Ashes / Proteas vs India

[JM2K6]

England rested Anderson and Broad in prep for this one, so their best bet is to shoot out the Aussies and hope their own batters can scrape enough runs to make the most of it.

[Torquemada 1420]

I can't say I understand the obsession with over rates, particularly in games which end early.

Of course, when games are affected by weather, or a tight result, there may be a case for ensuring that the minimum overs are bowled, but a blanket sanction where there is no meaningful impact seems contrived, and I doubt that anyone (apart from the broadcasters) really cares.

Lloyd used to say that too when the Windies were killing everyone. He'd argue if they bowled more overs, the games would just finish faster. However, there was a valid argument that slow over rates allowed the quicks to remain fresh.

[Rinkals]

I can't say I understand the obsession with over rates, particularly in games which end early.

Of course, when games are affected by weather, or a tight result, there may be a case for ensuring that the minimum overs are bowled, but a blanket sanction where there is no meaningful impact seems contrived, and I doubt that anyone (apart from the broadcasters) really cares.

Why should cricket be any different to other sports in terms of duration of play regulations? If there are 90 overs designated in a day then, weather permitting, 90 overs must be bowled in a day. The players shouldn't be allowed to decide otherwise, to the detriment of the paying punter, just because they can't be arsed getting a move on.

The answer is in your comment. "weather permitting", so we already have a difference between cricket and other sports. Additionally, as I alluded, not all game last the full five days even with favourable conditions.

I take the point about players deliberately delaying the proceeds, but it seems to me that there should be other ways of controlling that rather than penalising a side when the game has finished in under three and a half days.

[Rinkals]

I can't say I understand the obsession with over rates, particularly in games which end early.

Of course, when games are affected by weather, or a tight result, there may be a case for ensuring that the minimum overs are bowled, but a blanket sanction where there is no meaningful impact seems contrived, and I doubt that anyone (apart from the broadcasters) really cares.

Fans care. Certainly in this country it's been a source of anger for some time.

I really doubt that.

The broadcasters may harp on about it, but barring tight games, it really makes no difference.

[Rinkals]

I can't say I understand the obsession with over rates, particularly in games which end early.

Of course, when games are affected by weather, or a tight result, there may be a case for ensuring that the minimum overs are bowled, but a blanket sanction where there is no meaningful impact seems contrived, and I doubt that anyone (apart from the broadcasters) really cares.

Lloyd used to say that too when the Windies were killing everyone. He'd argue if they bowled more overs, the games would just finish faster. However, there was a valid argument that slow over rates allowed the quicks to remain fresh.

Five overs?

Do you really think that the quicks would notice?

[JM2K6]

I can't say I understand the obsession with over rates, particularly in games which end early.

Of course, when games are affected by weather, or a tight result, there may be a case for ensuring that the minimum overs are bowled, but a blanket sanction where there is no meaningful impact seems contrived, and I doubt that anyone (apart from the broadcasters) really cares.

Fans care. Certainly in this country it's been a source of anger for some time.

I really doubt that.

The broadcasters may harp on about it, but barring tight games, it really makes no difference.

Doubt it all you like, but it's been a common theme among supporters, has been an issue repeatedly on social media and blogs, and is brought up constantly on those "ask journalist questions" videos by fans.

It's not about changing the result. It's about short changing fans.

[Enzedder]

Hey, at least they don't get paid for such a crap effort. That I agree with

[Ymx]

Hey, at least they don't get paid for such a crap effort. That I agree with

Indeed, though it wasn’t as bad as our very own crapitulation.

[Grandpa]

The new avatar... looks familiar...

Yeah, can't remember if I've used it before tbh. It's a quick charcoal sketch of an old mate.

I like your sketches... do you have many? If so, maybe a new avatar each week?

[JM2K6]

Hazlewood out of the 2nd Test. Neser and Richardson are class, though.

[Gumboot]

The new avatar... looks familiar...

Yeah, can't remember if I've used it before tbh. It's a quick charcoal sketch of an old mate.

I like your sketches... do you have many? If so, maybe a new avatar each week?

Yeah I've always enjoyed scribbling, so decided to do some DIY avataring.

