How do we improve slow over-rates?

[Joe Ninety]

Over rates

I've noticed a lot of angst in this forum lately about slow over rates( I include myself in this group).I have given this some thought over the last couple of weeks and have an idea as to why the ICC are loath to enforce the over rates.
It is entirely possible that there is an unspoken agreement between the ICC and the Test teams to go easy on the players during Test matches for several reasons.
1. Less wear and tear on the 'star' players that bring in millions of dollars playing the more lucrative ODI's and 20/20's
2. Its an easier way to deal with player burnout and increased scheduling of the above mentioned formats.
3. Slow over rates increase the chance of a Test match lasting five days and therefore bringing in more advertising dollars.
Now I am not a conspiracy theorist or suggesting anything of the sort,but if you think about it, it does tend to make sense from a practical and financial point of view.
Love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Joe Ninety]

By the way, there should be no excuses not to get through the ninety overs in a day.

 

[NUFAN]

By the way, there should be no excuses not to get through the ninety overs in a day.

Wise words Joe Ninety.

 

[JBMAC]

Between the Wars the over rate was at least 114 - 116 per day.Anomaly...Pura Cup is 96 overs per day but tests are only 90 why?

 

[Craig]

Frankly it is disgraceful, this series has been shocking and something has to give, and IMO it's clear that the match referees are spineless in doing anything about. Sure a team can get warnings and fines, but the buck stops with the captain, and if it is getting out of hand, tell him if he doesn't pull his team's act together he will get some time on the sidelines.

 

[duffer]

Suspension of captains and significant fines for the whole teams. On Fox Sports News last night they were saying the fines are only something like 5-10% of the match fee and it's only for the captains.

Bump that up to 50% and make it inclusive of all the players and we'll start seeing changes. Repeat offending sides should have bans imposed on their captains and maybe even fine the Associations if that doesn't solve it.

Like anything if you want rapid change in discipline you have to do something drastic.

 

[chaminda_00]

Maybe it not possible to get 90 overs out in six hours anymore. Its not as if its just one team, no team can seem to get 90 overs out in a day. With fasters bowlers overall, faster run rates and more tactics being relayed from coaches and captains. And more drinks breaks to keep players fliud levels high to perform at their best.

You really can't get more then 80 overs out in six hours or 12-13 overs per hour. The game has changed and matches should probably start an hour earlier if you want 90 overs, with four sessions.

They have tired fines and suspensions of captains and it does work, because no team can keep the over rate at this level anymore. The ICC would be better of extending the hours of play if they want 90 overs a day, because you can't get it anymore in six hours. Getting through 15 overs a day without three spinners is near impossible these days.

 

[Mister Wright]

Maybe it not possible to get 90 overs out in six hours anymore. Its not as if its just one team, no team can seem to get 90 overs out in a day. With fasters bowlers overall, faster run rates and more tactics being relayed from coaches and captains. And more drinks breaks to keep players fliud levels high to perform at their best.

You really can't get more then 80 overs out in six hours or 12-13 overs per hour. The game has changed and matches should probably start an hour earlier if you want 90 overs, with four sessions.

They have tired fines and suspensions of captains and it does work, because no team can keep the over rate at this level anymore. The ICC would be better of extending the hours of play if they want 90 overs a day, because you can't get it anymore in six hours. Getting through 15 overs a day without three spinners is near impossible these days.

I'm pretty sure most teams get through more than 15 overs a day.

I suggested it somewhere else. Give six runs to the batting side for every over that isn't bowled in the day.

 

[irfan]

Runs. Runs is the most important quantity in Test cricket. I think someone mentioned 6 runs an over every over you don't finish on time. I reckon it should be the innings run rate rounded to the nearest integer (I.e. 3.4 - 3, 3.6 - 4.) The only time you don't care about runs is when you're bowling in the fourth innings with tonnes in the bank bowling for victory - but at that stage you'd want to bowl as many overs as you can.

Works both ways.

 

[chaminda_00]

I'm pretty sure most teams get through more than 15 overs a day.

I suggested it somewhere else. Give six runs to the batting side for every over that isn't bowled in the day.

If that was the case do you think the TV stations would have asked for the hours of play to be stopped after six and a half hours, cus every day team where playing an hour over atleast to get the overs in. I doubt you will find too many matches where spinners haven't bowled half the overs when teams have bowled 15 overs in a hour for the whole day.

This isn't a new problem that started this Test Series.

 

[Richard]

What Tharmi says about most teams failing to manage 15 overs per hour is quite true. It's damn rare, and has been for ages - except when spinners bowl for pretty much an entire session - to see over-rates at that mark.

This, though, doesn't mean that it's not possible any more. The only reason teams mostly fail to average 15 overs per hour (not a particularly remarkable ask, they say over-rates until the 1970s tended to be around 20 per hour) is because they can't be bothered to make the effort to, not because it's beyond the bounds of human capability.

For mine, fines and suspensions, even, don't work. AFAIC, the only way to do something about it is to add slow over-rates to the list of run-penalties in two-innings cricket. Say, for example, 12 runs for each over (ie, 2 per ball) that a team fails to average 15 per hour. Have the fourth-Umpire keep track of it or something.

Of course, there'd be extenuating circumstances every now and then, but they're hardly difficult to keep track of.

EDIT: irfan's pretty much beaten me to it. Probably me who he's on about "someone mentioned" too.

