Proposals to radically change Test Cricket

[SJS]

I am going to start posting, one after the other, a series of proposals for changing Test cricket. Some of them may sound preposterous but I would suggest please bear with it for lateral thinking is not something to be scoffed at. In any case ICC is not going to accept them just because I say so

The idea is to discuss them threadbare, one by one, to understand the implications of each, the issues each is trying to address and the efficacy of the method proposed in addressing the issues. The collateral damage, as it were, to the game by the proposal at hand. That is to say, what other issues will crop up while addressing the issue at hand and so forth.

I must also tell you that there is a series of proposals already in my head, and many of these proposals affect the subsequent ones as you will see.

Finally this is a serious exercise and not one undertaken frivolously. That will not (and should not) deter the frivolous minded to chip in with levity for that is as much the fun of such an exercise as the views of the many on this forum whose serious and considered views I highly value.

Finally, the basic intent of these proposals is to save Test Cricket from itself, from lack of spectator interest, from boring draws, from the game becoming too much batsman oriented, from the slowly disappearing arts of specialist keepers and even specialist spinners and so forth.

You dont have to agree with me on any issue. This is not about what I think.

This is open to al and I will participate in the debate on any issue as if it was put to the house of which I am a member and not the prime mover of the 'motion'

For the sake of avoiding confusion, I would request friends not to interject with newer proposals for various reasons not least since they might be coming anyway. In case someone has a proposal which they want included, please send me a mail at swaranjs@gmail.com I will respond immediately.

How does that sound ?

First proposal follows.......

 

[Craig]

SJS I'm ready for any ideas you might have.

 

[SJS]

Proposal # 1 : Switch to an 8 ball over

This is the least radical of the proposals coming but an important one to get out of the way since it is vital.

If we want more result oriented games, we need to get more cricket in the games. We can legislate and do what we want but it seems its going to be a struggle to get teams to exceed the 90 (6 ball) overs limit that exists today. That gives us a minimum of 450 six ball overs or 2700 balls per Test (barring rain interventions. For keeping the calculations simple I am going to just ignore the minor points like change of innings etc, So please dont belabour those points.

An eight ball over would give us something like 75 (8 ball) overs or 600 balls per day or 3000 balls per Test. Again the exact figures for the time taken between overs is not so important , it is the principal. If anyone wants,they can work the exact time and consequent overs but that doesn't change the basic idea.

Motion before the House : Test matches (all first class cricket really) should be of eight ball overs to get more cricket per game.

 

[SJS]

Give grace days for rain !

Discuss the proposal at hand please

Send your proposals to yours truly

 

[Craig]

Proposal # 1 : Switch to an 8 ball over

This is the least radical of the proposals coming but an important one to get out of the way since it is vital.

If we want more result oriented games, we need to get more cricket in the games. We can legislate and do what we want but it seems its going to be a struggle to get teams to exceed the 90 (6 ball) overs limit that exists today. That gives us a minimum of 450 six ball overs or 2700 balls per Test (barring rain interventions. For keeping the calculations simple I am going to just ignore the minor points like change of innings etc, So please dont belabour those points.

An eight ball over would give us something like 75 (8 ball) overs or 600 balls per day or 3000 balls per Test. Again the exact figures for the time taken between overs is not so important , it is the principal. If anyone wants,they can work the exact time and consequent overs but that doesn't change the basic idea.

Motion before the House : Test matches (all first class cricket really) should be of eight ball overs to get more cricket per game.

You make some good points there, but I know it applies to Test cricket, so we keep it at 6 balls for one day cricket then? Why not make it 8 ball overs for all cricket as it seems a bit odd to have 8 ball overs for Test cricket but say 6 ball overs for one day cricket.

If we have 8 ball overs, at what point does the team fielding get to take the new ball, at 65 overs (or there after) if following the pattern of 'regular' Test cricket (so to speak) where a team gets the new ball over 80s where the minimum requirement of 90s per day.

 

[FRAZ]

Discuss the proposal at hand please

Send your proposals to yours truly

My bad ! As per usual I didn't read the first post completely . I am deleting that now .

 

[Dissector]

I would imagine this would hurt fast bowlers and benefit spinners. That is not necessarily a bad thing but since there will probably still be more quicks around, this may tend to reduce the overall effectiveness of attacks particularly at the end of a long innings.

What were the reasons for the earlier transition from 8 to 6 ball overs?

 

[Goughy]

8 ball overs certainly speed the game up as there is less in between overs turn arounds.

Ive bowled them in the past but I wouldnt fancy doing it again

TBH, it maybe one of the rules that 10 years own the line vryone wonders what all the fuss was about. There isnt anything special abot the number 6.

