Over-rates yawn

[Cricnerd]

I'm aware as I write this post that over-rates are seen as dull. It's something older players moan about and most of my cricket watching friends really aren't interested. Yet I think it's hugely important to the future of cricket - test cricket in particular.

What brought it to a head, was watching a T20 international with my son. The match was heading towards a thrilling conclusion and finally I'd got him interested. Then there was a pause that lasted nearly 5 minutes as the fielding team conferred; then another few minutes went past as we watched a review. Now if you know the sport, because you understand the nuances, these lengthy spells of piddling about are just something you get on with. However, to my son, relatively new to the game, they were so boring. In the end he just went up to his room to watch something more interesting. I'd be telling him how exciting it was and I felt embarrassed for the game.

20/20 was supposed to last a maximum of 3 hours including breaks, but that sort of over-rate is now pretty much unheard of. It's rare in test cricket, unless the match is in India with the dominance of spin, that we see 90 overs in 6 hours.

Cricket can do so much better. 100 years ago the average number of overs in a day was between 120 -140.
Here's the average over-rate per decade.

I think there is a solution that could take us up to 16+ overs per hour. It wouldn't involve changing the rules, would bring money into the game through increased sponsorship, increase the over-all excitement and not irritate the players with meaningless and frustrating fines. And yes the day would only last 7 hours including breaks and not involve the faster bowlers cutting back their run-ups. But before I share, I thought I'd ask if anyone else has any ideas? Or if you in my cricket mate's camp, of actually not being that interested??

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

There were better captains back in the day who were excellent managers of bowlers bowling their overs in an expedient manner.

 

[a massive zebra]

Where did you find those over rates per hour by decade?

One thing to remember is a high proportion of Test matches between the wars were played in Australia, and Australia used 8 ball overs between 1924-25 and 1978-79. If those over rates are calculated based on balls bowled/6/hours played then you will get higher over rates with 8 ball overs, as 8 ball overs ensure less time is spent switching between wickets.

Back in the day there was more spin bowling, not as many long run ups for pace bowlers, less time spent altering the field and less time spent shining the ball.

 

[Coronis]

Where did you find those over rates per hour by decade?

One thing to remember is a high proportion of Test matches between the wars were played in Australia, and Australia used 8 ball overs between 1924-25 and 1978-79. If those over rates are calculated based on balls bowled/6/hours played then you will get higher over rates with 8 ball overs, as 8 ball overs ensure less time is spent switching between wickets.

Back in the day there was more spin bowling, not as many long run ups for pace bowlers, less time spent alrering the field and less time spent shining the ball.

Imagine how good SF Barnes would be if he spent more time shining the ball.

 

[Starfighter]

Where did you find those over rates per hour by decade? One thing to remember is a high proportion of Test matches between the wars were played in Australia, and Australia used 8 ball overs between 1924-25 and 1978-79. If those over rates are calculated based on balls bowled/6/hours played then you will get higher over rates with 8 ball overs, as 8 ball overs ensure less time is spent switching between wickets.

That the number of balls an over has much effect compared to other factors is very questionable:

 

[Line and Length]

Having played in both 8 ball and 6 ball over eras, I agree the balls/hour rate is similar, as [pointed out by Starfighter's graph. However, as a bowler I preferred 8 balls as it allowed more scope for planning and setting up a batsman.
The ball shining and field placing consultations have slowed over-rates down. Other factors are fielders donning protective gear, sight board adjustments with bowlers switching from over to round the wicket (and reverse) and dawdling back to their mark. I'm not sure the length of run-ups is a huge factor. Bowlers such as Hall, Lillee, Holding et al had lengthy run-ups but over rates weren't as slow in their era.

 

[a massive zebra]

Having played in both 8 ball and 6 ball over eras, I agree the balls/hour rate is similar, as [pointed out by Starfighter's graph. However, as a bowler I preferred 8 balls as it allowed more scope for planning and setting up a batsman.
The ball shining and field placing consultations have slowed over-rates down. Other factors are fielders donning protective gear, sight board adjustments with bowlers switching from over to round the wicket (and reverse) and dawdling back to their mark. I'm not sure the length of run-ups is a huge factor. Bowlers such as Hall, Lillee, Holding et al had lengthy run-ups but over rates weren't as slow in their era.

