• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

England v India - Third Test, 10/07

Jap Stammer said:
The whole WTC charade is skewed towards teams who play in spin-friendly conditions and who can pack their bowling attacks with bowlers with short run-ups and quick over rates.

No consideration seems to be made for the playing conditions or the type of bowling attacks selected.

Doesn't take a genius to work out who that benefits.
Click to expand...

I’m not buying that, they have 6 and a half hours to bowl 90 overs. There’s no excuse for not achieving it. County teams manage 96 overs in a day.

If the ICC changed the rules to follow the county game, where all overs on every day had to be bowled (weather permitting) they’d sharp speed things up and make it happen, cause nobody would want to be out there for 7 hours plus.
 

Voice of fair play said:
Yeah it always confused me why as long as light ok, they don’t just make teams stay out there until all the overs bowled.

Seems too straightforward I must be missing something
Click to expand...
Agree entirely with that, mind you.
dangermows said:
It's a bit unfair to be targeting the discussion at bowling units re over rates mind. Half the time it's the batters messing about that holds things up. As previously discussed, if the bowler is at his mark he should just bowl.
Click to expand...
^This.

The onus is (or should be) on the batsman to be ready once the bowler is at the start of their run-up. There's no excuse for them not to be, really.
Raymondo said:
I’m not buying that, they have 6 and a half hours to bowl 90 overs. There’s no excuse for not achieving it. County teams manage 96 overs in a day.

If the ICC changed the rules to follow the county game, where all overs on every day had to be bowled (weather permitting) they’d sharp speed things up and make it happen, cause nobody would want to be out there for 7 hours plus.
Click to expand...
Agree.
 
dangermows said:
It's a bit unfair to be targeting the discussion at bowling units re over rates mind. Half the time it's the batters messing about that holds things up. As previously discussed, if the bowler is at his mark he should just bowl.
Click to expand...

I’ve thought for a while that the worst culprits for time wasting are the umpires - taking an age checking the ball and replacing it, allowing all these impromptu drinks breaks when there should only be one in a session and then generally not doing their job of keeping the game moving. It’s good to hear that the pundits have started picking up on this too and calling it out.
 
Provider said:
In this country it's because Sky don't want to go beyond 6.30pm.
Click to expand...

Has that actually been confirmed though? Cause often with any with any rain/light interruptions play will continue beyond 20:00 and they’d cover it.

Seems odd too that with all of the channels available to them (most of which will be showing re-runs the majority of time) they wouldn’t be happy to be showing actual live sport.
 
Provider said:
In this country it's because Sky don't want to go beyond 6.30pm.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Sky. It's an ICC ruling that play in tests can only go over schedule by 30 minutes.

Sky have a dedicated cricket channel.so they can accommodate play going on much later if that were allowed to happen.

When they show the odd county game, they sometimes go beyond 7pm and Sky stay with the game till the close.
 
Aidan11 said:
Nothing to do with Sky. It's an ICC ruling that play in tests can only go over schedule by 30 minutes.

Sky have a dedicated cricket channel.so they can accommodate play going on much later if that were allowed to happen.

When they show the odd county game, they sometimes go beyond 7pm and Sky stay with the game till the close.
Click to expand...
Fair play. I didn't actually know that about the ICC ruling. I genuinely thought it was TV putting the pressure on.
 
Provider said:
Fair play. I didn't actually know that about the ICC ruling. I genuinely thought it was TV putting the pressure on.
Click to expand...

Stupid ruling though, given they allow an hour extra for any interruptions and more importantly, will play for as long as it takes on Day 5 to get the overs in.
 
Its obviously a problem but it comes at a time where test matches have never been as exciting and entertaining. Its rare that you have dull test match or a dull days play within a test match and there were plenty in the past when over rates were better? I think the dukes ball and asking for ball changes is a big problem and one that needs resolving but beyond that I am not as fussed about it as others. I've never had as much value for money watching test matches as I have had in recent years. Its only this series where it has bothered me much but in the main that's been caused by the ball situation. I would rather have 82 over in a day of absolute quality than 90 with a slightly reduced quality.
 
rentaghost said:
Its obviously a problem but it comes at a time where test matches have never been as exciting and entertaining. Its rare that you have dull test match or a dull days play within a test match and there were plenty in the past when over rates were better? I think the dukes ball and asking for ball changes is a big problem and one that needs resolving but beyond that I am not as fussed about it as others. I've never had as much value for money watching test matches as I have had in recent years. Its only this series where it has bothered me much but in the main that's been caused by the ball situation. I would rather have 82 over in a day of absolute quality than 90 with a slightly reduced quality.
Click to expand...
Do we really believe though that an extra 8 overs would reduce the quality even slightly?

I certainly don’t.

You may have gathered in my posts :D

That I totally agree wholeheartedly that we have never had it soo good, entertainment wise in test cricket.

However that is surely down to the positive outlook and mindset nowadays and nothing to do with less overs been bowled.

Paying public who have never had to pay as much to watch test cricket which is expensive deserve to watch the full allocation of overs?

Irrespective of the entertainment on a particular day
 
I can't say that I notice that the over rate is pretty sluggish and whilst playing until the 90 overs are complete is sound enough later finishes can be a tremendous inconvenience for spectators,many of whom may have travelled long distances. Run deductions seem to be the only meaningful sanction for slow over rates. Pecuniary fines aren't going to bother wealthy cricketers.
 
Parkside said:
I can't say that I notice that the over rate is pretty sluggish and whilst playing until the 90 overs are complete is sound enough later finishes can be a tremendous inconvenience for spectators,many of whom may have travelled long distances. Run deductions seem to be the only meaningful sanction for slow over rates. Pecuniary fines aren't going to bother wealthy cricketers.
Click to expand...
I think though if players know they have to wait to bowl the full 90 overs before they allowed of the field, later finishes may not happen as much as we think.

As players may get a more on rather than inconvenience all concerned.

I certainly think asking players to get through 90 overs by 6.00/6.30 is a achieveable ask
 
There's probably an argument somewhere that says that we're only getting just over 4 days worth in 5 days anyway. If they did get on with it, 4 day scheduling would be a less contentious argument and they could have an extra day on the golf course/ at home to get over the exertion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top