Maybe I should chop, er, crop the head off one of these Israeli backpackers next?

Spoiler

Show

[Enzedder]

Hey, at least they don't get paid for such a crap effort. That I agree with

Indeed, though it wasn’t as bad as our very own crapitulation.

Absolutely - we should have had to pay our hotel bill as well

[Rinkals]

Fans care. Certainly in this country it's been a source of anger for some time.

I really doubt that.

The broadcasters may harp on about it, but barring tight games, it really makes no difference.

Doubt it all you like, but it's been a common theme among supporters, has been an issue repeatedly on social media and blogs, and is brought up constantly on those "ask journalist questions" videos by fans.

It's not about changing the result. It's about short changing fans.

Over five overs?

You lot are tighter than the Scots are generally reputed to be.

[Gumboot]

I really doubt that.

The broadcasters may harp on about it, but barring tight games, it really makes no difference.

Doubt it all you like, but it's been a common theme among supporters, has been an issue repeatedly on social media and blogs, and is brought up constantly on those "ask journalist questions" videos by fans.

It's not about changing the result. It's about short changing fans.

Over five overs?

You lot are tighter than the Scots are generally reputed to be.

Five overs is 30 balls. That's more than enough to change the course of a test match.

[Grandpa]

Yeah, can't remember if I've used it before tbh. It's a quick charcoal sketch of an old mate.

I like your sketches... do you have many? If so, maybe a new avatar each week?

Yeah I've always enjoyed scribbling, so decided to do some DIY avataring.

Maybe I should chop, er, crop the head off one of these Israeli backpackers next?

Spoiler

Show

Our very own Gary Larson! But with better drawings...

A new week, a new head... you know you want to...

[Rinkals]

Doubt it all you like, but it's been a common theme among supporters, has been an issue repeatedly on social media and blogs, and is brought up constantly on those "ask journalist questions" videos by fans.

It's not about changing the result. It's about short changing fans.

Over five overs?

You lot are tighter than the Scots are generally reputed to be.

Five overs is 30 balls. That's more than enough to change the course of a test match.

Yes, but in this instance, JMK is talking about "short changing fans".

I agree that there should be a mechanism to counter deliberate time wasting to change the outcome, but I feel that a blanket measure to penalise a slow over rate, even when it has no bearing on the result is misdirected heavy handedness. Even then, I doubt it would be an effective deterrent, anyway. Do you think a fine and a couple of points docked would stop a team from slowing the over rate if it meant getting a favourable result?

[Gumboot]

Over five overs?

You lot are tighter than the Scots are generally reputed to be.

Five overs is 30 balls. That's more than enough to change the course of a test match.

Yes, but in this instance, JMK is talking about "short changing fans".

I agree that there should be a mechanism to counter deliberate time wasting to change the outcome, but I feel that a blanket measure to penalise a slow over rate, even when it has no bearing on the result is misdirected heavy handedness. Even then, I doubt it would be an effective deterrent, anyway. Do you think a fine and a couple of points docked would stop a team from slowing the over rate if it meant getting a favourable result?

I do if it results in slow over rates being eradicated, yes.

[JM2K6]

I really doubt that.

The broadcasters may harp on about it, but barring tight games, it really makes no difference.

Doubt it all you like, but it's been a common theme among supporters, has been an issue repeatedly on social media and blogs, and is brought up constantly on those "ask journalist questions" videos by fans.

It's not about changing the result. It's about short changing fans.

Over five overs?

You lot are tighter than the Scots are generally reputed to be.

It's often a lot more than 5 overs, and you also have to understand the context of it being a sport where a lot of play is lost to "bad light", rain delays, etc. It's a bigger issue here than in South Africa, obviously. Add in the extortionate price of tickets, and you have a recipe for a lot of sustained anger at how often cricket takes the piss.

[Happyhooker]

Doubt it all you like, but it's been a common theme among supporters, has been an issue repeatedly on social media and blogs, and is brought up constantly on those "ask journalist questions" videos by fans.

It's not about changing the result. It's about short changing fans.

Over five overs?

You lot are tighter than the Scots are generally reputed to be.

