Do you care about over rates enough to support penalties?

[Stefan9]

Yes. Punishment to the full extent. 90 overs is the min I am suppose to see but I am not even getting that with the extra half hour.

The harsher the better till players start respecting fans.

 

[thierry henry]

You're missing that it might be better cricket. Is it really worth getting a few more overs in a day if it's bowled by **** part-time spinners instead of a world-class fast bowler? That's bad.

Of course, but there's no rhyme or reason why proper bowlers can't get through the overs in the required time? The time they are currently taking isn't "natural" or "normal", it's visibly obvious that it's the result of across-the-board slowness.

I wasn't really talking about what the practical solutions would be, just saying that the proper bowlers being unnecessarily slow is a bad thing. However, if we are talking practicalities - surely if harsh and swift penalties were imposed, the proper bowlers would just start getting through their overs at a proper speed?

 

[thierry henry]

I'm still genuinely confused about the rationale behind not caring....where do you draw the line? Do you ***** actually care whether you get any cricket with your cricket? Would it be ok if they bowled one ball, went back into the sheds for 7 hours and then came back at the end of the day and bowled the next one?

 

[ataraxia]

4 minutes 30 seconds an over for pacers.

3 minutes an over for spinners.

It really shouldn't be this tough, and hasn't been tough (80s WI aside) until the last few years. 85 overs in 6 hours 30 minutes is awful. Not to blame the bowlers only though; I think the blame rests on all parties. Batsmen should be quicker, bowlers should be quicker, umpires should be quicker.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What if a batsman celebrates after reaching every increment-of-50 milestone?

Isn't he holding up the game?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What if a batsman celebrates after reaching every increment-of-50 milestone?

Isn't he holding up the game?

"It took you 8 minutes to bowl over #47"
"What do you want from me David Warner was running a lap of the ground"

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Kiwi Cricket rules imo

 

[_00_deathscar]

"It took you 8 minutes to bowl over #47"
"What do you want from me David Warner was running a lap of the ground"

Shouldn’t have conceded 30 runs in the over to be fair.

 

[cnerd123]

England docked a further 3 WTC points from the 1st Ashes Test because the powers that be have decided they were actually 8 overs behind the minimum rate.

Lmao

 

[_00_deathscar]

So -8?

Are they behind in this one too?

 

[Starfighter]

Lol that's taking the piss.

I do support penalties but considering it's not tremendously serious I wonder if something on the order of half the current number of points is more reasonable.

 

[TheJediBrah]

As if we needed any more evidence that WTC is a complete joke

 

[centurymaker]

yeah, Australia was robbed last time due to this over rate penalty nonsense.

-And I don’t like that fact that all teams are only playing 6 of the 8 opponents. Some are skipping the likes of Bangladesh, WI, whereas others are skipping Australia, etc. And then the combination of home and away series can sometimes be so favourable to a particular team or two.

-And the way points are being awarded is still not entirely fair.
So a team can rank up the points if they play ‘longer series’ against the lower ranked sides and play 2 match short series against the higher ranked sides.

-would have been far far better if the championship cycle was 4 years instead of 2 years, and the final being a best of 3 or 4 tests, as opposed to 1 test. 4 year cycle would have ensured that the best two sides made it. And what’s really the need of having a final every 2 years? To make it more open and exciting? But with time, it is going to lose that and every 2 yrs may start to feel like an overkill, going in the direction of the T20 world cup.

But it‘s a start, maybe 5-10 years down the line, they will make the necessary amendments.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Get rid of these ridiculous penalties, make it a final every 4-5 years after a proper full cycle and problems are solved, you've got yourself a genuinely respectable WTC

Oh and make the finals a 3 match series

 

[centurymaker]

It just seems like ICC are only interested in making as much money as they possibly can. So they now have like 6-7 world finals lined up every 4 years.

2-3 T20 World Cup finals
2 WTC finals
1 ODI WC final
1 Champions Trophy Final

6-7 finals, giving everyone a chance to win something over a period of time. It‘s the scarcity (and the quality) of these events that makes them special. Without the scarcity, some years down the line, winning these is not going to feel the same. You will be happy to have won but you won’t be jumping in joy, like it might have been the case in earlier decades.

And say 20 years from now, who is going to remember who won when and what? These wins will be forgotten. Overkill. Going in the direction of commercial football where no one cares or remembers who won what just few years ago. Quickly lose significance and forgotten.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It just seems like ICC are only interested in making as much money as they possibly can. So they now have like 6-7 world finals lined up every 4 years.

2-3 T20 World Cup finals
2 WTC finals
1 ODI WC final
1 Champions Trophy Final

6-7 finals, giving everyone a chance to win something over a period of time. It‘s the scarcity (and the quality) of these events that makes them special. Without the scarcity, some years down the line, winning these is not going to feel the same. You will be happy to have won but you won’t be jumping in joy, like it might have been the case in earlier decades.

And say 20 years from now, who is going to remember who won when and what? These wins will be forgotten. Overkill. Going in the direction of commercial football where no one cares or remembers who won what just few years ago. Quickly lose significance and forgotten.

You make very good points. World Cup wins used to be a big deal. Now everyone is winning something. I care about as much about the T20 "World Cup" that Aus just won as I did about who won the BBL

 

[Immenso]

Cross over with Duke/ kookaburra thread. Also crossover with the general George Dobell et. al. campaign against county cricket being pushed to the margins. But losing 8 WTC points on over rates is perhaps an accurate, but harsh, reflection on England's standing as a rounded cricket team compared to their peers?

Get a domestic competition that promotes a balanced attack to test cricket. Not one that is 5 seamers. Or 4 seamers plus a spinner you dont trust.

Now. As a NZ fan, what I write above makes me a bit nervous. We have become a 4 seamer team, even 5 in WTC final. We also play Plunket Shield in the margins of our season.

But ... maybe it's as simple as touring Australia finishes visiting finger spinners. Again with my NZ hat on. It did for Mark Craig second to last visit and almost for Santer last vist.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Cross over with Duke/ kookaburra thread. Also crossover with the general George Dobell et. al. campaign against county cricket being pushed to the margins. But losing 8 WTC points on over rates is perhaps an accurate, but harsh, reflection on England's standing as a rounded cricket team compared to their peers?

Get a domestic competition that promotes a balanced attack to test cricket. Not one that is 5 seamers. Or 4 seamers plus a spinner you dont trust.

Now. As a NZ fan, what I write above makes me a bit nervous. We have become a 4 seamer team, even 5 in WTC final. We also play Plunket Shield in the margins of our season.

But ... maybe it's as simple as touring Australia finishes visiting finger spinners. Again with my NZ hat on. It did for Mark Craig second to last visit and almost for Santer last vist.

This is exactly the kind of thinking I was afraid of. Picking and bowling spinners purely for over rate reasons. There is no way that is good for anyone involved

 

[honestbharani]

I did about who won the BBL

Dats only coz the Stars suck though.