It has been dismal at Lord’s over the past three days but the frustration at being denied cricket for much of that time has been heightened by the fact that it has only been persistent drizzle or light rain, that has at times been only marginally too poor, that has kept the players off the field.

With apocalyptic thunderstorms everyone knows where they stand, but with weather that is best described as iffy, it just leaves everyone wondering what might have been and if there was any way that umpires and players could have conjured up more time in the middle.

Bad light has caused more bad feeling than anything over the years. For those of us that are present for professional reasons at every day of the international summer it is easier to be inured to the inaction.

That said, it is not my greatest love in this business to remain strapped to my chair introducing more recorded action while explaining that yet another inspection has been delayed because it has started to rain again.

For the family that sets out in the morning from some far flung location, catches the train to London, finds Lord’s under grey skies but with no actual rain falling and is still denied cricket I suspect that frustration is an inadequate word.

To clarify the form with bad light, the umpires in international cricket, unlike their counterparts in domestic cricket this season, where the system is now changed to leave the decisions about light and fitness of the ground solely in the hands of the umpire, will decide merely that the light has reached an unacceptably low level and then offer the batsmen the chance to leave the field. It is up to the batsmen to decide what happens next.

There will be times when they decide that tactically they are better off staying on but in the first couple of days of a Test it is inevitable that the decision will be to go off, to wait for a time when conditions are more favourable. Mind you, only last year England were left to rue time lost when they had India on the verge of defeat, nine down, and time ran out on the final day.

What can one do to encourage all concerned to stay on then field? The feeling is, and it has become something of a cliché, that cricket should remember that it is in the entertainment game, and looking at covers on a pitch while it is not raining is a very bad thing.

Players, it is said, should remember who pays their wages and get out and play. Are they really at risk? Are they being precious? I sympathise with all that, but up to a point. I still feel strongly that Test cricket should be played in acceptable conditions and somewhere along the line there is a reasonable, low limit in terms of available light, below which it is wrong to expect players to produce quality cricket under conditions fair to both sides.

The low limits established by the umpires at Lord’s could be further lowered without necessarily spoiling the contest. It is by no means a criticism of Simon Taufel and Steve Bucknor, who have been entirely and scrupulously efficient in administering the law and their interpretation of it. It would need the cooperation of the ICC, the Boards and the captains to allow the umpires to change that interpretation.

There are other suggestions that might be able to help alleviate these problems and they include the use of floodlights in Test matches or even the use of a different coloured ball.

Taufel, a rightly much-respected umpire, explained during one of those breaks that floodlights have not made much of a difference in daytime conditions. Whenever that option has been used, it has maybe given spectators an extra ten minutes or so but not much more, so it is hardly a solution. All that happens is that even with the extra light, there comes a time when the red ball is hard to track and off they go.

As for a different colour ball? Well, it would be a major change and one that could have MCC’s members coughing and spluttering into their gin and tonics - sorry about the stereotype! The club has, of course, being trialling the latest colour, pink, earlier this year and I took a pink ball out with me before play yesterday morning. It is being trialled with one day cricket in mind, to try and solve some of the problems associated with white balls and there is no intent at the moment to extend that experiment to the longer forms of the game.

However, in the gloom at Lord’s, that brand new pink ball almost glowed and the contrast with a normal red ball could not have been starker, making me wonder if there might indeed be a valid argument to use it in the longer game.

There is a long way to go still with that trial, and we would all need to find out whether the pink ball will last the distance, whether it be through a one day international or a day of proper cricket, or whether there are any other unknown problems associated with the colour still to be discovered. No doubt, the way it looks on TV would need to be judged too. It is very much worth the effort to continue that trial apace and find the answers to those questions.

Another proposition emerging from the MCC’s World Cricket Committee is the idea of day-night Test cricket to counter falling attendances globally. It affects different countries in different ways and England is still very much in love with Test cricket. In Asia it is very different, as the subcontinent has become besotted with one day cricket.

There are too many good reasons to maintain the status quo with Test cricket, not least the potential change in conditions overseas as the sun goes to bed and the lights take over. I don’t think it will make enough of a difference in terms of getting people back in through the gates for a Test match either. If they want to watch one day cricket, what is going to change just because the game they don’t want to spend their money on is now taking place through the afternoon and evening?

My aversion to day-night Test cricket is strong and not just because, as Michael Atherton, in mischievous mood, suggested, it would seriously impair my and Sir Ian’s social life of an evening!