It's often a lot more than 5 overs, and you also have to understand the context of it being a sport where a lot of play is lost to "bad light", rain delays, etc. It's a bigger issue here than in South Africa, obviously. Add in the extortionate price of tickets, and you have a recipe for a lot of sustained anger at how often cricket takes the piss.

Indeed. I've been to a few tests over the last few years where the crowds have got quite upset about it and vocalised their anger.
JMK's right, it is a big issue over here

[Rinkals]

Without going through my concertina file with my old ticket stubbs, I have been to at least twenty test matches in Englamd, and I have never, ever heard anyone complain about slow over rates.

Either you two are making stuff up, or the incessant drivel from the broadcasters on the subject has raised an irrelevant molehill into a mountain of National Importance.

[JM2K6]

I can't understand why your response here isn't "well, that's weird but interesting - certainly I've never experienced that, but it sounds like it really is an issue in England".

Out of curiosity, how recent are those Tests? I'd say it's been a thing for the last decade, but accelerating over the last 5 years. Lost play for no good reason isn't a molehill for people already pissed off about delays and prices.

[Happyhooker]

Without going through my concertina file with my old ticket stubbs, I have been to at least twenty test matches in Englamd, and I have never, ever heard anyone complain about slow over rates.

Either you two are making stuff up, or the incessant drivel from the broadcasters on the subject has raised an irrelevant molehill into a mountain of National Importance.

When was the last test you attended in this country? I've been at least a dozen times over the last 4 years and it's definitely a thing. Fuck off with your "making stuff up" bollocks

[Sandstorm]

I’d say the recent innovation of Sky Ears being worn by fans & listening to commentators, has led to the situation where crowds are aware of the over rate.

Personally I’ve been to a few live Test matches and not once have I ever thought about the over rate on my own. It’s not something I would even know how to keep track of in my seat while holding a pint and cheering, etc.

[Choc]

It certainly is a fucking thing. At the oval this summer they shut the bars at 5.30 and the rain and slow over rate meant that play went on until 7 and we had to spend an hour without a beer. The cunts.

[Sandstorm]

It certainly is a fucking thing. At the oval this summer they shut the bars at 5.30 and the rain and slow over rate meant that play went on until 7 and we had to spend an hour without a beer. The cunts.

Jesus, that’s vicious!!

[Happyhooker]

It certainly is a fucking thing. At the oval this summer they shut the bars at 5.30 and the rain and slow over rate meant that play went on until 7 and we had to spend an hour without a beer. The cunts.

That was a shitshow

[Rinkals]

Without going through my concertina file with my old ticket stubbs, I have been to at least twenty test matches in Englamd, and I have never, ever heard anyone complain about slow over rates.

Either you two are making stuff up, or the incessant drivel from the broadcasters on the subject has raised an irrelevant molehill into a mountain of National Importance.

When was the last test you attended in this country? I've been at least a dozen times over the last 4 years and it's definitely a thing. Fuck off with your "making stuff up" bollocks

Good point.

I left the UK in 2004.

I suppose public opinion could have been shaped by the broadcasters to build it up in the intervening years.

In which case, it would be pretty much confined to England. It's certainly not a thing here and I don't remember it being of massive importance in Australia (although that would have been even further back in the past).

[Rinkals]

It certainly is a fucking thing. At the oval this summer they shut the bars at 5.30 and the rain and slow over rate meant that play went on until 7 and we had to spend an hour without a beer. The cunts.

You have my sympathies.

Mind you,, at the risk of stating the obvious, the caterers would have been the culpable party.

[Happyhooker]

Without going through my concertina file with my old ticket stubbs, I have been to at least twenty test matches in Englamd, and I have never, ever heard anyone complain about slow over rates.

Either you two are making stuff up, or the incessant drivel from the broadcasters on the subject has raised an irrelevant molehill into a mountain of National Importance.

When was the last test you attended in this country? I've been at least a dozen times over the last 4 years and it's definitely a thing. Fuck off with your "making stuff up" bollocks

Good point.

I left the UK in 2004.

I suppose public opinion could have been shaped by the broadcasters to build it up in the intervening years.

In which case, it would be pretty much confined to England. It's certainly not a thing here and I don't remember it being of massive importance in Australia (although that would have been even further back in the past).

