Over-rates yawn

[OverratedSanity]

I flat out don't notice slow over-rates in the vast majority of cases until the over-rate is mentioned on screen and commentators go "Oh that's slow".

There are a few egregious cases (think WI have been pretty bad in a few games in the last few years), but overall, it's a nothingburger. I'm not going to be say you're wrong if you do care, but personally think that when it comes to the viewing experience of test cricket, it's way down on the list of things that need attention.

1. More bowler friendly pitches (this has been a huge improvement in the last 6-7 years) to get result tests
2. A better balance between bat and ball in limited overs cricket (needs way more work)
3. Better drainage facilities to minimize time lost to rain
4. More common sense on when to call for lunch/tea/drinks etc to minimize loss of time. This has been an infuriatingly stupid problem for ages
5. More common sense when it comes to light meter rulings from umpires
6. Increased flexibility to make up for lost time in tests. Most of the time they start a useless half an hour early and it accomplishes nothing.

20. Over-rates

Ok, that's maybe an exaggeration, but you get it. Cricket has so many problems where literally no cricket is being played that needs fixing, so I find it hard to care much when the cricket that is being played is played 10% slower.

 

[trundler]

I agree but making up for lost time would be easier if over rates were better tho

 

[OverratedSanity]

I agree but making up for lost time would be easier if over rates were better tho

I'm talking about making up for lost time in situations where no cricket is played. Like bad light or rain. Bowling overs quickly wouldn't fix how awful that viewing experience is. Honestly, I kinda think getting 7 hours of cricket in a day is a bit more important than getting 90 overs of cricket in a day.

 

[trundler]

I'm talking about making up for lost time in situations where no cricket is played. Like bad light or rain. Bowling overs quickly wouldn't fix how awful that viewing experience is. Honestly, I kinda think getting 7 hours of cricket in a day is a bit more important than getting 90 overs of cricket in a day.

Sure but I'm capable of being intensely mad about multiple things at once. 70 overs in 7 hours would be ridiculous too. Over rate penalties are great because they prevent that sort of thing. Taking into account all the allowances, the minimum number of overs that have to be bowled in a day is more like ~82 which is an extremely lax target for teams to hit. ODIs and T20s that drag on for too long definitely get tedious for me regardless of the quality of cricket too.

 

[Starfighter]

I do notice slow over rates, not least because they are largely associated with low quality cricket. Like after lunch on the first day at Hobart when England had lost the plot and were getting through them at a funereal pace.

That test matches get results doesn't matter. T20 matches always have results but I find them extremely boring due to the long intervals where there is nothing happening between each ball

 

[Ali TT]

I do notice slow over rates, not least because they are largely associated with low quality cricket. Luke after lunch on the first day at Hobart when England had lost the plot and were getting through them at a funereal pace.

That test matches get results doesn't matter. T20 matches always have result but I find them extremely boring due to the long intervals where there is nothing happening between each ball

Agree about t20s. Amazing climaxes to matches are ruined because each delivery of the final over takes 3 minutes, even without delays for wickets, umpire referrals etc, while the captain and bowler agonisingly set the field.

For tests, unless egregiously bad, it's harder to notice slow over rates when watching on TV because there are others things to distract you, like commenting on a cricket forum about the match you are watching. However, when watching live at the ground I find all the little reasons to pause the game frustrating. As said, though, I'm not an over rate pedant and favour higher quality cricket over quantity as a general principle. A timer has been shown to work T20s but would devalue test cricket - a halfway house might be to give umpires power to warn and sanction players in the game, with a 5-run penalty for a team who keeps falling to get on with it.

 

[Bahnz]

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 do tend to agree with the OP that while hardcore cricket fans we don't care or notice when the overrate drags on, casuals or kids are not necessarily going to feel the same way. Having said that, I'm really not sure how much 45 second rule is really going to help, as I think a big part of why overrates are going slower and slower is not so much because bowlers are spending more time farting about, but because of all the little tactical interventions by support staff, and of course because of the introduction of reviews. Pretty much everyone agrees that reviews are a net positive for the sport, but maybe there should be tighter restrictions around staff coming onto the field in between drinks breaks.

 

[honestbharani]

The Answer to this problem is, as usual...

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Ths year MLB started introducing pitch clocks to shorten the length of the game and it's been pretty well liked by everyone. Dunno how you could apply that in cricket though, it would work better in one dayers.

 

[Starfighter]

The Answer to this problem is, as usual...

Axar?

 

[ataraxia]

Axar?

View attachment 35665

Jadeja quite clearly off the charts here.

 

[Adders]

Axar?

View attachment 35665

Where's that come from? And how or why would anyone take the time and effort to compile this list?

I'd be calling this total BS save for the fact its got 4 Aussies in the top 10 so I kinda like it.

 

[ataraxia]

Where's that come from? And how or why would anyone take the time and effort to compile this list?

I'd be calling this total BS save for the fact its got 4 Aussies in the top 10 so I kinda like it.