 

[Mister Wright]

If that was the case do you think the TV stations would have asked for the hours of play to be stopped after six and a half hours, cus every day team where playing an hour over atleast to get the overs in. I doubt you will find too many matches where spinners haven't bowled half the overs when teams have bowled 15 overs in a hour for the whole day.

This isn't a new problem that started this Test Series.

You said most sides find it near impossible to get through 15 overs in a day:

Getting through 15 overs a day without three spinners is near impossible these days.

Which was what I was confused about.

But, I see you now meant 15 overs in an hour which I agree with.

 

[The_Bunny]

I dont know about anyone else but if slow over rates directly influenced a game of cricket it would irk me no end.
Nothing other than the skills displayed on the ground should affect it for mine, cant see why this doesnt seem to bother anyone else

 

[irfan]

What Tharmi says about most teams failing to manage 15 overs per hour is quite true. It's damn rare, and has been for ages - except when spinners bowl for pretty much an entire session - to see over-rates at that mark.

This, though, doesn't mean that it's not possible any more. The only reason teams mostly fail to average 15 overs per hour (not a particularly remarkable ask, they say over-rates until the 1970s tended to be around 20 per hour) is because they can't be bothered to make the effort to, not because it's beyond the bounds of human capability.

For mine, fines and suspensions, even, don't work. AFAIC, the only way to do something about it is to add slow over-rates to the list of run-penalties in two-innings cricket. Say, for example, 12 runs for each over (ie, 2 per ball) that a team fails to average 15 per hour. Have the fourth-Umpire keep track of it or something.

Of course, there'd be extenuating circumstances every now and then, but they're hardly difficult to keep track of.

EDIT: irfan's pretty much beaten me to it. Probably me who he's on about "someone mentioned" too.

Probabilistically looking, you'd be a fair chance. But I think Mister Wright mentioned docking the bowling teams 6 runs an over.

 

[chaminda_00]

What Tharmi says about most teams failing to manage 15 overs per hour is quite true. It's damn rare, and has been for ages - except when spinners bowl for pretty much an entire session - to see over-rates at that mark.

This, though, doesn't mean that it's not possible any more. The only reason teams mostly fail to average 15 overs per hour (not a particularly remarkable ask, they say over-rates until the 1970s tended to be around 20 per hour) is because they can't be bothered to make the effort to, not because it's beyond the bounds of human capability.

As you say until the 70s when a generation of very fast bowlers came into the game. Prior to 70s most teams had one or two real quick bowlers and rest medium pacers and spinners. It is a lot easier to get through 15+ overs in a hour with medium pacers and spinners then with teams made up for 3-4 fast bowlers. With the make up of most teams these days, its near impossible to get 15 overs each hour. The game has changed over the years and some rules haven't changed with game like this 15 overs per hour.

 

[Richard]

Probabilistically looking, you'd be a fair chance. But I think Mister Wright mentioned docking the bowling teams 6 runs an over.

Not a fan of docking runs, at all. They have to be added.

Either way, I've definately mentioned it before. If you were mentioning this thread, though, it'd clearly not be me as my first post was after yours.

BTW, what happened to the Bush pumpkin avatar?

 

[Mister Wright]

Just make sessions 2 1/2 hours long. I'm sure the public wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Richard]

As you say until the 70s when a generation of very fast bowlers came into the game. Prior to 70s most teams had one or two real quick bowlers and rest medium pacers and spinners. It is a lot easier to get through 15+ overs in a hour with medium pacers and spinners then with teams made up for 3-4 fast bowlers. With the make up of most teams these days, its near impossible to get 15 overs each hour. The game has changed over the years and some rules haven't changed with game like this 15 overs per hour.

True enough, TBH - though I think the 15-minimum-per-hour regulation was actually brought in sometime in the 80s, as before the 70s no-one even needed such a regulation, it was just taken for granted that teams would bowl their overs quickly. Not sure it's ever been strictly regulated nor adhered to.

The daft thing is, though, there's very few bowlers at the current time with massive long run-ups - even Tait UIMM doesn't have one of any great length, though I've not taken grand note - so in theory we should be doing better at the moment than we were in the 70s, 80s and 90s - but if anything, it's just gotten worse and worse and worse.

 

[irfan]

Not a fan of docking runs, at all. They have to be added.

Either way, I've definately mentioned it before. If you were mentioning this thread, though, it'd clearly not be me as my first post was after yours.

BTW, what happened to the Bush pumpkin avatar?

Sorry - meant adding instead of docking. The Bush avatar is like his presidency tenure - dissappearing fast.

 

[chaminda_00]

True enough, TBH - though I think the 15-minimum-per-hour regulation was actually brought in sometime in the 80s, as before the 70s no-one even needed such a regulation, it was just taken for granted that teams would bowl their overs quickly. Not sure it's ever been strictly regulated nor adhered to.

The daft thing is, though, there's very few bowlers at the current time with massive long run-ups - even Tait UIMM doesn't have one of any great length, though I've not taken grand note - so in theory we should be doing better at the moment than we were in the 70s, 80s and 90s - but if anything, it's just gotten worse and worse and worse.

It is not only the fast bowler thing though, it also to do with greater amount of tactically stops to relay messages from the captain/coach then before. Also there more drinks breaks in general, as players are told they need to re-hydrate more then just the once an hour mantory drinks break. If they want to stop it from turning into a joke then they need to clamp down on these other things.

But the hard thing is it is not only bowlers that are slowing down the over rates. Batting team slow it down as well, with regular tactical stops for glove changes and drinks. So you can't just punish the bowling teams for slow over rates.