How do we improve slow over-rates?

[Matt79]

Add an extra column in the "extras" column - over rate penalty.

 

[Richard]

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.

I guess I've always been in favour of some form of earpiece - maybe one for the fielding captain, and one for one of the batsmen. This would sort the one problem. The objections to such an idea are, frankly, nothing short of ridiculous - a message can get sent out anyway. Why on Earth anyone wants to force this to be done in a time-wasting way is completely beyond me.

I guess the realisation about keeping up hydration is simply a sign of progress, and one no-one should desire to see reversed. You routinely see fielders taking a drink while play is in motion, though.

As far as batting glove-changes is concerned, I've often wondered - is it really that difficult to manufacture something that stops gloves from being sweated-up?

And yes, time-wasting run-penalties should apply to both bowling and batting sides.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Deduction of ICC points will hit the offenders where it really hurts. No other way to go. Plus if we can get quicker over rates then maybe the introduction of technology for every LBW appeal etc. could account for the time lost...

 

[Richard]

Add an extra column in the "extras" column - over rate penalty.

The "penalty" column is already there of course - I'd simply be in favour of adding an over-rate stipulation to those already there (such as hitting clothing, ball being tampered with, etc.).

 

[Richard]

Merge?

 

[Manee]

Perhaps apt penalties in relation to the match without going as boldly as run deductions are the key. For example, you have to wait for longer to take the new ball and/or do not have access to the extra half an hour at the end of a Test match to bowl the opposition out or get a total. And perhaps you have to make up the overs which you have lost in your last innings whilst batting before being offered bad light.

These are not specific suggestions but examples as to the small detrimental penalties that slow over rate teams should have.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe take the average Run rate of the match so far, and times that with with the X more overs that should have been bowled.

Conceding 40 extras at the end of the day will be a huge kick in the pants.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps apt penalties in relation to the match without going as boldly as run deductions are the key. For example, you have to wait for longer to take the new ball and/or do not have access to the extra half an hour at the end of a Test match to bowl the opposition out or get a total. And perhaps you have to make up the overs which you have lost in your last innings whilst batting before being offered bad light.

These are not specific suggestions but examples as to the small detrimental penalties that slow over rate teams should have.

Just a note here (well, two TBH) - the extra half-hour is only available on the fourth and third (or very occasionally second) day, not the fifth - no extra time can ever be added to the game in order to get a result.

More significantly, I've long been in favour of a statutory-minimum number of overs per Test, where a game continues until that has been bowled. (Yeah, once every 4 or 5 years that will mean there'll be the occasional 8-day Test, but that's a small price to pay IMO) This, obviously, is not possible with the current insane scheduling, but I don't think there are many who aren't in favour of assuaging that.

This idea being brought into practice would mean over-rates wouldn't actually impact upon the outcome of the game, as they don't in a ODI. The point of over-rates is that the faster the over-rate, the better the value-for-money for spectators - no-one wants to pay to see a Test match day where they get 15 overs less than they should have because of a slow over-rate.

And also, obviously, if you get in a good over-rate, you can have more than the 450 overs if the weather's fine.

I've always hated the rain-affected draw, it's a total denial of justice.

 

[Manee]

Just a note here (well, two TBH) - the extra half-hour is only available on the fourth and third (or very occasionally second) day, not the fifth - no extra time can ever be added to the game in order to get a result.

Excuse my ignorance.

 

[Manee]

I've always hated the rain-affected draw, it's a total denial of justice.

I disagree, rain affected draws are a part of cricket. The injustices, the race against the clouds are all a major part of a tense Test match. Of course, the side affect is the game where only one innings is batted, but it is all a part of cricket in my opinion.

 

[Richard]

Well, it is at the moment. But I honestly believe - like the bad Umpiring decision, which is undoubtedly and always has been part of the game - that if we got rid of it, we'd not miss it, and within a decade or so we'd be thinking... "how on EARTH did we ever let rain interfere with results?!"

 

[The Baconator]

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

That becomes a problem when you're in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and there just isn't enough light in the day.

 

[Manee]

Well, it is at the moment. But I honestly believe - like the bad Umpiring decision, which is undoubtedly and always has been part of the game - that if we got rid of it, we'd not miss it, and within a decade or so we'd be thinking... "how on EARTH did we ever let rain interfere with results?!"

You may be right on that one.

An interesting side note, Geoff Boycott credits slow over rates with small crowds at Test matches. I remember him hearing him mouth off, off camera (regular coverage was at a break) during the South Africa Vs West Indies Test series. He spoke about slow over rates meaning that fans do not get their money's worth. People talk about the use of technology potentially slowing things down, but they often miss that slow over rates literally slow the game down.

 

[Richard]

It certainly ain't going to have helped. Not sure if the blame can be put squarely at the door of that, but, well, as I say - something of a shot in the foot for the game.

 

[Richard]

That becomes a problem when you're in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and there just isn't enough light in the day.

There's been for at least a couple of years now a thought to alleviate that problem by making 6 days with reduced over-per-day requirements the standard.

 

[skipper]

During the India - England series last year, both teams bowled less overs. None of the teams faced censures.

The referees are strict in ODI games and test games where the results hinge on over rates.

 

[luckyeddie]

Slow over rates are probably down to slow change-overs - this means that Sky can cram adverts in between overs.

Vested interests mean that nothing will ever be done about it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Merge?

Report?

 

[Richard]

Richard, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

What's the point in linking me to a forbidden URL?

 

[Richard]

Slow over rates are probably down to slow change-overs - this means that Sky can cram adverts in between overs.

Vested interests mean that nothing will ever be done about it.

Nah, ads don't really matter to Sky - they could do without 'em. (And do in movies)

And the over-rates slowed down loooooooooong before C4 (who did depend on ads between overs) took over cricket coverage in this country.