Over-rates yawn

[Prince EWS]

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.....

Giving batsmen a massive incentive to decrease the over-rate by wasting time themselves is never going to be a good solution.

 

[Cricnerd]

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.

Start it in one dayers. I'm pretty sure, we'd get use to it quickly, then it'll just a matter of time before we see it in test cricket

 

[Cricnerd]

Start it in one dayers. I'm pretty sure, we'd get use to it quickly, then it'll just a matter of time before we see it in test cricket

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:
View attachment 35667

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

 

[Cricnerd]

Watched a rare bit of film of a complete over from Richie Benaud. No rush, very casual but took him less than 2 minutes to complete an over. But at the same time there were no field changes either. Keith Miller (off shortened run) got through his in about two minutes forty seconds.

 

[Yeoman]

Start it in one dayers. I'm pretty sure, we'd get use to it quickly, then it'll just a matter of time before we see it in test cricket

Clocks are used in tennis too, and for penalty and conversion kicks in rugby. In cricket, the clock could be started after the ball becomes dead. If the ball is not bowled before the time limit then the next ball becomes a free hit.

 

[Molehill]

Watched a rare bit of film of a complete over from Richie Benaud. No rush, very casual but took him less than 2 minutes to complete an over. But at the same time there were no field changes either. Keith Miller (off shortened run) got through his in about two minutes forty seconds.

One thing to consider, I bet no batsman tried a reverse sweep in that Benaud over. Easy to bowl fast when you’re not being given much to think about.

 

[shortpitched713]

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

Honestly, no holes with this I can see, although captains and players (especially of the old guard of current players) will whinge a fit. It more or less is a neccessary fix to "save" Test cricket.

 

[Yeoman]

If you want a complete over including the change of ends and any wickets falling to be done in 4 minutes, so giving 15 overs an hour, you probably have to trim the maximum gap between deliveries to 35-40 seconds.

 

[Molehill]

If you want a complete over including the change of ends and any wickets falling to be done in 4 minutes, so giving 15 overs an hour, you probably have to trim the maximum gap between deliveries to 35-40 seconds.

Probably less if we're then handing over 5 mins for a drinks break too. Might be worth having different thresholds for spinners and seamers, but then that's just getting confusing.

Anyway, I don't really care about over rates. They should only be considered if the result ends in a draw.

Can someone explain how Pakistan somehow escaped any punishment for the First Test despite only bowling 81 overs on Day 3?

 

[Daemon]

Can someone explain how Pakistan somehow escaped any punishment for the First Test despite only bowling 81 overs on Day 3?

mercy rule

 

[josephina]

Does more balls bowled equal more entertainment? T20 is more exciting but has less balls than a 50 over game.

I would like to see limited overs tests. eg 4 days, 160 overs per side over 2 innings.