“Rain stopped play” is one of the most dismal phrases associated with cricket. It conjures up images of spectators raising umbrellas in unison, of those without weatherproofs scrambling to find places of refuge and of decisions to be made as to whether to stay at the ground in the hope of play resuming.
Historically, such circumstances have typified Britain. However, as professional cricket has spread, both in terms of the countries in which it is played and into seasons which carry greater risks of adverse weather conditions, the chances of disruption have increased.
Additionally, the specter of climate change has wrought even more havoc with the task of preparing pitches and outfields, as well as keeping matches in play.
Several weeks ago, I had the good fortune to speak with Mick Hunt, former head groundsman at Lord’s Cricket Ground, London. Mick began his association with Lord’s in 1969, becoming the chief in 1985 until his retirement in 2018, a total of 49 years of experience in cricket ground curation. Thus, he is well placed to reflect on the changes which have occurred. Over the last 10 to 15 years, he believes that rainstorms have become heavier and more intense, and that four to five days of continuously warm temperatures have become more common. If they occur at critical times in the preparation sequence, then problems arise.
In Mick’s view, about 80 percent of what groundkeepers should set out to achieve — a pitch that provides for an even contest between bat and ball — is determined by the weather. In 2017, the UK Climate Coalition published a Game Changer Report which examined how climate change is impacting sports in the UK. Its message was that “of all the major pitch sports, cricket will be hardest hit by climate change. Whether Mumbai, Melbourne, Antigua or Lancashire, cricket is defined almost entirely by the climatic conditions. If they change, so does the essence of the game.”
There are distinct differences between countries in the challenges faced, but there are also some commonalities. One of these is that hotter and more humid conditions create more pests and fungal disease. General bans on the use of pesticides means that previous solutions are no longer available. Another is the feeling amongst groundkeepers that the natural seasons are less predictable than before.
Specific examples of localized disruptions occurred in Australia in 2017 and 2019, when poor air quality, caused by bushfire smoke, forced matches in Sydney to be abandoned or postponed. In 2017, a Test match in Delhi between India and Sri Lanka was interrupted when players were severely affected by elevated levels of pollution.
In South Africa, Western Province’s Cape Town suffered its worst drought in a hundred years between mid-2017 and mid-2018. This led, amongst many other deprivations, to the cancelation of club and school matches. At Newlands, the main cricket ground, only the pitch, with its high clay content, was watered, so as to keep within water restriction levels. Bangladesh is ranked the seventh most climate-vulnerable country in the world, followed by Pakistan, where in Karachi, 230 millimeters of monsoon rain fell in a single day in August 2020. Hurricanes in 2017 battered the Caribbean and destroyed, amongst other things, Dominica’s cricket stadium.
Although cricket is highly vulnerable to climatic variations, its administrators have been introducing measures to alleviate some of the effects. One notable development has been the installation of drainage systems. At Lord’s, during the autumn of 2002, the entire outfield, but not the square, was dug up and the natural clay-based soil replaced with a sand-based drainage system, the first in the UK. This allowed rainwater to drain from the top layer at a faster rate. Mick Hunt told me that the system’s installed draining capability was two inches of water per hour. It was not until July 2007 that this capability was tested. During day two of an England-India match, three hours of morning drizzle was followed by a deluge at 12.30 p.m. that caused complete flooding of the ground. By 1.50 p.m., to the amazement of all but Mick Hunt, play resumed.
There has been some criticism that this type of investment, which has been replicated at other major venues, is as much to do with preventing loss of play and, therefore, income, as addressing climate change issues. At Lord’s, Marylebone Cricket Club has invested in other initiatives. This means that the estate is now powered by 100 percent wind-generated electricity, no waste is sent directly to landfill and use of single-use plastic has reduced by more than half. Lord’s, in common with most professional sports arenas, has switched to using battery rather than petrol-powered machinery.
The UN Sport for Climate Action Framework has set out clear principles for tackling climate change. Recently, Australia men’s captain Pat Cummins, along with other Australian men and women players, started a Cricket for Climate movement. This is designed to encourage cricket clubs across Australia to achieve net-zero emissions over the next decade, starting with the installation of roof solar panels.
Although Cricket Australia has endorsed this initiative, it has not committed to the UN Framework. Nor, it appears, has either the International Cricket Council or the Board of Control for Cricket in India, though the latter did sign an agreement with UN Environmental in May 2018 to promote “green” cricket in India.
No doubt there are any number of political reasons why key administrative bodies in world cricket display reticence in committing direct agreements to tackle the crisis, succinctly described in August 2021 by the UN secretary-general as “code red for humanity.”
When the Dominican prime minister addressed the UN in September 2017, he remarked that “in the current system, those who reap the financial benefits from the emissions of greenhouse gases are not those who carry the costs … that is no longer a viable situation.”
Since then, the situation has not improved. Actions taken within cricket are fragmented and cry out for leadership and unity of purpose. No longer is the disconsolate raising of umbrellas a sufficient response.