Proposals to radically change Test Cricket

[Dissector]

I notice that 8 ball overs have never been tried in the sub-continent; the combination of hot weather, flat pitches and 8 ball overs would be especially brutal for the quicks.

One aspect of the game where even quicks may appreciate 8 ball overs is when it comes to knocking down the tail. However in the middle of the innings with recognized batsmen still at the crease and fatigue creeping in I suspect it would be pretty difficult for fast bowlers.

It may have worked in Australia because of the pace-friendly pitches but on flat pitches it really would be hard work and may lead to more injuries. So while it will speed up the game I think there is a significant downside as well. Still I don't see the harm in trying it for a few test series, perhaps in Australia.

 

[Dissector]

Interesting quote by Bradman but I am not sure I agree that the rules have to be the same everywhere. If 8 ball overs work in Australia but wouldn't work in the sub-continent why not let different countries try different rules within reasonable limits. I don't think the lack of a universal standard created huge problems before 1980.

 

[SJS]

I notice that 8 ball overs have never been tried in the sub-continent; the combination of hot weather, flat pitches and 8 ball overs would be especially brutal for the quicks.

One aspect of the game where even quicks may appreciate 8 ball overs is when it comes to knocking down the tail. However in the middle of the innings with recognized batsmen still at the crease and fatigue creeping in I suspect it would be pretty difficult for fast bowlers.

It may have worked in Australia because of the pace-friendly pitches but on flat pitches it really would be hard work and may lead to more injuries. So while it will speed up the game I think there is a significant downside as well. Still I don't see the harm in trying it for a few test series, perhaps in Australia.

As The Barclay's Book of Cricket puts it, other nations (besides New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, just decided to do as England did.

Not surprising for India, Pakistan and West Indies in those early times.

 

[SJS]

Interesting quote by Bradman but I am not sure I agree that the rules have to be the same everywhere. If 8 ball overs work in Australia but wouldn't work in the sub-continent why not let different countries try different rules within reasonable limits. I don't think the lack of a universal standard created huge problems before 1980.

I agree.

I think the statisticians have a the biggest problem of all with overs being of different number of balls with strike rates and what have you

 

[archie mac]

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.

Keith Miller who played in Aust under the 8 ball rule and England under the 6 thought they should have 7

I read somewhere that a study suggested that there is no real time saved by bowling 8 ball overs

 

[SJS]

I think there are two basic arguments for and against. On the positive side, it will certainly bring more cricket and on the negative side is the extra burden on the faster bowlers.

I think Bradman recognises it and still, characteristically, manages to hit the nail squarely on the head when he says

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

Of course, another argument, as someone hinted here, is that its not such a bad thing of fast bowlers' role is slightly lessened and the spinners 'demand' picks up.

In any event, what has to be weighed is whether the load of the fast bowler (two extra deliveries per over and maybe an over less per spell) is more crucial for the game or getting more cricket per unit time.

 

[SJS]

Keith Miller who played in Aust under the 8 ball rule and England under the 6 thought they should have 7

I read somewhere that a study suggested that there is no real time saved by bowling 8 ball overs

That is said by some though not agreed to by most. It cant be true in the long run. Surely 89 changes of ends (for 90 six ball overs) would take up more time than 74 (for 75 eight ball overs).

 

[Goughy]

In all honesty. We have 6 currently and I dont think there are good enough reasons to change.

Any changes need to have a big benefit and small negatives. As it is, any changes will bring marginal improvements and additional issues.

Its nothing to do with 6 per se, but avoiding change for the sake of change. If the overs were 7 balls now Id want 7 to be kept.

Though I do disagree with what some have said. Test cricket rules need to be uniform. Balls per over, length of pitch, weight of ball all need to be standardised for international competition.

 

[sideshowtim]

Trust an Indian to come up with such an anti-quick pro-spinner measure such as increasing the length of overs

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Bad idea. They're only asked to average 4 minutes per over and the only reason they don't do it is the unnecessary fannying around between deliveries and leisurely stroll to the other end between overs. I think 90 six ball overs is the correct balance to the day and is easily achievable within the 6 hours.

 

[SJS]

Forget what people say about there being no improvement in number of balls bowled with 8 ball overs. Here is what actually happened when Australia switched from 8 to 6 balls in 1980.

To keep the comparison as fair as possible, I took two tours by a similar side, England in Australia) for the Ashes tours of 1978-79 amd 1982-83.

The first was an 8-ball-over series and the second a 6-ball-over series.

In the first series, 1550.3 (8 ball) overs were bowled in 7896 minutes over five test matches by both sides put together (actual playing time of each innings).