Over rates in their era were significantly slower than during the inter war period, as evidenced in the opening post.

 

[Ali TT]

While I think players have a lot of responsibility for slower over rates, one thing I've come to accept about cricket is that if there's a way to **** about and waste time, then cricket will find it. Whether that's losing the ball scrubland behind the stand, a security guard asleep in front of the sight screen, the sun reflecting from a window in the pavilion, having to change the batters jock strap on the field or having a drinks break when a wicket is taken just minutes after the official drinks break, or numerous other bouts of ****-wittery. Umpires should follow a principle that if something is making the game look stupid then it shouldn't happen.

Why I get the need for fielding teams to get their tactics right in T20, especially at the death, I think a clock like in tennis or NFL would be a good idea.

In tests, I'm a little more relaxed. It'd be good to get 90 overs in every day, but not if that means having to watch 20 overs of part time spin to get through the overs.

 

[AndrewB]

Where did you find those over rates per hour by decade?

One thing to remember is a high proportion of Test matches between the wars were played in Australia, and Australia used 8 ball overs between 1924-25 and 1978-79.

FWIW Australia used 6-ball overs for Tests from 1928-9 to 1932-3 inclusive (see e.g. the BPO column in Grimmett's career record).

 

[Ashes81]

In most days of test cricket, even with the extra half hour, there's usually about between 5 and 10 overs short.

Yes there's more stoppages in the modern game due to DRS but that's no excuse.

The only way to solve it is to penalise sides say 10 runs for every over not bowled, after DRS and any other stoppages are taken into account.

Umpires would have to make sure the batting side don't take the piss but it works in T20 when sides must have started to bowl the last over within 75 minutes of the start of the innings

 

[Bahnz]

The problem with the 'penalise teams 10 runs per over short' proposal is that it only really works in a situation where a team is in the field all day. If a team comes out to bowl around tea time, then with the new ball, fast bowling is going to be the go to choice, and the over rate will be slower no matter what. I guess you could apply the penalties at change of innings, but what happens in a situation where a team gets skittled for 100 by a fast bowling attack? That will involve a doubly slow over rate due to all the wickets (and probably a few reviews). Should that team be penalised 50 runs because it took 3 hours to bowl 40 overs? I just think there are way too many variables for a run penalty rule to be able to be applied fairly.

 

[Daemon]

I draw the line at wherever it was when Australia was penalised and couldn’t make the WTC final

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You also can't create a situation where the batting side can sneakily **** over the fielding side with extra drinks breaks. The best solution is to give the match referee the ability to dish out spot penalties for specific time wasting actions. Batsmen getting drinks and a change of gloves for the second time in 5 overs? 5 run penalty. Bowler dawdling when the batsman is ready? 5 run penalty. It's all subjective but it's too vague at the moment and pins too much on the fielding team.

 

[Adders]

The problem with the 'penalise teams 10 runs per over short' proposal is that it only really works in a situation where a team is in the field all day. If a team comes out to bowl around tea time, then with the new ball, fast bowling is going to be the go to choice, and the over rate will be slower no matter what. I guess you could apply the penalties at change of innings, but what happens in a situation where a team gets skittled for 100 by a fast bowling attack? That will involve a doubly slow over rate due to all the wickets (and probably a few reviews). Should that team be penalised 50 runs because it took 3 hours to bowl 40 overs? I just think there are way too many variables for a run penalty rule to be able to be applied fairly.

Agree.....and also a penalty system wouldn't account for when the batting side is trying to take time out of game. I think people forget that this is a thing.

Slow over rates are one of those things that realy divides cricket fans imo......you either fall into the category of thinking it's important or like me think it's really nothing to get wound up about. I think the quality of cricket on show is far more important than how many overs get bowled in a day.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I think the quality of cricket on show is far more important than how many overs get bowled in a day.

