England & Aus docked points

[Mule]

It’s about the paying customer for me, over the last few years test cricket has become extremely expensive to watch and at the very least fans should see the allocated overs for the money paid.

Your first point only did not happen because of Englands brilliant scoring rate, it’s entirely feasible the slow over rate could stop possible results.

They is no reasonable defense of it imo and surprised tbh some defending it

Depends what your metric is for vfm. A guaranteed number of Boycsball overs, or fewer overs in Bazball mode? I'd prefer the latter any day, but each to their own.

That's not to deny slow rates are a problem that should be gripped. It's just that I think some credit should be given for teams and captains who play in a way that seems a win even if it risks defeat. That seems a pretty reasonable defence to me.

Yes. Most go for 1 day. If you go to day 1 and get 80 overs you haven’t seen a win

True. But I'd rather see 80 overs of aggressive cricket, than 90 overs of tedium. However, it's a personal view.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Depends what your metric is for vfm. A guaranteed number of Boycsball overs, or fewer overs in Bazball mode? I'd prefer the latter any day, but each to their own.

That's not to deny slow rates are a problem that should be gripped. It's just that I think some credit should be given for teams and captains who play in a way that seems a win even if it risks defeat. That seems a pretty reasonable defence to me.

True. But I'd rather see 80 overs of aggressive cricket, than 90 overs of tedium. However, it's a personal view.

I’d rather see 90 overs of aggressive cricket.

 

[Mule]

I’d rather see 90 overs of aggressive cricket.

How many of England's innings lasted 90 overs? Enforcing 90 opd could result in half a days play for day 5, if the game got that far. That would potentially hit revenues.

Like I said, penalize slow over rates only where a game is drawn.

Out of interest, how many people think that this Ashes series did not give vfm? If it did, why are over rates being made the principal whipping horse?

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

How many of England's innings lasted 90 overs? Enforcing 90 opd could result in half a days play for day 5, if the game got that far. That would potentially hit revenues.

Like I said, penalize slow over rates only where a game is drawn.

Out of interest, how many people think that this Ashes series did not give vfm? If it did, why are over rates being made the principal whipping horse?

You’re conflating 2 completely separate issues to be honest.

Your point holds if a spectator goes for the full 5 days.

Otherwise it doesn’t

 

[Voice of fair play]

Depends what your metric is for vfm. A guaranteed number of Boycsball overs, or fewer overs in Bazball mode? I'd prefer the latter any day, but each to their own.

That's not to deny slow rates are a problem that should be gripped. It's just that I think some credit should be given for teams and captains who play in a way that seems a win even if it risks defeat. That seems a pretty reasonable defence to me.

True. But I'd rather see 80 overs of aggressive cricket, than 90 overs of tedium. However, it's a personal view.

Absolutely you will not get a bigger fan of Bazball on here than me!

I have been singing the praises of it from day one and had many a discussion with posters defending it to the hilt as absolutely love it and much much much prefer it than previous cricket played by England

But imo you have linked something to it that not linked.

It’s very weak argument imo to just say because we playing aggressive cricket that it’s ok to short change fans with less overs because it’s not.

Aggressive cricket, boring cricket, middle ground cricket, the bottom line is fans paying expensive prices should see the allocated overs

 

[Mule]

You’re conflating 2 completely separate issues to be honest.

Your point holds if a spectator goes for the full 5 days.

Otherwise it doesn’t

Sorry, I disagree. Regulations that guarantee what you see have to apply to all days of play or they apply to none. A spectator on days 4 and 5 has as much right to those attending days 1-3.

But imo you have linked something to it that not linked.

It’s very weak argument imo to just say because we playing aggressive cricket that it’s ok to short change fans with less overs because it’s not.

Aggressive cricket, boring cricket, middle ground cricket, the bottom line is fans paying expensive prices should see the allocated overs

Why are you so hung up on the number of balls bowled as a metric for vfm? Why not the percentage of dot balls the batting side accept?

Focussing solely on balls bowled in a day is counting stuff because its is easy to count, not because it is most important.