Fuck me. Something we said was a fairly recent phenomenon may just have started happening within the last 17 years.

And you follow it up with a 'I suppose'

Here's a tip, stop making stuff up (cf non existent telegraph articles) you mad buffoon

[Rinkals]

Well, if it's an obsessive issue in England now, it wasn't when I was regularly watching test matches in England.

Which begs the question: why? The game hasn't changed all that much.

As far as I know nobody else gives a shit about over rates unless it impacts the result. (or your drinking time, obviously).

[FalseBayFC]

I'd like to see a study of historic over rates and how they've changed over the years. Is it possible that bigger stronger more explosive pace bowlers need more recovery time or maybe have longer run ups? Something like what's happening in rugby. Are there more boundaries being hit?
Found this.

5ppt2hioqtax.jpg (172.13 KiB) Viewed 555 times

[Gumboot]

Well, if it's an obsessive issue in England now, it wasn't when I was regularly watching test matches in England.

Which begs the question: why? The game hasn't changed all that much.

As far as I know nobody else gives a shit about over rates unless it impacts the result. (or your drinking time, obviously).

Doesn't the over rate by definition impact the result?

What could've/would've happened during those lost overs?

These are questions we test cricket fans hopefully won't need to ask much longer.

[inactionman]

Well, if it's an obsessive issue in England now, it wasn't when I was regularly watching test matches in England.

Which begs the question: why? The game hasn't changed all that much.

As far as I know nobody else gives a shit about over rates unless it impacts the result. (or your drinking time, obviously).

No-one is bothered about over rates if the rates are low because a lot is happening or because it's getting tense, people are bothered when it's just one side dragging it out to kill time/check momentum/just generally being idle.

It's the same as a football team timewasting. It's dull.

[JM2K6]

Well, if it's an obsessive issue in England now, it wasn't when I was regularly watching test matches in England.

Which begs the question: why? The game hasn't changed all that much.

As far as I know nobody else gives a shit about over rates unless it impacts the result. (or your drinking time, obviously).

Joe Root has played 110 Tests and he was 14 the last time you went to a match in this country, why on earth do you think you're any kind of authority on this?

Over rates have deteriorated since then, ticket prices have gone up, the Test schedule has become weirder and more prone to weather disruption, and people are fed up with being taken for mugs.

[Paddington Bear]

I'd like to see a study of historic over rates and how they've changed over the years. Is it possible that bigger stronger more explosive pace bowlers need more recovery time or maybe have longer run ups? Something like what's happening in rugby. Are there more boundaries being hit?
Found this.

5ppt2hioqtax.jpg

Hmm. If you watch old footage of someone like Larwood bowl he looks pretty rapid. There's some evidence that standardising actions has resulted in more bowlers at around 80mph but fewer bowling express pace. I suspect that better batting tracks has plenty to do with it - the game moves faster if the ball doesn't leave the square, and the rise of tactics in minutiae. Before video analysis you probably were more likely to just set a field and get on with it.

[Rinkals]

Well, if it's an obsessive issue in England now, it wasn't when I was regularly watching test matches in England.

Which begs the question: why? The game hasn't changed all that much.

As far as I know nobody else gives a shit about over rates unless it impacts the result. (or your drinking time, obviously).

Doesn't the over rate by definition impact the result?

What could've/would've happened during those lost overs?

These are questions we test cricket fans hopefully won't need to ask much longer.

Not if the game finishes inside three and a half days, no.

I'm surprised I need to explain this to you.

[Rinkals]

Well, if it's an obsessive issue in England now, it wasn't when I was regularly watching test matches in England.

Which begs the question: why? The game hasn't changed all that much.

As far as I know nobody else gives a shit about over rates unless it impacts the result. (or your drinking time, obviously).

No-one is bothered about over rates if the rates are low because a lot is happening or because it's getting tense, people are bothered when it's just one side dragging it out to kill time/check momentum/just generally being idle.

It's the same as a football team timewasting. It's dull.

Fair enough. I agree, that there should be some sanction for timewasting, particularly if it affects the result.

I just don't think a blanket penalty for a slow over rate is the best way to do this, and nor do I think it is effective as a deterrent.

