Should there be a mandatory sixth day in tests?

[silentstriker]

One of the things that irks me the most about cricket, is the loss of play and the inability to get all the scheduled overs in five days. It could be due to rain, bad light, or even (and this is the worst) a side taking unusually long to get ready between balls just to delay.

If we had a sixth day scheduled for all the tests, and only the overs that were left over from the previous days would be bowled...would you all like it? I think that anything that allows 450 overs to be bowled in a test match is a good thing for cricket. If all the scheduled overs were bowled, then there would be no play on the sixth day of the match.

 

[steds]

No.

 

[silentstriker]

No.

Why not?

 

[Matt79]

I'd prefer it if the powers-that-be do everything they can to avoid the problem in the first place - continue to hammer time-wasters, and maybe don't schedule tests in early spring or late autumn.

 

[deeps]

the scheduling is pathetic.

but yes, a 6th day should be an option if the two umpires believe there is a possibility of a result.

however, this would screw up tv broadcasts, grounds, schedules etc. etc. etc.

 

[marc71178]

You cannot have an optional 6th day, and I don't see why one should be scheduled.

Next it would become, should there be 7 days...

I have no doubt that the only reason this has come up is the current game going on.

 

[steds]

Why not?

Overkill.

 

[pasag]

Its not such a bad idea. If it seems like a result could come of it and alot of time was missed, then why not. Nothing is more frustrating then dedicating 5 days of your life for a test match for it to end in a draw.

 

[Sanz]

Why because India can win this test ?

 

[luckyeddie]

I wonder why this is suggested now? (looks at scoreboard)

When weather doesn't intervene, often 4 days is plenty to complete a game.

Why not just encourage players to bowl at a half-decent over-rate? The day before yesterday, Kumble took SIX MINUTES to complete an over, during which a couple of singles were scored - and India are better than most.

When I first went to test matches (albeit 40 years or more ago) you used to get AT LEAST 100-105 overs in a full day, and even then people moaned about the halcyon days of 20 overs an hour.

I thought that people were supposed to be better, stronger, faster nowadays (at least some on here keep telling me so) so surely we should be getting through MORE overs on account of the sheer athleticism of the fielding side and the bowlers racing back to their marks? (Can't blame Monty for that yet).

Instead, bowlers and fielding sides in general seem to get about the field between balls slower than Ronaldo on Dope.

 

[Dasa]

I have no doubt that the only reason this has come up is the current game going on.

Obviously. You say that as if it's a bad thing - if an issue arises in an ongoing match/series, people are going to talk about it.

There was talk of adding a sixth day to some Test matches in the Pakistan v England series as well, because of all the time lost to bad light. I don't think it's a particularly bad idea - the problem comes with scheduling, especially in back-to-back Test matches.

 

[silentstriker]

I wonder why this is suggested now? (looks at scoreboard)

Yes, because suggesting it now will mean ICC will implement it tonight and we are going to have a game tomorrow. This would have helped England in the Ashes too. And it would have been good for cricket in Pakistan too.

When weather doesn't intervene, often 4 days is plenty to complete a game.

Why not just encourage players to bowl at a half-decent over-rate? The day before yesterday, Kumble took SIX MINUTES to complete an over, during which a couple of singles were scored - and India are better than most.

So why can't we do both? If tests are over in 4 days, then great. You don't HAVE to play the sixth day.

 

[Goughy]

There has to be a finite nimber of days scheduled. Teams must know how long a game will last before they start.

6 days is fine but then as previously mentioned there will be calls for 7 etc. 5 is a decent enough number. No need to change.

If 6 days were scheduled then on some tracks seen in certain countries a team could bat for 3 1/2 days posting silly totals.

Also, if the 6 day was only to make up for lost time, then there would be TV scheduling problems.

What if the game was heading for a bore draw with no team having a chance of winning and it had rained for an hour on day 2. Would everyone have to come back for 1 hr of pointless cricket on day 6.

I think we are fine as we are. Losing time and having that get in the way of a victory is very frustrating. It is how ever part of the game. I still have sleepless nights over West Indies v England, Trinidad, 1990.

 

[silentstriker]

There has to be a finite nimber of days scheduled. Teams must know how long a game will last before they start.

6 days is fine but then as previously mentioned there will be calls for 7 etc. 5 is a decent enough number. No need to change.

If 6 days were scheduled then on some tracks seen in certain countries a team could bat for 3 1/2 days posting silly totals.

Huh? If they bat for 3 1/2 days, then the game would be a draw after five days, unless overs were lost.

Also, if the 6 day was only to make up for lost time, then there would be TV scheduling problems.

That happens all the time in the US during playoffs. In a seven game series, if one team goes 4-0, the three games are not played and the TV finds something else to play. Its not a big deal.

What if the game was heading for a bore draw with no team having a chance of winning and it had rained for an hour on day 2. Would everyone have to come back for 1 hr of pointless cricket on day 6.

Only if the officials think there is a chance of a result in that hour.

 

[luckyeddie]

Look up 'timeless test' on Cricinfo. We have one every world war or so - more often and the game of cricket dies.

 

[silentstriker]

Look up 'timeless test' on Cricinfo. We have one every world war or so - more often and the game of cricket dies.

Huh? Who is saying that we should bowl more than 450 overs?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Teams would adjust to whatever length of match the ICC sanctions and draws will continue to be as frequent as they are now. Players would also complain about burnout and the ICC would probably introduce more rules to feed batsmen easy runs.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

A sixth day would end up leading to more negative, dull, uninspirational cricket since more teams will spend longer compiling bigger scores. The excitement of a team batting back-against-the-wall would disappear. As Eddie has shown, longer Tests do not necessarily guarantee results.

Five days is fine.

 

[silentstriker]

Teams would adjust to whatever length of match the ICC sanctions and draws will continue to be as frequent as they are now. Players would also complain about burnout and the ICC would probably introduce more rules to feed batsmen easy runs.

Its just about getting 450 overs in every match. I don't have a problem with a more severe penalty for slow over rate, i.e penalty in the form of runs. Something that really hurts where it counts.

 

[silentstriker]

A sixth day would end up leading to more negative, dull, uninspirational cricket since more teams will spend longer compiling bigger scores.
Five days is fine.

What part of the 'sixth day only being available if all the overs are not bowled' is difficult?


Why would they bat longer? In the end, its still 450 overs.