England v Bangladesh: Over Rates

[Occasional Fan]

In the context of a match in which a result is achieved before lunch on the third day, over rates are at least arguably totally irrelevant. I did, however, undertake to monitor them during the England v Bangladesh and the England v Australia series, and this is the performance during this first test match of the summer. Ninety overs in a scheduled six hour day assumes four minutes per over, of course.

England Bowling: First Innings 4'37" per over; Second Innings 4'54" per over
Bangladesh Bowling: First Innings 4'08" per over.

While neither of these rates would achieve 90 overs in a six hour day, Bangladesh would at least be able to deliver their ninety within the thirty minutes' overtime which ICC regulations currently permit for the purpose. England fall hopelessly short, and at their match average rate would only achieve a mere 81 overs in six and a half hours, robbing the paying public of 10% of the cricket for which they had forked out substantial amounts of cash.

Michael Vaughan and his bowlers need to pay attention to this before The Ashes start, or they are barely going to pick up any match fees, and there is already a precedent for banning captains for repeated infractions. I can see no excuse for these appallingly slow rates which England have delivered - 38 seconds longer per over than their opponents in this match.

I will update this information after the second test.

[Rachael]

To me, slow over rates are just plain cheating: it's worse than ball tampering or claiming catches you didn't take or anything like that... first and foremost because it deprives a batting side of the chance to wear the bowling side down and then take advantage of tiredness.

The WI were horribly guilty of this in the past.

The really disgraceful outcome of not disqualifying teams that cheat in this manner is that it lets captains off the hook. In 20-20 the captains are put under pressure and have to think on their feet... and in TEsts you should (Asa batsman) be trying to do the same thing... but if the captain feels he can just take a time out and consult with his bowlers / senior players the moment the wheels start coming off then the batting side get none of the rewards for disrupting the plans.

Suspensions for subsequent matches just don't seem effective: I'd rather just see teams forfeit any matches in which they default (and games in which both teams default simply stripped of Test status).

ps. would there be any merit in introducing "free hits" in Tests as a way of penalising the cheats? Not quite sure how you'd organise it.. but it would certainly be interesting if, say, the match referee checked every 45 minutes to see how over-rates were going and then allocated the batting team a free hit for every ball the bowling side had failed to deliver

[cantplaycantalk]

Does that take into account that England had to keep waiting for the next batsman (batsman used in it's loosest context?)

[Occasional Fan]

In the past, I have always been at least sceptical of, and earlier probably dead set against, any sanction which affects the "natural" result of a match. I have, over the last two to three years, gradually been changing my view, and my feeling is that it is time for the MCC and the ICC now to be looking at this issue with all options on the table. There would be a complete uproar if England's win by an innings and 261 runs were reversed by the referee to a Bangladesh win "by default" - but maybe that is what is needed. (Not convinced at the moment, but I see no harm in having the administrators considering it along with other possible penalties.)

Rachael - you mention "free hits". I believe these are part of the Twenty20 game, but I don't know what they are. Can you enlighten me, please?

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

Does that take into account that England had to keep waiting for the next batsman (batsman used in it's loosest context?)

The four minutes per over takes account of this. Drinks, batsmen coming in and out, changes of ball in the event of a ball becoming unusable, new gloves for batsmen, tying bootlaces, bowlers marking and re-marking their run ups - all of the natural elements of the game, in fact, are meant to take place within the ninety overs a day. England have no excuses from any of these sources! The required overs per day are adjusted only if there is an interruption to play or an innings change which does not come at lunch or tea or overnight - three overs are taken off the target 90 overs for each such innings change.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Suspensions for subsequent matches just don't seem effective: I'd rather just see teams forfeit any matches in which they default (and games in which both teams default simply stripped of Test status)

I've said this in the thread about bad light, but I believe run penalties should be brought in. They could be added to the batting team's total as extras at the end of the innings. There could be problems implementing this in the fourth innings of a match, particularly if the result is close, but I'm sure the minds at the ICC can work something out.

I think you make a good point, Rachael, when you say part of a captain's skill is being able to think on his feet. This should be done during play, and not by having a long discussion. If a captain needs to chat to his vice, he can always have an over with the pair of them at slip, so they can chat between balls. But having a 3 minute conference in the middle of a match is simply not on.

Another issue that affects this is the length of fast bowlers' run ups. I reckon about 75% of bowlers run in too far. It doesn't take 15 paces to build up enough momentum to deliver a quick ball. Much of a bowler's pace comes from either the arm or the pivot in the delivery stride. Many bowlers actually bowl quicker when they run in slightly slower, as they are more balanced at the crease. Harmison is a good example of this. I can remember Wasim Akram bowling 87-88 mph from four paces. Not everyone can do this, but some run-ups are just plain silly. I think 10 paces should be enough for just about any bowler.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Rachael - you mention "free hits". I believe these are part of the Twenty20 game, but I don't know what they are. Can you enlighten me, please?

I have not watched any 20-20 "cricket" OF, but I believe a free hit is a delivery on which the batsman cannot get out to the bowler; it thus allows him to play any extravagant stroke, and know that if he misses and gets bowled, or is caught, he will not be out. I believe non-bowler dismissals, eg run-outs, are still allowed. Hence, not dissimiliar to a no-ball, the difference being that the batsman "hears the call" well in advance of the delivery, and the fielding side can plan and defend accordingly.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

The required overs per day are adjusted only if there is an interruption to play or an innings change which does not come at lunch or tea or overnight - three overs are taken off the target 90 overs for each such innings change.

An excellent answer otherwise OF, but I believe it is two overs that are taken off for innings change, or between 8-10 minutes. Maybe someone who has watched Test cricket closely of late could arbitrate.

[Occasional Fan]

I'll have to ask Bill Frindall about that, Maranello - but I am 99% sure of my ground! On Thursday, which was a full day at Lord's with one innings change, 84 overs were bowled (just under in fact, but part overs at the end of innings count as if they were full overs), and Frindall himself recorded in The Times on Friday "3 overs lost". You get ten minutes between overs, and I believe the adjustment is one over per four minutes or part thereof for that or any weather interruption. Like you, I'm prepared to be corrected, as I have not looked this up in the regulations at all.

Thanks for the "free hit" clarification. I also have not seen any Twenty20 stuff, but I believe you get a free hit (as well as the extra run) if a bowler sends you a no-ball in that form of the game. Again, quite prepared for anyone to correct me on that.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I can see no excuse for these appallingly slow rates which England have delivered - 38 seconds longer per over than their opponents in this match..

It is not as if the Bangedeshi batsmen were plastering the ball to the boundary all day. But in the other hand, if after the fall of each wicket, it takes the new batsman 3 minutes to come in and take strike, ten wickets would equate to a full half hour. This may explain the slow over rate in this case

[Alison]

According to the ICC Code of Conduct the following time allowances are made concerning over rates:

In calculating the minimum over rate for a Test Match, as determined by the
ICC Regulations in force from time to time, the following time allowances
shall be made:

a) 2 minutes for every wicket taken;
b) the actual time taken where treatment is given by authorised medical personnel to a Player on the field of play;
c) the actual time taken for a Player to leave the field of play in the event of a serious injury;
d) 4 minutes for one drinks break taken in any session;
e) the actual time taken for third umpire referrals;