[Rinkals]

Well, if it's an obsessive issue in England now, it wasn't when I was regularly watching test matches in England.

Which begs the question: why? The game hasn't changed all that much.

As far as I know nobody else gives a shit about over rates unless it impacts the result. (or your drinking time, obviously).

Joe Root has played 110 Tests and he was 14 the last time you went to a match in this country, why on earth do you think you're any kind of authority on this?

Over rates have deteriorated since then, ticket prices have gone up, the Test schedule has become weirder and more prone to weather disruption, and people are fed up with being taken for mugs.

Who cares?

One poster suggested (I think it might have been you) that the spectators in England were angry at slow over rates.

I suggested that, when I watched cricket in England, I never heard anyone express any such anger. Further, I think that any such anger is largely manufactured by the broadcasters harping on about it.

If this was seventeen years ago is largely immaterial because the game hasn't changed that much over that time.

[JM2K6]

Well, if it's an obsessive issue in England now, it wasn't when I was regularly watching test matches in England.

Which begs the question: why? The game hasn't changed all that much.

As far as I know nobody else gives a shit about over rates unless it impacts the result. (or your drinking time, obviously).

Joe Root has played 110 Tests and he was 14 the last time you went to a match in this country, why on earth do you think you're any kind of authority on this?

Over rates have deteriorated since then, ticket prices have gone up, the Test schedule has become weirder and more prone to weather disruption, and people are fed up with being taken for mugs.

Who cares?

One poster suggested (I think it might have been you) that the spectators in England were angry at slow over rates.

I suggested that, when I watched cricket in England, I never heard anyone express any such anger. Further, I think that any such anger is largely manufactured by the broadcasters harping on about it.

If this was seventeen years ago is largely immaterial because the game hasn't changed that much over that time.

Apart from over rates getting worse, the English Test schedule changing, there being more anger at the ECB's handling of the sport, more days lost due to dumbarse ground selection, ticket prices rising steeply despite a fucking global financial crisis having happened since you last went to a game, more avenues for consumers to express their displeasure, etc, etc.

Basically what we have here is two English people who are familiar with English cricket, telling you, a guy who is not in this country, doesn't interact with English cricket fans except to be a dick on rugby forums, who hasn't been to a game in nearly two decades, that your anecdotal evidence is worth absolutely fuck all when talking about a phenomenon that started after you left the country.

Why is it so, so difficult for you to accept that you don't actually know anything about this? Why, when faced with multiple people saying the same thing who are explaining to you how and why it's happened, are you so convinced that your nearly two decades old experience of watching Test cricket in this country contradicts people who have recent, relevant experience of the opposite? You're arguing from the basis of zero applicable knowledge.

[JM2K6]

From The Cricketer:

A fixture list that resembles this summer’s will surely not be tolerated by fans of the first-class/Test game again.

It’s certainly an issue that is going to be looked at very closely by The Cricketer in the months and years to come.

Another red-hot topic is over-rates, judging by the letters we receive.

Full marks to Agnew, and on Sky especially Nasser Hussain and David Lloyd, for highlighting the issue.

From Daniel Cotton ten years ago on ESPN:

Over-rates in Test cricket are too slow. Everybody knows it, from the spectator at the ground who gives up on their slow hand clap from fatigue to the ICC who have tried imposing fines and bans for slow captains and teams. The ICC s efforts have had little effect though.

(The problem has since become much worse]

From George Dobell, back in 2018:



(featuring a lot of angry fans in the comments)

Test cricket over rates by decade:


We've seen over rates in England between 11 and 13 in recent years. From a report on the Eng/NZ series earlier this year:

If the shakiness of the England batting prevented the home side accepting New Zealand’s challenge, the pitiful over rate throughout the match also helped the draw. In the first two days just 165.4 overs were bowled (despite an extra half-hour’s play each day), a rate of 12.75 an hour.

edit: In the last Ashes series in England, we lost >200 overs to slow play across the series.

edit some more:

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/ ... over-rates (Gooch & Solanki)
https://beingoutsidecricket.com/2017/07 ... ver-rates/
https://blog.fansbet.com/test-cricket-o ... -be-saved/

Spectators know when teams are taking the piss.