There is a common joke in country cricket circles - the only thing cricketers hate more than the sport itself is having to spend a Saturday afternoon playing it.
Anyone who's weathered a 30-degree day doing nothing in the field only to rock up the following weekend and get out first ball can tell you that.
Well, those long days look a thing of the past, whether welcome news or not.
Cricket Victoria has recommended leagues only play one-day and Twenty20 matches this summer as cricket prepares to start in a precarious environment for a second year running.
Horsham cricket association has heeded the advice because they lost a month at the start of the season and have a bye in A Grade according to HCA president Josh Mahoney.
"We're just trying to play as much cricket as possible," Mahoney said.
Limited over matches are divisive. A lot of things in cricket can be.
For many, the sport is at its purest when players wearing white compete in a battle of patience. Who will outwit and outlast the other?
For its supporters, one-day cricket is a natural evolution, a change that demands a stronger all-round skill set and forces a result.
At its very basic, the debate relies on a few things - time, action, outcomes.
Due to our new COVID environment, one part of that argument is answered for us.
Two-day cricket, which spans over two Saturdays, is simply too vulnerable to proceed in the current climate. Any slight change could throw the competition into disarray.
You only have to look at the football-netball season just gone to see where the issues lie.
What happens if one player is forced into home quarantine between the two matchdays?
Under current by-laws, there isn't the flexibility to change the 12-person squad in the middle of a two-day match. Even if tweaks were made, it opens the door for malpractice.
What do you do if the region is sent into lockdown in the middle of a match?
That scenario appears less likely once Victoria reaches its 80 per cent double vaccinated benchmark. However, as long as localised lockdowns remain a possibility, Horsham will still be at the mercy of sudden change.
Having two clear weekends is not a certainty in current times.
Until it is, one-day and Twenty20 matches are the only way to ensure as much cricket as possible can be played. The more games played the more legitimate the season's outcome.
On to the next sticking point - action.
Twenty20 has struggled to shake its tag as a slogger's dream.
The common knock on the shortest format is that it asks more a player's muscle and dare than it does of their ability to bat in its purest form.
That argument weakens when it comes to one-day matches, but traditionalists will still insist attrition and variability is the best test of a side's ability.
Two-day cricket, through its very nature, may offer more challenges. But that shouldn't be the sole argument against a limited-overs season.
Nothing is dictating that the same number of matches have to be played as previous seasons.
Is a fully limited-overs season where each club is guaranteed to play each other at least once any less compromised than a mixed-format summer where some powers may avoid fellow premiership contenders in a two-day match through the luck of the draw?
Then we come to finals.
You could make a fair argument to say cricket is simply too temperamental to decide a champion of 100 overs.
But, again, it's too dangerous to fall back on convention. Nothing is stopping a best-of-three series, or any other different finals format from being played. Anything is possible.
The current environment demands agility. It's down to the cricket community to keep up.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: