As has already been said, players are going to walk, even run, from test cricket. 50% pay cut? Fast bowlers thinking why end the day knackered, eat, bed, get up and do it all again. Knackered, eat, etc. Or just sign up for a shed load of money to a game that limits how many overs you bowl, not the aches and pains. Test sides with spin bowlers, can't think of any off hand, but spinners are going to rattle through the overs and complete the days requirements, consequently topping the league. Hey bloody ho
There’s a vast number of really intelligent, ex cricketers who when they cast their opinions on over rates etc talk perfect sense. They make valid, well thought out points but let’s not listen to them eh? It’s beyond moronic how these things are calculated.
Absolutely 100% agree with deductions and fines for over rates, just staggered that aus didnt have similar deductions tbh. It's a disgrace the way teams, England included, go about it, over the course of a full 5 day game we the fans are losing out on over 2 full sessions of cricket, our players then have the nerve to moan about time lost.....
Just make them bowl the overs. Mark Butcher’s suggestion was start at 11.00 first morning and lunch isn’t taken until 30 overs have been bowled. if that means lunch is taken at 13.20 then reduce the lunch period by 20 minutes. Another 30 overs then tea, reduced time for tea if necessary and 30 overs before close. If bad light prevents the last 30 being bowled then start early the following day. How hard is that?
Never mind the quality, feel the width. We've just had one of the best series of test cricket ever - at a time when the game is dying - which has raised it's profile and sold it to a nation in a way that, say The Hundred!!!!, never will and the outcome is to punish the teams and the individual players. It's incredibly crass. Why should Zak Crawley and Ben Duckett lose their wages? They've not bowled a single over and are not in any way responsible for the slow over rate. We've seen some of the most exciting days of cricket I can ever remember and I've been watching test cricket for 50 years. Are you honestly suggesting that punters have walked out of the ground when England have creamed nigh on 400 runs in a day, complaining that they haven't had their moneys worth? It's idiotic, short sighted and a total nonsense. It renders the World Test Championship a farce - like awarding the World Cup to the team which has the least bookings or sending offs.
I don't disagree but can't believe it is that simple. Surely there will be a situation in which the bowling team benefit from these delays. Also how does that all work with a change of innings? It is bizarre that most days ended at 6.30 in bright sunshine. Rooty suggested just stay on until overs are bowled
I don't disagree but can't believe it is that simple. Surely there will be a situation in which the bowling team benefit from these delays. Also how does that all work with a change of innings? It is bizarre that most days ended at 6.30 in bright sunshine. Rooty suggested just stay on until overs are bowled
I was that incensed about this, I researched it. Some of it is really bizarre and puts the ICC in a terrible light. I am struggling to evaluate it, and so will just use bullet points. They actually announced changes on 13th July ( so after the third test). Cricinfo reported that Aussie bat Khawaja had strongly lobbied the ICC around the number of overs an innings should last for sanctions to apply. Wisden reported "I was pretty frustrated with what was happening," Khawaja said at Old Trafford ahead of the fourth Ashes Test. "I just thought someone has to find a way to speak to the ICC about it. We had played three games and they'd been three really good games with results, [providing] entertainment and we were getting fined 80% of our match fee. It's a lot of money. ICC made the announcement and that these would be imposed retrospectively to the beginning of this two year test championship cycle, so therefore included the whole Ashes series. To be sanctioned, the opponents two innings had to last 160 overs in each test from 120 (or 80/60 if a single innings), so as England (played entertaining cricket with the ethos of trying to get people interested in test cricket) didn't bat 160 overs in any test, the Aussies only sanction was for the Old Trafford wash out! Match fees for sanctions to players fell from 20% per over to 5%, with a new cap of maximum of 50% match fee. The only test which ended in a draw, and so the result could have been influenced by the over rate was Old Trafford. With the amowhich would have needed a ridiculous increase in the over rate to change that. I can't find anything around the previous rules re point deduction, apparently the Aussies were previously penalised which cost them a place in the final of the test championship. I'm absolutely sure it was not weighted to be more important than the actual result. If ICC rules of play allowed, there would have been sufficient light on most days to catch up these shortfalls. Numerous other factors have contributed to a slow over rate, inc batters slowing it down, injuries, concussions checks, protestors, multiple wickets falling I was ready to base this post on Indian/IPL influence on ICC/corruption etc. However the chair is actually English
This over rate issue seems not difficult to sort out as far as the average player/spectator is concerned. Surely it can't be something to do with grubby old money??? Broadcasters want to know what hours they're committed to paying their staff for, same with security companies, caterers, police, cleaning staff, etc?
That is a fair point. I had not considered those who may be called non-coms, as opposed to the players and spectators. IF the match starts at 11.00, finishes 6.30 with the breaks inbetween, and in the day 90 overs are to be bowled, then at what point does everyone agree enough is enough for that day if there is a shortfall? This may be wrong, but my remembering of the first mutterings about slow over rates came about as that was the only way to stop a side racking up a huge score. That was in the days of "traditional" field settings. Now we have (apologies to who posted this first) "funky" field placements. For every bowler against each batter. And fine tunings between deliveries. Never mind the total field change for left to right handed batters. Or recovering the ball from three streets away because of the length of sixes being hit. Would it be fairer to simply reduce the allotted overs in a day? Or start and finish same as now, runs scored divided by overs bowled. The result of that sum then multiplied by the shortfall? That favours the sides packed with spinners. Yea, just do that. Instead of going through a ridiculous points deduction just have an all sub-continent final every other year. Yes, I have just read this ramble back, and as wacky as it is, it is still not as bizarre (to me) as the ICC ruling.
Ah, if only you had been present, your voice of reason, to quell the rioting Long Room Ultras. (Hull Daily Mail still investigating where the City supporters nicked their ties and blazers from)
Absolutely. As they are trying to introduce a test championship, they also have to factor in that on the sub continent, the majority of overs are bowled by spin bowlers, so we will naturally never get anywhere near the overs they bowl.
I just watched the first game of the men's 100, and somehow felt very flat compared to watching this last Test match. May be just too much cricket these days, they need to be careful not to over saturate the market.
Cricket REALLY doesn't help itself at times, one of the challenges you have with starting and finishing earlier is that whilst it'd work here in the UK, most other test playing nations are in countries where it gets dark really quickly in the evening and you'd struggle to be able to implement the same approach to all test cricket unfortunately.
