England v Australia: Over Rates

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You need, therefore, to look on a session by session basis...

Fair comment, Rachael - but that information is not readily available from the scorecards to which I have access. All I am presenting is a straight arithmetic statement based on innings performances. Session by session detail is certainly available, but not from Cricinfo. If anyone is really interested in analysing the over rates at that level of detail, I recommend Bill Frindall's scorecards which are reproduced in The Times (and probably also on their website at www.timesonline.co.uk). I don't have the time to get to that level of detail, I am afraid.

Rachael also asks whether Aus was slowing things down in order to use McGrath, Lee and Gillespie while not using Warne, or if England deliberately played slowly in the hope of a rain delay. I can't answer that, not being able to see the games and not having even been able to hear most of this one. Again, if you want that level of analysis, I'm afraid I'm not the man to provide it. I will continue the arithmetic exercise through the series if anyone is interested, but that's as far as I can go.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

the regulations with regards to over rates that we have now, were not in place when you were a child and the WI were winning [...] over rate regulation was brought in directly to counteract one team: The West Indies.

Very interesting: I thought the over-rate rules went back a lot further than that. Doesn't alter the fact that many of my parent's generation thought of the West Indian over-rates in much the same way as they thought of ball tampering... but I guess they must have been talking more with respect to the way they expected the game to be played rather than the rulebook.

I actually regard ball tampering as a far less heinous crime.. to the point where I'd actually legalise most forms: using bottle tops on the ball is obviously taking things too far... but if prying up the seam will give bowlers more chance on today's batsmen-friendly pitches then I say GO DO IT!

[DaveGillespie]

I actually regard ball tampering as a far less heinous crime.. to the point where I'd actually legalise most forms: using bottle tops on the ball is obviously taking things too far... but if prying up the seam will give bowlers more chance on today's batsmen-friendly pitches then I say GO DO IT!

Agreed. I think it was either Selvey or Pringle who was quoted in the ball tampering article in the Wisden Cricketer that the demonisation of ball tampering was "the work of batsmen". The balance of test cricket desperately needs to be shifted back towards the bowler. One need only look at this week's test, with a pitch offering a little sideways movement and uneven bounce has been labelled a poor pitch. It would appear anything short of a featherbed is a "poor pitch" these days.

[Seamer]

When a wicket falls, the changover is generally 3 mins. When 10 wickets fall in two sessions, that equates to 30 mins. In 30 mins, 8-10 overs are usually bowled and that is why the over rates were slow.
It was that more than anything that caused slow over rates, and is why no action was taken against the captains. Harmison hitting batsmen in the head does'nt help either.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Very interesting: I thought the over-rate rules went back a lot further than that. Doesn't alter the fact that many of my parent's generation thought of the West Indian over-rates in much the same way as they thought of ball tampering... but I guess they must have been talking more with respect to the way they expected the game to be played rather than the rulebook.

So now it is how they expected the game to be played as opposed to cheating?? Or both.

I do remember a lot that was said about WI at that time but I won't repeat some of what was said as this is apparently a family board.

I actually regard ball tampering as a far less heinous crime.. to the point where I'd actually legalise most forms: using bottle tops on the ball is obviously taking things too far... but if prying up the seam will give bowlers more chance on today's batsmen-friendly pitches then I say GO DO IT!

Surely the proper alternative would be to promote the preparation of good Test pitches which support neither batsman or bowler as opposed to legalising actual cheating. That way the good players will be the ones who succeed.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

...but if prying up the seam will give bowlers more chance on today's batsmen-friendly pitches then I say GO DO IT!

Yeah, let's let them churn up the whole wicket also, wearing football boots. Why not add in three more stumps for the batsmen to protect.

Ball tampering IS cheating and you know it. If you don't know why, then I'll tell you. One thing we can be sure will happen is that the ball will bounce (most of the time) when a bowler bowls. Don't you think we are removing an element of skill changing the ball's condition to get wickets. I could ball-tamper, knock it out of shape and make the ball move weirdly very easily. It's a lot harder to keep the ball on a good line and length to use pitch conditions than it is the tamper with the ball which will ensure movement for anyone, even Mrs. Boycott.