I ask again, did you enjoy the Ashes? If so, why are over rates more important than other aspects of the game.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Sorry, I disagree. Regulations that guarantee what you see have to apply to all days of play or they apply to none. A spectator on days 4 and 5 has as much right to those attending days 1-3.

Why are you so hung up on the number of balls bowled as a metric for vfm? Why not the percentage of dot balls the batting side accept?

Focussing solely on balls bowled in a day is counting stuff because its is easy to count, not because it is most important.

I ask again, did you enjoy the Ashes? If so, why are over rates more important than other aspects of the game.

They get their money back on 4/5 if there is no play. They also get cheaper tickets for the reason that play is likely to be less

 

[Mule]

They get their money back on 4/5 if there is no play. They also get cheaper tickets for the reason that play is likely to be less

Fair one. How about answering my question?

 

[Voice of fair play]

Sorry, I disagree. Regulations that guarantee what you see have to apply to all days of play or they apply to none. A spectator on days 4 and 5 has as much right to those attending days 1-3.

Why are you so hung up on the number of balls bowled as a metric for vfm? Why not the percentage of dot balls the batting side accept?

Focussing solely on balls bowled in a day is counting stuff because its is easy to count, not because it is most important.

I ask again, did you enjoy the Ashes? If so, why are over rates more important than other aspects of the game.

Of course I enjoyed it, it was simply brilliant

But don’t get your argument in the slightest you wouldn’t say it’s ok to finish a football match at 75 minutes because the game had been a brilliant 4 4 entertaining draw.

What would you say then ‘What do you prefer a 4-4 draw after 75 minutes or a 0-0 draw after 90 mins.

It would not happen you would expect the full time to be played at a football match irrespective of the entertainment on show the same should apply to a cricket match

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Fair one. How about answering my question?

You didn’t ask me a question did you? I’ll answer if you can show me again

 

[Mule]

Of course I enjoyed it, it was simply brilliant

But don’t get your argument in the slightest you wouldn’t say it’s ok to finish a football match at 75 minutes because the game had been a brilliant 4 4 entertaining draw.

What would you say then ‘What do you prefer a 4-4 draw after 75 minutes or a 0-0 draw after 90 mins.

It would not happen you would expect the full time to be played at a football match irrespective of the entertainment on show the same should apply to a cricket match

Fair enough. But your football analogy equates to game time, rather than activity within the 90 mins as represented by oph. The full match time was played during the Ashes tests - weather permitting. What is the football equivalent of oph? Shots? Passes? Tackles? Distance run? It's not that easy.

You didn’t ask me a question did you? I’ll answer if you can show me again

The ones about whether you enjoyed the Ashes, and if so, why are over rates that important if positive results are achieved?

The final point I'd make is that slow over rates can be an issue, but it needs a much more finely tuned set of sanctions to sort it out. The current system is too blunt and achieves very little. If one side bowls out the opposition twice and scores more runs within that scheduled MATCH time, what's the importance of the daily oph problem? The recent tests suggest it's not that big an issue.

Unless of course, you're an Indian who wants to qualify for the next WTC final....

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Fair enough. But your football analogy equates to game time, rather than activity within the 90 mins as represented by oph. The full match time was played during the Ashes tests - weather permitting. What is the football equivalent of oph? Shots? Passes? Tackles? Distance run? It's not that easy.

The ones about whether you enjoyed the Ashes, and if so, why are over rates that important if positive results are achieved?

The final point I'd make is that slow over rates can be an issue, but it needs a much more finely tuned set of sanctions to sort it out. The current system is too blunt and achieves very little. If one side bowls out the opposition twice and scores more runs within that scheduled MATCH time, what's the importance of the daily oph problem? The recent tests suggest it's not that big an issue.

Unless of course, you're an Indian who wants to qualify for the next WTC final....

Sure I enjoyed it

Again, why does it matter? Because it’s less cricket. You can argue that positive cricket with fewer overs is better than negative cricket with the same overs. Sure.

But the two things are not correlated at all. As sports fans sometimes you get great matches, sometimes you get crap ones.

Man City fans should be happy with 20mins vs Everton fans getting the full 90

 

[Mule]

Sure I enjoyed it

Again, why does it matter? Because it’s less cricket. You can argue that positive cricket with fewer overs is better than negative cricket with the same overs. Sure.

