*Official* Fifth Test (The Oval, London) 27-31 July

[Qlder]

how do county teams bowl 90 overs a day, day in day out?

They don't, 96 overs are required to be bowled per day in County cricket. But then bowlers don't get a shower after every spell like England bowlers do

 

[Line and Length]

Does the fact that batsmen often waste time (e.g. slowing down play to ensure an over is the last before a break or stumps) get taken into consideration?

 

[Molehill]

So it's official, Australia won the WTC Ashes with 18 points to England's 9

The stupid thing is, England would've received more WTC points if they'd lost 4-1 but bowled at 15 overs per hour.

The whole competition has managed to lose its integrity after 1 series - the best series that the competition will undoubtedly see too.

In the previous cycle, 19 penalty points were awarded across the 2 years. How have England managed to clock that up in one series?

I suspect we'll be seeing some changes again soon.....

 

[Molehill]

They don't, 96 overs are required to be bowled per day in County cricket. But then bowlers don't get a shower after every spell like England bowlers do

You do realise that Aus were no quicker? They were just effectively saved by England's scoring rates.

 

[Molehill]

This is clearly meant to account for those tests in SA where 4 seamers are played and matches wrap up in under 4 days because 12+ wickets fall per day. Not having this caveat in place would lead to over rate penalties in those cases, which would be worse.

So you've now accepted that it's harder for seamers to bowl at 15 overs an hour than spinners? Therefore, you understand that the whole system is screwed to favour those playing in spin friendly conditions.

You've been wrong throughout this thread until this point...

 

[trundler]

So you've now accepted that it's harder for seamers to bowl at 15 overs an hour than spinners? Therefore, you understand that the whole system is screwed to favour those playing in spin friendly conditions.

I already addressed this you simpleton.

 

[Molehill]

England's over rates were abysmal throughout the series. They weren't short a few overs in a test, they were leaving 10+ overs unbowled per day so no wonder they've lost a lot of points. As they should.

At no point did they leave 10+ overs short in a day. And why no mention of the Aussie rate? It was pretty much identical, but the Aussies escaped penalties due to the 80/160 over rule.

I already addressed this you simpleton.

Struggling to find where. It seems you think you have but you really haven't.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

You do realise that Aus were no quicker? They were just effectively saved by England's scoring rates.

Or conversely they were just effectively saved by Australia's bowling strike rates:

Anderson had a strike rate of 184.8, so one wicket each 30 overs!!


Moeen Ali and Mitchell Starc both bowled a very number of deliveries - Ali 126.0 overs and Starc 128.1 (both 4 matches and 7 innings). Yet Starc took 23 wickets (s/r 33.4!), while Ali took 9 (s/r 84.0).

Australia's spinners took wickets far faster with strike rates of 32.8 for Murphy and 44 for Lyon.

 

[trundler]

At no point did they leave 10+ overs short in a day. And why no mention of the Aussie rate? It was pretty much identical, but the Aussies escaped penalties due to the 80/160 over rule.



Struggling to find where. It seems you think you have but you really haven't.

Firstly, saying that pace bowlers take longer to bowl overs is a level of insight verging on the tautological. This has never been in dispute. I said the 80/160 caveat was a good way for accounting for green seamers (such as Centurion and early season English pitches) where 4 pace bowlers are used and 12+ wickets fall in a day. Wickets take time out of the game and so does the innings change. Matches also wrap by day 4 almost always. Do you understand how the 'and' operator works? Just playing 4 seamers doesn't make bowling 90 overs a day impossible by itself. NZ played 4 seamers in virtually every home game in the first WTC cycle and never had any issues with the over rate.

And yes, I agree that Australia should've had a bigger penalty too. They got off on a technicality. Perhaps the match referee should have the discretion to fine the captain for deliberate time wasting in exceptional cases.

 

[Molehill]

Firstly, saying that pace bowlers take longer to bowl overs is a level of insight verging on the tautological. This has never been in dispute. I said the 80/160 caveat was a good way for accounting for green seamers (such as Centurion and early season English pitches) where 4 pace bowlers are used and 12+ wickets fall in a day. Wickets take time out of the game and so does the innings change. Matches also wrap by day 4 almost always. Do you understand how the 'and' operator works? Just playing 4 seamers doesn't make bowling 90 overs a day impossible by itself. NZ played 4 seamers in virtually every home game in the first WTC cycle and never had any issues with the over rate.

And yes, I agree that Australia should've had a bigger penalty too. They got off on a technicality. Perhaps the match referee should have the discretion to fine the captain for deliberate time wasting in exceptional cases.

Ok, so we've got rules that help spinning tracks and green seamers that finish inside 4 days. What about pitches designed to produce results on Day 5 that are mainly seam pitches but offer a little to spinners. You know, the kind of typical pitches you find in England (and Australia).

Fair play to NZ for bowling their overs super quickly - it effectively won them a WTC. Personally, I'd prefer to see it settled by results. None of the over rates affected the results in this series. I'm still of the opinion that unless a match finishes in a draw, no over rate penalties should be considered.

Does it make sense that England would've picked up more WTC Points for losing 4-1 but bowling their overs a bit faster? It's a farce. I'm all for doing something about slow over rates, but I fail to see why you need to come off at 6.30pm when the light is good and there's 5 overs left to bowl.

 

[Victor Ian]

How to win the WTC.

Pick 11 batsman - 2 openers and 9 middle order. Bat for over 100 0vers and make sure you hold up the bowlers enough to ensure they get penalties. Bowl any old **** - quickly, preferably wide on the side of the field stacked with fielders. You are playing for a draw, but it doesn't matter if you get beaten. What matters is making sure the other teams loses more points than they gain.