In the second series, 8037 (6 ball) overs were bowled in 8036 minutes.

Here is the rate of bowling the overs.

[B]Series	Mins/O	O/hr	Balls/hr[/B]
1978-79	5.09	11.80	94
1982-83	4.27	14.10	84

At ten extra balls per hour, we are talking of sixty extra balls per day or 300 balls per match. That is fifty extra overs. If that is not considerable, I would like to know what is.

 

[SJS]

Bad idea. They're only asked to average 4 minutes per over and the only reason they don't do it is the unnecessary fannying around between deliveries and leisurely stroll to the other end between overs. I think 90 six ball overs is the correct balance to the day and is easily achievable within the 6 hours.

LT, its not just loitering around, some bowlers are taking un-necessarily long run ups which dont just consume time but also tire them out. For the sake of their own sides they should cut these down. I can quote from a dozen great fast bowlers over time the need for a moderate run up and yet we have bowlers playing to the gallery or being plain obstinate and running in from the boundary.

If we are willing to bring about changes to the game and such drastic one's as are being proposed, we need to ask ourselves, how much of what the cricketer's are doing is right and this,. the needlessly long run up of some fast bowlers, is a case in point.

 

[Aamir Alauddin]

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.

It can increase the probability of the result oriented test matches due to these reasons:

1- More balls available due to the 33% reduction in time of changing the sides after completion of the over.
2- Every team will have to play with 4-5 regular and 1-2 part time bowlers due to which the number of batsmen will decrease in each side. Less the number of specialist batsmen, the more the chance of the result.

I think after the introduction of the new versions of cricket i.e., one day and 20-twenty, ICC must have to make changes in test cricket to make it more result oriented. Only result oriented test matches are the only way to ensure the survival of this basic form of cricket otherwise............................

 

[SJS]

Proposal Number 2

Neither side shall, in their first innings, bat for more than the equivalent of two days minimum overs i.e, under the present dispensation, no more than 180 overs (6 balls each) or, if we have 8 ball overs, no more than 150 eight ball overs each.

The team batting third will not be allowed to bat for more than sixty percent of the overs remaining at the end of the two innings.

A follow on is mandatory if the lead is 300 runs or more but optional if the lead is between 200 and 299​

This is to ensure that the team batting third, does not lead the game to a boring draw.

And that the team batting first, playing many more overs in the first innings already, does not deny the team that is lagging behind the chance to fight back.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Proposal Number 2

Neither side shall, in their first innings, bat for more than the equivalent of two days minimum overs i.e, under the present dispensation, no more than 180 overs (6 balls each) or, if we have 8 ball overs, no more than 150 eight ball overs each.

The team batting third will not be allowed to bat for more than sixty percent of the overs remaining at the end of the two innings.

A follow on is mandatory if the lead is 300 runs or more but optional if the lead is between 200 and 299​

This is to ensure that the team batting third, does not lead the game to a boring draw.

And that the team batting first, playing many more overs in the first innings already, does not deny the team that is lagging behind the chance to fight back.

Bloody hell, you either haven't slept for three days, been at the whisky or are pulling everyone's plonker.

 

[fredfertang]

I'd rather bring back timeless tests than bring the slightest vestige of limited overs cricket into the ultimate version of the game

I don't believe anyone who enjoys Tests has a problem with draws - if they do they should b***** off and stick to 20/20

 

[Athlai]

I'd rather bring back timeless tests than bring the slightest vestige of limited overs cricket into the ultimate version of the game

I don't believe anyone who enjoys Tests has a problem with draws - if they do they should b***** off and stick to 20/20

When the draw is 5 days or premium cricket? Fine. When the draw is a result of rain, poor light and slow over rates, you are left a frustrated fan.

 

[Goughy]

I dont think there is anything wrong with Test cricket and it doesnt need any radical changes.

However, I think the point of this thread is as a thought exercise to kep our opinions open and honest rather than wanting any changes made.


Regarding the proposal.

A hate artificial laws that cut at the purity of the sport and are just mechanisms by administrators to fulful their aims.

The key to Test cricket is that (usually) you need to be able to take 20 wickets to win. If you cant do that then you dont win. If neither side can do that then neither side deserves to win and a draw is declared.

The proposal cuts at the core of Test cricket.

 

[Dissector]

I certainly don't mind all draws but the kind of draws where both teams score 600 in their first innings are a huge bore. If such games were common I would consider bringing in over limitations but they are pretty rare these days. Ultimately I think there are better ways to reduce draws than limiting the number of overs.

 

[pasag]

Day-night cricket and an extra day for overs not yet completed are the only changes to Test matches I'd seriously entertain.