Tamper with the ball and it does all the hard work for you, removing all elements of skill. All of a sudden everybody can move the ball as much as Glenn McGrath on Thursday. Preparing better test wickets is the way to go.

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Seamer

When a wicket falls, the changover is generally 3 mins. When 10 wickets fall in two sessions, that equates to 30 mins. In 30 mins, 8-10 overs are usually bowled and that is why the over rates were slow.
It was that more than anything that caused slow over rates, and is why no action was taken against the captains. Harmison hitting batsmen in the head does'nt help either.

If they where bowling 8-10 overs in 30 minutes we would not be having this conversation. That would be 16-20 overs an hour. They are suppose to bowl 15 overs per hour, but most of the time (When spinners are not bowling) they bowl about 12-13. So your 30 minutes would only equate to about 6 overs and 7-8 if they where bowling what they should be. But the loss of wickets is factored into the amount of overs.

England would not have faced any action in the slow over rates as they bowled Australia out. Therefore there was no issue. Australia was the only team that would have faced a question on slow over rates in the first innings. But due to the fact that 7 wickets feel they would not have been questioned on there overs.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

But the loss of wickets is factored into the amount of overs.

Absolutely right - so are drinks and all natural breaks in the course of play. Breaks for treatment of injury, repairs to equipment or pitch, etc., are not factored in, but the comment that lots of overs were lost because lots of wickets fell does not wash any more than would the argument that lots of overs were lost because the fielding placements were changed every second ball. Captains do need to keep things ticking along at four minutes an over. The fact that overs are being lost even at the end of thirty minutes' allowed overtime is, in my opinion, inexcusable in cases where matches are drawn. I feel it is more difficult to make a case where a win for either side is achieved, though it would be easier to do so if, as Rachael suggested above, a review of progress were made at the end of each session. Arguably, that would also be fairer to the paying public.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Absolutely right - so are drinks and all natural breaks in the course of play. Breaks for treatment of injury, repairs to equipment or pitch, etc., are not factored in, but the comment that lots of overs were lost because lots of wickets fell does not wash any more than would the argument that lots of overs were lost because the fielding placements were changed every second ball. .

But it is a factor OF. When wickets fall, coupled with a lot of boundaries being hit - as happened in the Aus first innings, a hell of a lot of time is lost that is not factored in. Also with the ammount of left handed batsmen in the game these days, a mere single requires a field change and over a day, that adds up. If there was a question of deliberate or accidental slowing down of a game, action would have been taken.
Aussie Yank mentioned that as England took all the Aussie wickets, no action could be taken. True for a ODI but not in a test. I think the unusual circumstances in this game were sensibly understood, which is why no action was taken.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Seamer

But it is a factor OF. When wickets fall, coupled with a lot of boundaries being hit - as happened in the Aus first innings, a hell of a lot of time is lost that is not factored in. Also with the ammount of left handed batsmen in the game these days, a mere single requires a field change and over a day, that adds up.

I don't dispute the point you make, but these are natural events in the course of play, and they are factored in to the four minutes per over allowance. Skippers might need to think more quickly or plan in advance, fielders might have to run to their new positions rather than stroll, bowlers might need to yomp back to their marks rather than look as though they are out on the school nature ramble: the fact is that at the moment neither side has delivered at the required rate, and neither side has an excuse for that failure. That said, I would not necessarily enforce a punishment against either captain in this case: a result was achieved well within the distance, and I doubt anyone in the paying public felt that they were sold short in what was an excellent match. If it had gone out to a draw with eight overs missing at the end of each day - and remember they were twelve short on day one, allowing for the innings change but not allowing for the seventeen wickets as they were factored in - that would have equated to almost half a day's worth of overs lost. Indefensible in the case of a draw, IMO.