At WTC final, pick a normal team, bowl as slow as you like as penalties don't matter.

 

[Xix2565]

You know, the kind of typical pitches you find in England

So basically something that didn't exist in England. Little to spinners is doing a lot of work there lol.

 

[Chin Music]

I

So basically something that didn't exist in England. Little to spinners is doing a lot of work there lol.

Somewhere like Lord's doesn't often offer turn, even later in the game. However, many of other tracks do break up and offer 4th and 5th day turn, especially the Oval.

 

[trundler]

Ok, so we've got rules that help spinning tracks and green seamers that finish inside 4 days. What about pitches designed to produce results on Day 5 that are mainly seam pitches but offer a little to spinners. You know, the kind of typical pitches you find in England (and Australia).

Spinners still play a role there though. It is reasonable to expect a 3-1 configuration in general and like I said, 4 pacers can still get the job done. Even in countries where conditions suit pacers, spinners still bowl a good chunk of the overs to give the pacers a rest or to tie up an end, both reasons not related to over rates at all. This is true of virtually every deck where games last 5 days. I don't see why 90 overs can't be bowled in a day in that case.

Fair play to NZ for bowling their overs super quickly - it effectively won them a WTC. Personally, I'd prefer to see it settled by results. None of the over rates affected the results in this series. I'm still of the opinion that unless a match finishes in a draw, no over rate penalties should be considered.

I don't like this because we have a similar system for rating pitches based on results. Last winter's Rawalpindi wicket was deemed acceptable because it produced a result. Over rates have to be applied universally or we'll run into even more inconsistencies as whether there's a result or not can be influenced by a million factors.

Does it make sense that England would've picked up more WTC Points for losing 4-1 but bowling their overs a bit faster?

This just comes down to whether you think over rate guidelines should be a requirement or suggestion.

It's a farce. I'm all for doing something about slow over rates, but I fail to see why you need to come off at 6.30pm when the light is good and there's 5 overs left to bowl.

This would lead to scheduling issues, no? What happens if a team is trying to bat out a draw but there's no fixed time limit? Joe Root loved this idea as part of a fielding side trying to bowl out the opposition but someone on the other other end of that would be quite unhappy about this arrangement. We should definitely extend play if there's good light in case of rain delays though. Or start earlier. You'd still need decent over rates to maximise the extra time though.

 

[Chin Music]

Spinners still play a role there though. It is reasonable to expect a 3-1 configuration in general and like I said, 4 pacers can still get the job done. Even in countries where conditions suit pacers, spinners still bowl a good chunk of the overs to give the pacers a rest or to tie up an end, both reasons not related to over rates at all. This is true of virtually every deck where games last 5 days. I don't see why 90 overs can't be bowled in a day in that case.

I think in the series just gone, I am pretty sure the over rate from England would have been better if Leach had been fit. He would have bowled a big chunk of overs to do that job. It wasn't an inconsiderable loss to England beyond the tactical, even though Australia would have targeted him.

 

[Molehill]

I don't like this because we have a similar system for rating pitches based on results. Last winter's Rawalpindi wicket was deemed acceptable because it produced a result. Over rates have to be applied universally or we'll run into even more inconsistencies as whether there's a result or not can be influenced by a million factors.

This just comes down to whether you think over rate guidelines should be a requirement or suggestion.

This would lead to scheduling issues, no? What happens if a team is trying to bat out a draw but there's no fixed time limit? Joe Root loved this idea as part of a fielding side trying to bowl out the opposition but someone on the other other end of that would be quite unhappy about this arrangement. We should definitely extend play if there's good light in case of rain delays though. Or start earlier. You'd still need decent over rates to maximise the extra time though.

As I've said on the other thread, I don't think the WTC is a daft concept, but it's simply not working in its current format. It's hard to take seriously with stuff like this going on.

Why should over rates be applied universally when it's fairly obvious an over of seam takes a lot longer than an over of spin?

Where is the scheduling issue with a day of cricket lasting 20 mins longer to get all the overs in? It was also proven in County Cricket that if you tell teams they'll be bowling all the overs no matter what, they actually tend to bowl them a bit quicker. As it stands, the rules are not working and have made a mockery out of the WTC at the same time.

 

[Prince EWS]

This just comes down to whether you think over rate guidelines should be a requirement or suggestion.

Neither. They should be abolished, like the Civil Rights Act.

 

[trundler]

Why should over rates be applied universally when it's fairly obvious an over of seam takes a lot longer than an over of spin?

Why complicate it further and make the rules harder to enforce when the current standard is perfectly doable even for an attack consisting solely of pace bowlers?

Where is the scheduling issue with a day of cricket lasting 20 mins longer to get all the overs in?

This is why the half hour extension exists to begin with. That's the whole point of it.

 

[Molehill]

Why complicate it further and make the rules harder to enforce when the current standard is perfectly doable even for an attack consisting solely of pace bowlers?

This is why the half hour extension exists to begin with. That's the whole point of it.

When important series are on the line, when every Test is close, when the series matters more than over rates, it is not perfectly doable, as two teams have just shown. Now maybe for some 2 Test bollox with no history that's being watched by 3 men and a dog it's doable, but not every Test series is the same.

Why only 30 mins? Not like there's light issue in the English Summer, why not just say we'll bowl the 90 overs no matter what?

 

[trundler]

When important series are on the line, when every Test is close, when the series matters more than over rates, it is not perfectly doable, as two teams have just shown.

They should've tried harder instead of needlessly ****ing about as they did.

Why only 30 mins? Not like there's light issue in the English Summer, why not just say we'll bowl the 90 overs no matter what?

There's a reason we have time limits in tests. Needlessly ****ing about should be eliminated rather than legitimised.