Why should stump mics be turned down? If anything, broadcasters should up the volume

SIMON HUGHES: It would add to the viewers and spectators entertainment, amplify the dramatic moments and make the public feel closer to the game

^{A technician sets up a stump microphone}

Another sparse crowd for the start of a big Test series - South Africa vs Australia in Durban - is a further blow to the future of the longer format.

The Australians' request to have the stump mics turned down in between balls set me thinking. In my view the stump mics should be turned UP. It’s a quick and easy way to increase the drama, engage the audience more and enliven dull periods of play. 

Why were the stump mics put there in the first place? To add to the experience for the TV viewer and get them closer to the action.

I remember first noticing it on the Channel 9 coverage from Australia in the 1980s. I was impressed by the rumble of the bowler running in, the explosive click of his studs as he landed at the wicket, the expectant tap of the bat in the crease, the thwack of the willow on leather or the clapping and encouragement of the slips as the ball whooshed past the edge.

The occasional death rattle as a stump is uprooted caps it all.  

One of television’s last frontiers is how to convey to the audience how fast the bowling actually is (a small, or even large, screen does not do it justice).

^{Australia asked for the microphones to be turned down in South Africa}

Sound - especially in the age of the ‘100 decibel sound bar with Dolby’ - can help. A few years ago I experimented with microphones placed on a fast bowler’s body, part way along his run up, beside the pitch near where the ball lands and on the batsman picking up his movements (heartbeat etc).

I put together a few deliveries using all those sounds and it certainly added to the drama of the delivery. Good use of sound made the bowling seem faster.

Think how crucial sound is to Blue Planet and other nature films (if you’re not convinced watch one with the sound off.) Cricket could borrow from that.

I am not suggesting employing the people who rub tea bags together to mimic the sound of insects copulating on cricket coverage (adding artificial ‘swooshes’ as the ball flies through, for instance). Just making more imaginative use of the sounds that are already available from the stump mics and other sources around the ground. 

One of the most common questions asked of players at Q&As is what is the best sledge they have ever heard. Few are able to come up with one. They are mostly basic, banal comments from exasperated bowlers. Very occasionally they are funny. 

The ICC insist that broadcasters mute the sound from the stump mics as soon as the ball has been hit or left. They are denying the audience all the interesting stuff going on between balls. The batsman talking (or singing) to himself. The agonised exclamation of the bowler after a play and miss or him exchanging a quip with the umpire (‘not too much bounce here eh Tucks, no chance of an lbw being too high is there..?’) And, of course, the banter between fielders and batsmen.

That is the material the ICC (and the Aussies) don’t want the public to hear. Why? One of the most common questions asked of players at Q&As is what is the best sledge they have ever heard. Few are able to come up with one.

They are mostly basic, banal comments from exasperated bowlers. Very occasionally they are funny. Even more occasionally they should only be broadcast after the watershed. If that is the case, the player should be fined. It would soon nip any personal abuse in the bud. 

The stump mics should be live at all times - to the ground as well as the TV audience. It would add to the viewers and spectators entertainment, amplify the dramatic moments and make the public feel closer to the game.

And everyone would realise that sledging is much more interesting in a snowy park than on an international cricket ground.