both well before the close. Across the first three days, nearly 61 overs have been lost to bad light, raising the real possibility of a draw in a match Australia have otherwise dominated.
Last week the International Cricket Council amended its playing conditions to allow teams to use the pink ball — traditionally reserved for day-night Tests — in daytime matches when bad light is expected. Crucially, however, the two teams must agree to its use before the Test begins. South Africa and Australia held no such discussions, so the option sat unused while the light faded each afternoon.
The pink ball is more visible against darkening skies and floodlights than the traditional red ball, which is why it was introduced for day-night cricket. Former South Africa captain Shaun Pollock, who served on the ICC committee that recommended pink balls for daytime Tests, has argued that it would have kept play going at Kingsmead: "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."
Pollock has urged the game to stop being scared of the pink ball, dismissing concerns that it moves excessively or goes soft too quickly — noting that the same criticisms would be levelled at the red ball in the same match situations. Fellow former seamer Vernon Philander has gone further, suggesting umpires should be empowered to enforce the pink ball's use rather than leaving it to the teams' discretion.
Durban's weather is famously predictable: hot sunny mornings give way to afternoon cloud as a sea breeze drives humid air inland, thickening and lowering the cloud cover just as the evening session should be building. This is the first Test ever played at Kingsmead in October, when the sun sets shortly after 18:00 — conditions that made early finishes all but certain. Play was already starting at 09:30 local time to compensate, and it still wasn't enough.
ANALYSIS: Schoolgirls in hijabs turned away from classrooms, rare street protests, dozens detained — and a diplomatic spat with Turkey. Azerbaijan's headscarf rules have exposed the fault lines beneath one of the world's closest alliances.
ANALYSIS: Starlink is the backbone of Ukraine's battlefield communications — and this week's speed restrictions on its military-grade service show how a private satellite network became a lever of war, diplomacy and presidential pressure.
Manchester City produced a ruthless 3-0 win at Liverpool in their first match since an independent commission found them guilty of serious financial breaches. It was a statement of defiance — but with the club's appeal pending, the entire season is being played under a cloud no scoreline can dispel.
Labour held Keir Starmer's old seat of Holborn and St Pancras, but Zack Polanski's Greens tripled their vote share to 33% — a result that asks searching questions of Andy Burnham's young premiership and the future of the British left.