The post was about floodlights in test cricket

so Championship experience during bad light with the red ball is relevant.

I'm surprised Sky would need to supplement the lights (which were clearly on last night), other than around the podium for the presentations at the end. They were installed this year, described as "world class" and "phenomenal" and given Bransgrove's aspirations for the ground, you'd expect them to be up to spec. They are certainly good enough to play under and have been used for non-televised day-night games. Given that TV cameras are much more sensitive that the human eye, why do they need more light than the players? We have to be reminded sometimes by the commentators at tests that the light is worse than it looks on the TV picture.

Posted By: watfordcanary, Aug 22, 12:18:23