Charles Davis (he probably did it between deliveries)

 

[Starfighter]

Charles Davis (he probably did it between deliveries)

I think he got the actual data to calculate the times from the scoresheets of someone he knows. I believe they only cover a proportion of recent tests (which is reasonable, can't expect someone to watch everything).

 

[Starfighter]

And how or why would anyone take the time and effort to compile this list?

Well, because it's an interesting question, not least because people have noticed over rates and some bowers are obviously slow.

 

[Starfighter]

The full list is under the 18 August entry: http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome2022.html

He explained a bit more in a prior post, he tried to exclude overs with wickets or other interruptions like reviews.

The older list is quite interesting too:


Note that even guys like Price and Lever, who had extremely long runs, were still a bit more punctual than fast bowlers today.

 

[thierry henry]

Feels like one of the fundamental differences of opinion here comes down to a lot of people simply not perceiving that the fielding team are going about their business extremely slowly for no reason at all. I just think it’s really obvious that they are. I watched cricket a long time ago when they were playing faster and now they’re playing slower. They’re playing slower because they’re choosing to play slower because they’re dicks. They should stop doing that. That’s pretty much it. It’s so weird to me that there’s…..widespread opposition?….to cricketers not dickishly playing slowly for no reason.

 

[thierry henry]

I'm talking about making up for lost time in situations where no cricket is played. Like bad light or rain. Bowling overs quickly wouldn't fix how awful that viewing experience is. Honestly, I kinda think getting 7 hours of cricket in a day is a bit more important than getting 90 overs of cricket in a day.

I genuinely don’t understand what you mean by this though? Like, bad light and rain are real things and when they reach a certain level you can’t reasonably play cricket. I’m all for improving facilities to reduce the impact of these things but as it stands, they’re real.

When the players are on the field because it’s somewhat dry and they can see, they have the power to just…play at a normal speed and therefore play a proper/the required amount of cricket. Why are we prioritising changing the weather and the existence of the sun over just encouraging the cricketers to be normal and follow like, the most fundamental rules around actually playing cricket while in the midst of a game of cricket? This is the damndest conversation tbh imo

 

[Beamer]

Axar?

View attachment 35665

I was going to say that West Indies overrate tends to be fine or manageable if Shannon Gabriel isn;t playing. When he is we have to bowl Roston Chase for hours just to try and catch up.

I think individual bowlers who take that long should be monitored closely. I get it that the run ups are long but over 5 minutes is a bit much. I agree with the general sentiment though that cricket has much bigger problems to solve such as the financial inequality of international cricket, the threat of T20 franchises, weather delays etc.

 

[Owzat]

I flat out don't notice slow over-rates in the vast majority of cases until the over-rate is mentioned on screen and commentators go "Oh that's slow".

There are a few egregious cases (think WI have been pretty bad in a few games in the last few years), but overall, it's a nothingburger. I'm not going to be say you're wrong if you do care, but personally think that when it comes to the viewing experience of test cricket, it's way down on the list of things that need attention.

1. More bowler friendly pitches (this has been a huge improvement in the last 6-7 years) to get result tests
2. A better balance between bat and ball in limited overs cricket (needs way more work)
3. Better drainage facilities to minimize time lost to rain
4. More common sense on when to call for lunch/tea/drinks etc to minimize loss of time. This has been an infuriatingly stupid problem for ages
5. More common sense when it comes to light meter rulings from umpires
6. Increased flexibility to make up for lost time in tests. Most of the time they start a useless half an hour early and it accomplishes nothing.

20. Over-rates

Ok, that's maybe an exaggeration, but you get it. Cricket has so many problems where literally no cricket is being played that needs fixing, so I find it hard to care much when the cricket that is being played is played 10% slower.

I find the ritual "drinks break" infuriating and often unnecessary. Why?

- fielders can waltz on and off the field and can quite easily go to the boundary if they want a drink
- umpires could easily have thermos' for batsmen and bowlers
- if you have a drinks break on the hour then the batsmen may have both been in the whole hour or for a few minutes

don't think it is the big factor in slowing the rates down, I'd clamp down on/limit fielding changes, perhaps even have a timer once a ball is dead (or the aussies call it dead, whichever) in which the bowler has to have started his run up and certainly reduce the "DRS review" count which, if meant for eliminating clangers, should not take 10-15 seconds to decide and certainly shouldn't involve batsmen discussions (or fielders)


my fix for it has long been to penalise slow over-rates in game by allowing the batsmen to choose the bowlers when a side is behind on the over-rate. no arbitrary run penalties, means you might see a few runs and no fielding side would want to lose the tactical advantage by having their keeper bowling and smeared for 10-15 runs an over whilst the over-rate is caught up.


made me angry when hearing TMS commentary team talking about 26 (?) overs on the 1st morning of the Ashes as if it was a rate to be proud of.

umpires could also tell them to get on with it, if batsmen time waste then warn them and then have a mode of dismissal "out time wasting" and do similar for fielders/bowlers so those not getting a move on get warned/yellow carded and then sent off the field of play for that innings - what captain would want to field with 10 men, or 9, or.....