Should there be a mandatory sixth day in tests?

[GIMH]

Hehe, great idea as I said in the official thread

 

[vic_orthdox]

Completely against it, it changes the dynamic of the game too much, and doesn't promote positive cricket, because it gives a "get out" clause.

 

[silentstriker]

Completely against it, it changes the dynamic of the game too much, and doesn't promote positive cricket, because it gives a "get out" clause.

If players know there is a bigger chance of a result, doesn't that promote positive cricket?

 

[open365]

Completely against it, it changes the dynamic of the game too much, and doesn't promote positive cricket, because it gives a "get out" clause.

Same as Manan, surely only having 5 days would promote negative cricket as the finish line is closer?

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, you can't bat out a draw or slow down the over rate to avoid a loss if you know the overs are going to be bowled anyway. It would force the bowlers to attack and contain, and the batsman to score runs depending on the situation.


One of my pet peeves is people taking longer to bowl overs, or batsmen milling around to waste time. It doesn't do the spectators or the game any good. IMO that's negative cricket, and not fun.

 

[Richard]

People had a go at me because I suggested it when India were the ones getting screwed by rain. Now India are benefitting, and I still think its a good idea.

Those people simply didn't have a clue what they're on about. OK, it was a year ago but people should still have known you well enough by then to realise you're one of the least hometown-biased people on here, if not the least bar me (given that I've been accused by several people of disliking the team I support).

I hate - absolutely hate - situations like this when a team has had the best of a game and is denied by loss of overs. It's that little bit worse, yeah, when the team denied - as in this case - has been your own. I've rarely if ever felt as annoyed at the result of a Test as I did today. (Those with decent memories will remember the Second Test in SA in 2004\05, which was different as I felt the draw was a fair result there as each team had dominated about half of the game, but nonetheless had it run it's course England would quite possibly have won.)

And hence, I'd go further even than this: I'd impose a statutory minumum-overs in a Test. No maximum, obviously - if the over-rates are good enough you could have more than 450 overs in a Test. But I feel that most games would have a result if 450 overs had to be bowled before a draw could happen. The trouble with this, of course, would be games where it rains loads, as the rest of the tour would be eaten into. It'd obviously be impossible, for instance, with the current stupidly overcrowded schedule. But if back-to-back games were cut-out, I think it'd be very possible.

But it's completely unfair IMO for a draw to be caused by rain, bad light, slow over-rates or any other stoppages. And it'd mean that no-one'd even bother trying the slow-over-rate crap because they'd know it was worthless.

And I frankly if teams didn't worry so much about scoring fast because they know there is no chance of lost overs I couldn't care less. I care far more about knowing justice cannot be denied by lost play than that.

 

[pasag]

Those people simply didn't have a clue what they're on about. OK, it was a year ago but people should still have known you well enough by then to realise you're one of the least hometown-biased people on here, if not the least bar me (given that I've been accused by several people of disliking the team I support).

Nah, was back when people used to think he was a troll for some odd reason. Anyways, agree with my post at the beginning of the thread which I have absolutely no recollection of making.

 

[Richard]

People tend to think that as-a-rule about posters who post on a vast scale on a wide variety of subjects, at least at the start of their posting, TBH. Those ignorant fools.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Same as Manan, surely only having 5 days would promote negative cricket as the finish line is closer?

Your only looking at the last innings though. With the knowledge that weather will never effect a game of cricket with respect to time, you'd find more unreasonable totals set, less declarations, which will leave more games in a dead situation in the first place, before the fifth day. It would also encourage flatter pitches, because curators (and the home associations of where a Test being played) know that there isn't as much urgency to take 40 wickets.

 

[Richard]

So there's not too much encouragement for flatter pitches already?

I just don't see why this having to take more of a risk on not losing in order that you don't get criticised for being over-cautious should you fail to win because of forces outside your control is a bad thing, at all.

I hate it when captains and strategists get blamed for things outside their control. If they knew exactly how long they had it'd be far fairer IMO.

 

[sideshowtim]

No, It's a sure fire way to make it even more of a batsman's game.

 

[Richard]

Eh? How? That just doesn't make any sense? There's almost certainly more overs available, so more wickets can fall. If anything it should help bowlers more.

 

[sideshowtim]

Eh? How? That just doesn't make any sense? There's almost certainly more overs available, so more wickets can fall. If anything it should help bowlers more.

More time to score more runs. Teams wouldn't declare as early, if at all. We'd see ridiculous totals particularly in this era of flat pitches.

 

[pasag]

It's really only an extension of the rule that allows play to go an extra half an hour at the end of the day if overs aren't completed. The only real valid argument I could see against it (besides personal preference) is the organising problems especially with back to back Tests. (But that's no big deal, just get rid of Twenty20s to clear up the calendar )

 

[Richard]

More time to score more runs. Teams wouldn't declare as early, if at all. We'd see ridiculous totals particularly in this era of flat pitches.

How many teams declare with loads of wickets standing even now, though? It's pretty rare. You might see more 600ao than 550\7dec totals, sure, but I don't think that's neccessarily a bad thing.

The more you play on a pitch, often, the more difficult it gets to bat on, because more pitches than not become uneven as a game goes on. Bad weather can deny this the chance to happen. I think allowing more games to run a full course would actually help bowlers if anything.

 

[Richard]

It's really only an extension of the rule that allows play to go an extra half an hour at the end of the day if overs aren't completed. The only real valid argument I could see against it (besides personal preference) is the organising problems especially with back to back Tests. (But that's no big deal, just get rid of Twenty20s to clear up the calendar )

Don't know why you always put the ph34r whenever you say that, TBH, it's blatantly obviously the only thing to do that makes any sense.












(YES, THIS -etc.)

 

[silentstriker]

More time to score more runs. Teams wouldn't declare as early, if at all. We'd see ridiculous totals particularly in this era of flat pitches.

Wait, what? It's still the maximum of 450 overs per test match.

 

[Richard]

No, no it's not. If teams bowled with a really good over-rate you could easily have 500 overs. That's not likely to be much more than a pipedream, though.

 

[silentstriker]

No, no it's not. If teams bowled with a really good over-rate you could easily have 500 overs. That's not likely to be much more than a pipedream, though.

No, you wouldn't. If 450 overs are bowled, the Test is over. The only way you'd have a sixth day is if enough overs weren't bowled on the first five (due to weather, light, etc), and the sixth day would only be used to finish off whatever overs are left.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, you wouldn't. If 450 overs are bowled, the Test is over. The only way you'd have a sixth day is if enough overs weren't bowled on the first five (due to weather, light, etc), and the sixth day would only be used to finish off whatever overs are left.

Nah, Richard meant that you could theoretically still bowl 500 overs in 5 days.