Though taking the argument to its logical conclusion. Why not 10 ball overs? Would speed the game up even more (ie less changes), encourage teams to use spinnes as 10 ball overs are hard work for the seamers and give a format where partial overs fit nicely into the decimal system and make our lives using excel easier.

 

[fredfertang]

The 8 ball over was introduced into English Cricket on an experimental basis in 1939 and didn't resume after the war - my understanding is that there was no noticable increase in the amount of play in the day, fast bowlers hated it and the spectators weren't particularly keen given a pace bowler would take an average of 6 minutes per over (no doubt 7 or 8 now) - still it lasted in Australia for long enough but even there it went eventually

 

[Goughy]

The 8 ball over was introduced into English Cricket on an experimental basis in 1939 and didn't resume after the war - my understanding is that there was no noticable increase in the amount of play in the day, fast bowlers hated it and the spectators weren't particularly keen given a pace bowler would take an average of 6 minutes per over (no doubt 7 or 8 now) - still it lasted in Australia for long enough but even there it went eventually

I dont know if it is everywhere or just where I was from, but Mens Evening League cricket was always 16 8-ball overs as it was far faster than 20 6-ball overs.

The less changing between overs logically meant less wasted time.

 

[andmark]

Twenty20 cricket is destroying test cricket. In an attempt to bring back the original and most testing form of cricket. (test) I would like to see the Twenty20 format of cricket to be never played again professionally to the exception of charity matches.

Twenty20 cricket is getting the popularity in English cricket of which England's never seen in test cricket since the 2005 Ashes series. And even then, it was because Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff had a series similar to 1981 Ashes series for Ian Botham.

 

[Agent TBY]

Twenty20 cricket is destroying test cricket. In an attempt to bring back the original and most testing form of cricket. (test) I would like to see the Twenty20 format of cricket to be never played again to the exeption of charity matches.

*facepalm*

 

[BoyBrumby]

On the face of it it does seem an eminently sensible idea. However, six-ball overs seem one of the most basic tenets of cricket, although one doesn't quite know why this should be, admittedly. Similarly with 11 players a side, actually; 10 or 12 would probably be more logical choices if we were codifying the sport now from scratch, but I'm so welded to 11 being the "correct" number I'd be instinctively anti, even if I couldn't really support the defence of eleven players with much more than "because we're done it that way for hundreds of years".

Obviously with eight-ball overs there is a precedent, so perhaps the logical place to look is to why our Australian brethren got in step with the rest of the world. Was it solely a levelling of the playing field or do six balls have some inherent magical quality? Perhaps one of our more historically minded Aussies could fill us in?

 

[fredfertang]

The less changing between overs logically meant less wasted time.

Just for the avoidance of doubt I was not around in 1939 - I would agree with Goughy but according to Gerald Brodribb, who I am assuming researched the issue, the game was not speeded up significantly - quicks taking a blow during rather than between overs perhaps?

 

[SJS]

You make some good points there, but I know it applies to Test cricket, so we keep it at 6 balls for one day cricket then? Why not make it 8 ball overs for all cricket as it seems a bit odd to have 8 ball overs for Test cricket but say 6 ball overs for one day cricket.

If we have 8 ball overs, at what point does the team fielding get to take the new ball, at 65 overs (or there after) if following the pattern of 'regular' Test cricket (so to speak) where a team gets the new ball over 80s where the minimum requirement of 90s per day.

Its a question of wear on the ball. 80 overs (or 480 balls) is exactly equal to 55 overs in number of balls so that would probably be it. The important thing is that if you did manage to get more deliveries in the day, the new ball could come up earlier (if the fielding side so chose)

As for the limited overs game, firstly this is about Test cricket, secondly, with the restrictions on how many overs a bowler can bowl, you would reduce the possibility of more spells (10 overs today versus 7-8 overs if 8 ball). But thats another subject.

 

[Craig]

For mine it (8 balls per over) seems like an arbitrary number, why not go for 7 ball overs for instance?

 

[SJS]

I would imagine this would hurt fast bowlers and benefit spinners. That is not necessarily a bad thing but since there will probably still be more quicks around, this may tend to reduce the overall effectiveness of attacks particularly at the end of a long innings.

What were the reasons for the earlier transition from 8 to 6 ball overs?

We will come with proposals for spinners later.

As regards hurting fast bowlers, well Australia reverted to 6 ball over (from 8) only in 1980. We all know which country has consistently provided a stream of top rate fast bowlers. So I am afraid I dont subscribe to that bit about hurting fast bowlers.