But the two things are not correlated at all. As sports fans sometimes you get great matches, sometimes you get crap ones.

Man City fans should be happy with 20mins vs Everton fans getting the full 90

My point about football remains the same. Time and activity are not the same. The 'full 90' analogy is inappropriate. Weather permitting, we got the full game time at the tests.

Test cricket is about winning and losing. If England and Australia have found a way to do that and bowl at 12 oph, fair play to them. However, if they bowl at that rate and draw, penalize them. I won't complain.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

My point about football remains the same. Time and activity are not the same. The 'full 90' analogy is inappropriate. Weather permitting, we got the full game time at the tests.

Test cricket is about winning and losing. If England and Australia have found a way to do that and bowl at 12 oph, fair play to them. However, if they bowl at that rate and draw, penalize them. I won't complain.

Fair enough. I strongly disagree.

I would agree if all spectators were there for the full 5 days

 

[Mule]

Fair enough. I strongly disagree.

I would agree if all spectators were there for the full 5 days

It would be a boring world if we all thought the same.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

How did slow over rates adversely affect the series? None of the Ashes tests failed to reach a result. Even Old Trafford would have completed had the weather not intervened.

I'm all for getting the due amount of daily play, but perhaps the penalties should apply in drawn Tests with minimal weather interruptions only?

And while I'm on, penalize the shit-tip spinner friendly tracks that any country serves up. They deny vfm as much as slow over rates.

They were 30 overs down after the 3rd day of the Old Trafford test. That's poor.

 

[Mule]

They were 30 overs down after the 3rd day of the Old Trafford test. That's poor.

At the end of day 3 at Old Trafford 1,022 runs had been scored and 24 wickets had been taken. There were also weather delays and 7 DRS breaks. Given that half of day 4 and all of day 5 were weathered out, England were more than doing enough to win regardless of the over rates.

In those circumstances, complaining about the overs bowled per day is like saying Heidi Klum cooks a shit breakfast. It might be true but the wider context is more important.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

At the end of day 3 at Old Trafford 1,022 runs had been scored and 24 wickets had been taken. There were also weather delays and 7 DRS breaks. Given that half of day 4 and all of day 5 were weathered out, England were more than doing enough to win regardless of the over rates.

In those circumstances, complaining about the overs bowled per day is like saying Heidi Klum cooks a shit breakfast. It might be true but the wider context is more important.

They were still 30 overs down in 3 days which is pathetic.

There were no weather delays in the first 3 days of the 4th test

7 DRS breaks don't take 2 hours

 

[mackembhoy]

How did slow over rates adversely affect the series? None of the Ashes tests failed to reach a result. Even Old Trafford would have completed had the weather not intervened.

I'm all for getting the due amount of daily play, but perhaps the penalties should apply in drawn Tests with minimal weather interruptions only?

And while I'm on, penalize the shit-tip spinner friendly tracks that any country serves up. They deny vfm as much as slow over rates.

Yes we could have won more games if there had been more overs bowled?

 

[Mule]

They were still 30 overs down in 3 days which is pathetic.

There were no weather delays in the first 3 days of the 4th test

7 DRS breaks don't take 2 hours

There was a rain delay on the afternoon of day 3 and unspecified delay on the morning of day 1 according to Cricinfo.

England bowled 83 overs on day 1 and 7 on day 2. Australia bowled 72 on day 2, total 79. Australia bowled 33.4 overs and England 41 on day 3; total 74.

7 reviews might not take 2 hours, but fetching the ball back does. England hit 58 x 4s and 8 x 6s in their innings. That will eat into bowling time as well but I doubt anyone minded. It will also cause more frequent field changes as Australia tried to stem the flow of runs.

There is a load of context at Old Trafford that 90 opd blanks out.

Look at it another way. Assuming 1 min per turn around between overs leaves 45 mins to bowl. That means each over takes 3 minutes or each ball 30 seconds to achieve 15 oph. That might be an unrealistic ask in the modern game that pisses people off unnecessarily.

Yes we could have won more games if there had been more overs bowled?

The only game that wasn't won was due toss massive loss of time to the weather.