• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Molehill said:
Not even true, in non rain impacted days I found this:
Day 1: First Test 87 overs (NZ 222-3, not like they were even belting it around).
Day 4: First Test 86 overs
Day 2: Second Test Test saw Pakistan bowl 85 overs.

So comparing that Windies Test with Manchester, both rain effected draws. W Indies no penalty largely because of India's 2nd innings declaration, England and Australia both penalised. The over rates are the same, W Indies arguably slower given how much spin they bowled too.

W Indies are currently ahead of England in the WTC Table off the back of that rain effected draw (England drew their series and won 2 Tests). Does that make any sense to you?
Click to expand...
Pakistan managed to get their overs in with the allowances for disruptions though they fell short once. NZ got 90 overs all summer and didn't even need the 30 minute extension once or twice.

Again, if the point penalties don't affect standings there's no point of them. If teams don't fall behind others because of terrible over rates there's no point of the system.
Molehill said:
Why are they conceding an advantage?
Click to expand...
More overs lead to more runs. If West Indies had slowed down their overs at Port of Spain in 1968 they wouldn't have lost. Unfortunately a system based on honour doesn't work anymore in a professional era.
 
Victor Ian

Victor Ian

International Coach
I do get that there must be some sort of limit on bowling rates to prevent unfair balances between teams, however this thread has devolved into a stupid battle of comparisons that avoid the thing that matters most...entertainment. To sum it up...

The pro over rates group wants to reward the loser D+ student who hands in their pathetic prose on time and wont recognise that the outstanding A+ (adjusted to D-) student, who handed their essay in 1 day late enthralled people with his work, had movies made from his work (mark my word, they will make documentaries and features about this ashes series) and probably inspired a whole new generation to take up the sport.

No one will give a **** about that NZ v Windies series and other such affairs. No one will ever remember those involved. No one will tell their children, I was THERE when it happened. Yes, it would be great if teams could both bowl their allotted 90 overs a day, but if both teams fall behind the standard and they aren't crying themselves, who are we to give a ****. You do realise that you are just drumming to the beat of the tv companies who want another commercial break. If not for that, no one would really complain at all. Think about it - you are the corporations shill.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If you want entertaining cricket at all costs then West Indies should never be made to play on a turning pitch (or without a dukes ball) and Lanka should never be made to play on seaming wickets. After all, we've established that entertaining cricket should be played regardless of whose fault leads to subpar cricket.
 
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
Victor Ian said:
The pro over rates group wants to reward the loser D+ student who hands in their pathetic prose on time and wont recognise that the outstanding A+ (adjusted to D-) student, who handed their essay in 1 day late enthralled people with his work, had movies made from his work (mark my word, they will make documentaries and features about this ashes series) and probably inspired a whole new generation to take up the sport.

No one will give a **** about that NZ v Windies series and other such affairs. No one will ever remember those involved. No one will tell their children, I was THERE when it happened. Yes, it would be great if teams could both bowl their allotted 90 overs a day, but if both teams fall behind the standard and they aren't crying themselves, who are we to give a ****. You do realise that you are just drumming to the beat of the tv companies who want another commercial break. If not for that, no one would really complain at all. Think about it - you are the corporations shill.
Click to expand...
Key point here. Who actually decided that over rates are the biggest issue in Test Cricket at the mo and therefore worthy of the harshest penalties?

Why not penalise teams incapable of attracting more than 50 people to Test Cricket?
 
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Can't believe you guys are blindly following the media companies *goes out to buy every single movie and documentary cash-in on a drawn series between two bad teams*
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Line and Length said:
Bowlers going off for a shower is a myth when it comes to affecting over rates. This occurs between overs and is less time consuming than a batsman calling for a change of bats when they try multiple bats.
Click to expand...
You might be right, but it needs to be stomped on. It turns into a farce at times.
 
A

Ashes81

State Vice-Captain
For me there are 2 alternatives.

1. Have no guidelines at all on how many overs should be bowled in a day.

2. Enforce the number of overs that should be bowled by a runs penalty in that game.

Number 2 would need a bit of thought as to how that works but essentially overs would be deducted for all stoppages in play, wkts, concussion checks, DRS, the batsmen changing their gloves etc.

Then for every over not bowled there is a fixed penalty of runs. Umpires would have to ensure the batting side did not cause unnecessary delays.

It wouldn't be perfect but nor is the current situation.
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
trundler said:
More overs lead to more runs. If West Indies had slowed down their overs at Port of Spain in 1968 they wouldn't have lost. Unfortunately a system based on honour doesn't work anymore in a professional era.
Click to expand...
they did it famously in 89/90 England tour of windies, England may well have won the series but windies under possibly Haynes stewardship for the game (?) bowled their overs so slowly I think as I recall it left Capel (?) and his partner having to choose to bat in the dark or call it a day - at 1-0 up in the series a win would have secured at least a series draw, they lost 1-2


Just checked, was Haynes as captain and was Capel 17no batting with Russell (5no), problem for England is Small, Fraser and Malcolm as the tail didn't leave a huge amount of security in the remaining batting if either of that pair were gotten out (Gooch retired hurt) Unlike the equally "bat in the dark" and infamous match in Pakistan during England's 2-1 winning tour of 00/01 (?) the umpires didn't hurry the bowling up a bit and Pakistan ended up not being able to see the ball to field, or maybe so they wanted the umpires to think!
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
the big bambino said:
Yep 72 overs a day and half of em bouncers. That’s entertainment!
Click to expand...
if they get wickets like the 3rd (?) Test then people tend to say it is a means to an end, but frankly it's a lot of energy used up and not exactly pretty to watch unless the batsman hoiks it for six/four or they get out

personally I'd prefer they limit balls above chest high to one an over, if not waist high, thankfully on most pitches the effective place to bowl is at the stumps or thereabouts but teams will always feel the 'surprise' ball is a necessary weapon even if the surprise is lost if you overdo it
 
M

Max D

Cricket Spectator
91Jmay said:
He played a lot and has some great performances but his numbers are poor. A good bits and pieces/role player maybe, not a bad one.

As I said one of my favourites and should be extremely proud of his career, no question.

Sticking his hand up for this series when he knew he'd be on a hiding to nothing most likely with how little he's played is very admirable and he came good this Test and with the bat in the last for sure.
Click to expand...
You say this, but anyone who considers Ali as one of their fav players would not have posted what you did. In the midst of winning a thrilling ashes test match, levelling the series, Broads last test match walking off. Great celebrations. You find it worthy to post the most weirdest post, whereby, trying to soak in the occasion praising Broad by putting Ali down by highlighting the bare baced audacity of such a "poor" player being allowed to walk out with Broad.

Very very peculiar mindset. One which I'm struggling to comprehend your rationale for. Should "poor" Ali have been grateful to walk out with such a god? Should he have bowed down and licked his boots too? Apparently his numbers just don't warrant him to breath the same air as SB. Numbers which I demonstrated in my previous post puts Ali up there with the best all rounders England have produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top