You make an interesting point about benefitting spinners. Thats true because spinners, in helpful conditions would try and 'play with' the bowler and it would appear that an eight ball over would be of help. Needless to say, when being slaughtered, the extra two balls could go for two more sixes

 

[Craig]

We will come with proposals for spinners later.

As regards hurting fast bowlers, well Australia reverted to 6 ball over (from 8) only in 1980. We all know which country has consistently provided a stream of top rate fast bowlers. So I am afraid I dont subscribe to that bit about hurting fast bowlers.

You make an interesting point about benefitting spinners. Thats true because spinners, in helpful conditions would try and 'play with' the bowler and it would appear that an eight ball over would be of help. Needless to say, when being slaughtered, the extra two balls could go for two more sixes

So that in mind it could be seen as more batsman friendly. Mind you if the bowler/s are good enough it is more chance of getting wickets.

 

[SJS]

8 ball overs certainly speed the game up as there is less in between overs turn arounds.

Ive bowled them in the past but I wouldnt fancy doing it again

TBH, it maybe one of the rules that 10 years own the line vryone wonders what all the fuss was about. There isnt anything special abot the number 6.

Though taking the argument to its logical conclusion. Why not 10 ball overs? Would speed the game up even more (ie less changes), encourage teams to use spinnes as 10 ball overs are hard work for the seamers and give a format where partial overs fit nicely into the decimal system and make our lives using excel easier.

For mine it (8 balls per over) seems like an arbitrary number, why not go for 7 ball overs for instance?

Yes the number is arbitrary but 4,5,6 and 8 ball overs HAVE been tried. Since we are trying to address a specific issue- more cricket per Test- we are taking the higher of these numbers.

As for going for more than 8, well all the arguments against 8 become amplified when you go beyond so we stick to what has been tried and in place for years.

Here is the history of eight ball overs in different parts of the world.

England : 1939 :

On an experimental basis in first class cricket. Its a bit wrong to say, it was dropped after one year since there was no cricket after 1939 for 6 years due to the WW II. Its not certain what would have happened in 1940 but for the war.

In any event after the war, it was not thought of again.

Australia : 1918 to 1980

Except for matches against the MCC in 1920-21, and the Test matches of 2 series (1928-29 and 1932-33) , all first class cricket in Australia for most of the last 90 years has been played with 8 ball overs. Mosty Australian legends including bowlers, swear by it.

New Zealand : 1924 to 1926 :

For three seasons they experimented with it and reverted back in 1927.

South Africa : 1937-38 and 1938-39 :

Two seasons in all forms of the game and then reverted after the war.

 

[SJS]

On the face of it it does seem an eminently sensible idea. However, six-ball overs seem one of the most basic tenets of cricket, although one doesn't quite know why this should be, admittedly. Similarly with 11 players a side, actually; 10 or 12 would probably be more logical choices if we were codifying the sport now from scratch, but I'm so welded to 11 being the "correct" number I'd be instinctively anti, even if I couldn't really support the defence of eleven players with much more than "because we're done it that way for hundreds of years".

Obviously with eight-ball overs there is a precedent, so perhaps the logical place to look is to why our Australian brethren got in step with the rest of the world. Was it solely a levelling of the playing field or do six balls have some inherent magical quality? Perhaps one of our more historically minded Aussies could fill us in?

Till a few years ago, the laws oif the game permitted both a 6 and an 8 ball over. Its only recently that the 8 ball over has been removed from Law 22.

Bradman has this to say about the subject.

Balls An Over
The 1744 laws provided that four balls would constitute an over. The number was increased to five in 1889 and in 1900 to six.

Australia decided in 1918 to use the eight ball over and endeavoured to pursuade England to fall in line. England duly experimented but finally settled upon the six ball over.

More balls are delivered per day with an eight ball over but in some quarters the feeling exists that six balls constitute a fairer burden for the fast bowlers. There are arguments both ways but it is at least regrettable that uniformity throughout the world can not be achieved.​

That was in the first edition of his fabulous work, The Art of Cricket. In a subsequent edition, after Australia had reverted to 6 ball overs in 1980, he replaced the bold part with .....

And persistent arguments that rules and regulations should, as far as ppossible, be uniform throughout the world, finally pursuaded Australia to fall in line. The six ball over is now universally used.

It is more popular with fast bowlers, some of whom claim difficulty in going flat out for eight consecutive deliveries.

I make no secret of my personal belief that eight balls to the over are the ideal but this is not the only regulation with which I disagree and upon which my views have not gained majority support.

In keeping with the spirit of cricket I must bow to the democratic vote but I will continue to argue, whenever I get the chance, for what I believe is best for the game and not just for one section of it.​