So, is there a relationship between slower over-rates and 'high quality cricket'?

As the OP alluded to, the big problem is the great yawning time when the ball is dead. High quality-cricket cannot happen when there's no cricket happening.

Perhaps look at this from a non-fan's perspective. What is one of the most common criticisms of cricket? It's not about everything happening so fast that you can't tell what's going on.

 

[Starfighter]

The problem with the 'penalise teams 10 runs per over short' proposal is that it only really works in a situation where a team is in the field all day. If a team comes out to bowl around tea time, then with the new ball, fast bowling is going to be the go to choice, and the over rate will be slower no matter what. I guess you could apply the penalties at change of innings, but what happens in a situation where a team gets skittled for 100 by a fast bowling attack? That will involve a doubly slow over rate due to all the wickets (and probably a few reviews). Should that team be penalised 50 runs because it took 3 hours to bowl 40 overs? I just think there are way too many variables for a run penalty rule to be able to be applied fairly.

The over rate accounting that is done during matches these days takes into account the fall of wickets and other interruptions. You can probably quibble about how well it's done (especially accounting for batsmen wasting time) but these are recognised issues that are accounted for.

 

[Starfighter]

Also one thing that is very noticeable looking over historic balls per hour figures (thanks to Charles Davis) is that once the tempo of the game shifted, it didn't go back.

The interwar period was generally fast and if a team was spin heavy it was common for them to bowl 130-140 balls an hour. In comparison a very spin-heavy Indian attack in the West Indies in 1977 was usually bowling below 100 balls per hour. And while I think faster scoring rates and more left-handed batsmen are a factor, the English sides of the early seventies didn't score very fast, yet in 72/73 the Indian attack still was well below the rates achieved previously. Some teams these days (especially Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) pick ver spin heavy attacks yet don't get in more than a few extra overs (the 40 second as break would be a significant hindrance). One main factor in slow over rates that spinners simply don't get through the overs like they used to.

 

[Ashes81]

The problem with the 'penalise teams 10 runs per over short' proposal is that it only really works in a situation where a team is in the field all day. If a team comes out to bowl around tea time, then with the new ball, fast bowling is going to be the go to choice, and the over rate will be slower no matter what. I guess you could apply the penalties at change of innings, but what happens in a situation where a team gets skittled for 100 by a fast bowling attack? That will involve a doubly slow over rate due to all the wickets (and probably a few reviews). Should that team be penalised 50 runs because it took 3 hours to bowl 40 overs? I just think there are way too many variables for a run penalty rule to be able to be applied fairly.

With all the data available nowadays, it should be viable to produce a calculation that is fair to both sides in the circumstances that you describe, in the same way that Duckworth/Lewis does for white ball cricket.

Will there be the odd occasion when a side gets a bit of a raw deal, probably.

However, the status quo can't continue as paying spectators are being short changed in virtually every day of test cricket that's played.

For my money that is more important than the odd time when a side may get a slightly harsh runs penalty.

 

[Ali TT]

With all the data available nowadays, it should be viable to produce a calculation that is fair to both sides in the circumstances that you describe, in the same way that Duckworth/Lewis does for white ball cricket.

Will there be the odd occasion when a side gets a bit of a raw deal, probably.

However, the status quo can't continue as paying spectators are being short changed in virtually every day of test cricket that's played.

For my money that is more important than the odd time when a side may get a slightly harsh runs penalty.

The status quo has been going on since the 80s, so I'm sure it can continue ever onwards. Cricket isn't unique in pace of play problems either - it even affects rugby and football, while baseball and basketball have real problems.

I'd probably try and punish/restrict the causes of slow play - like limiting appeals to change the ball, a countdown clock per delivery in T20 and one day cricket, and I'm not sure about the use of DRS for waste high full toss.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think there is a solution that could take us up to 16+ overs per hour. It wouldn't involve changing the rules, would bring money into the game through increased sponsorship, increase the over-all excitement and not irritate the players with meaningless and frustrating fines. And yes the day would only last 7 hours including breaks and not involve the faster bowlers cutting back their run-ups.