Over-rates yawn

[Cricnerd]

Thanks for everyone's replies. Great posts. Basically, my idea is based around keeping the time between deliveries to no more than 45 seconds (to be timed by 3rd umpire and sponsored clocks at both ends of ground). If a bowler transgresses then the next ball is a no-ball and so a free hit. I've spent a sad amount of time on this, but actually I think it matters. I've written up my plans in a document. But first I'd appreciate it if people could find some holes in the basic premise. Then I can hopefully fill those holes and if not then it's better I'm not pushing forward a plan with serious flaws. Thanks

 

[Cricnerd]

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.

 

[Cricnerd]

I found it on another cricket forum. Haven't verified it personally but suspect the data is spot on. It seems crazy now but 70+ years ago it wasn't uncommon for teams to average 24 over an hour.

 

[Cricnerd]

And these were 6 ball overs. In the 1880s teams regularly averaged 36 x 4 ball overs an hour

 

[Flem274*]

We live in one of the most result heavy eras. Over rates are almost a non-issue.

 

[Starfighter]

We live in one of the most result heavy eras. Over rates are almost a non-issue.

Conflating two seperate phenomena I see.

 

[Starfighter]

Thanks for everyone's replies. Great posts. Basically, my idea is based around keeping the time between deliveries to no more than 45 seconds (to be timed by 3rd umpire and sponsored clocks at both ends of ground). If a bowler transgresses then the next ball is a no-ball and so a free hit. I've spent a sad amount of time on this, but actually I think it matters. I've written up my plans in a document. But first I'd appreciate it if people could find some holes in the basic premise. Then I can hopefully fill those holes and if not then it's better I'm not pushing forward a plan with serious flaws. Thanks

The batsmen also waste quite a bit of time - how are you accounting for that?

 

[trundler]

We live in one of the most result heavy eras. Over rates are almost a non-issue.

Slow over rates are excruciating to watch regardless and deprive the spectators of their money's worth

 

[Flem274*]

Conflating two seperate phenomena I see.

Slow over rates are excruciating to watch regardless and deprive the spectators of their money's worth

I want to watch good cricket not people rushing decisions or overs because the most boring people on the planet (cricket commentators over 40) need to fill in some air time with a whinge.

Unless there is cynical time wasting I don't care. I didn't notice the over rate at all in that ridiculous NZ v SL test this summer and SL were consulting roughly 12 times an over.

Just turn the ****ing lights on until there's a result if we must and who gives a damn if the players can't see the red ball. Threat of injury and death will make them get on with it next time.

 

[trundler]

I want to watch good cricket not people rushing decisions or overs because the most boring people on the planet (cricket commentators over 40) need to fill in some air time with a whinge.

Unless there is cynical time wasting I don't care. I didn't notice the over rate at all in that ridiculous NZ v SL test this summer and SL were consulting roughly 12 times an over.

Just turn the ****ing lights on until there's a result if we must and who gives a damn if the players can't see the red ball. Threat of injury and death will make them get on with it next time.

I don't want to watch Shannon Gabriel drag his fat jiggly bottom to bowl 1 over in 8 minutes. If you can't finish your overs in time you deserve to be penalised. Bowlers could.. waste less time between balls instead. That's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Also if a batsman can't hold his thirst until the drinks break he can retire hurt for being a sissy.

 

[Cricnerd]

The batsmen also waste quite a bit of time - how are you accounting for that?

 

[Cricnerd]

Batsmen do waste time it's true. But it's relatively minor compared to the bowling side. If the batsman wastes time or an injury, you stop the clock.

 

[Cricnerd]

I don't want to watch Shannon Gabriel drag his fat jiggly bottom to bowl 1 over in 8 minutes. If you can't finish your overs in time you deserve to be penalised. Bowlers could.. waste less time between balls instead. That's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Also if a batsman can't hold his thirst until the drinks break he can retire hurt for being a sissy.

We live in one of the most result heavy eras. Over rates are almost a non-issue.

 

[Cricnerd]

The issue is more for non-cricket fans. Most say the game is too slow. And watching it with my 12 year old son, when nothing much is going on (captain conferring with bowler etc etc), he's bored and I get embarrassed that a sport I love is not connecting with young people. Yes some love it but statistically most find it an almighty yawn

 

[trundler]

The logic of sympathising with teams that are forced to bowl part timers because they're too lazy to bowl properly in an efficient manner is ass backwards anyway. Git gud and you won't have to do it. Waaaaaah why do actions have consequences!?11!!

 

[Prince EWS]

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??

See when I read this I knew it'd be impossible, and here we are.

Free hits after 45 seconds is definitely a rule change.

I'd rather see overrates go down by 20% than this. Psycho nonsense.

 

[trundler]

I stand against anything that fundamentally alters the nature of the game and spurious free hits in tests fall into that category for me so I can't support this idea even though I am firmly rooted in team anal about over rates.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't want to watch Shannon Gabriel drag his fat jiggly bottom to bowl 1 over in 8 minutes. If you can't finish your overs in time you deserve to be penalised. Bowlers could.. waste less time between balls instead. That's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Also if a batsman can't hold his thirst until the drinks break he can retire hurt for being a sissy.

I've watched plenty of Shannon Gabriel and have never noticed an issue with his over rate. If he has one it doesn't bother me. He has a lot to improve first before even considering how long he takes to bowl an over. Improving those things might actually improve his over rate, like not bowling four balls and improving his fitness.

It really is the forest for the trees here. If a team is being cynical and time wasting during an uncomfortable situation then we could start carding ******. If the game is high drama so advancing at a relative snails pace because everyone is panicking then that's just fun.

I don't usually notice over rates at all.

*the same commentators who complain about over rates seem to adore batsmen tying shoelaces and changing gloves when their team is 9 down on day 5 with half and hour to go.

 

[Yeoman]

While I would appreciate more brisk over rates, the problem of short changing the spectator could be avoided if the arbitrary 30 minutes allowance to bowl the missing overs was abolished and teams required to stay on the field until the days allowance was bowled.

 

[trundler]

I've watched plenty of Shannon Gabriel and have never noticed an issue with his over rate. If he has one it doesn't bother me. He has a lot to improve first before even considering how long he takes to bowl an over. Improving those things might actually improve his over rate, like not bowling four balls and improving his fitness.

It really is the forest for the trees here. If a team is being cynical and time wasting during an uncomfortable situation then we could start carding ****s*. If the game is high drama so advancing at a relative snails pace because everyone is panicking then that's just fun.

I don't usually notice over rates at all.

*the same commentators who complain about over rates seem to adore batsmen tying shoelaces and changing gloves when their team is 9 down on day 5 with half and hour to go.

I've noticed it and it annoys me greatly. It legitimately takes him that long to get through an over for no discernible reason. I don't care about what the commentators are saying at all.