England v Australia: Over Rates

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Lemming

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.

All we're talking about, primarily, is raising the seam... which I suspect every bowler in history has attempted to do. Thing is.. even if you have some success.. you're only restoring something that stuck out when the ball was new. If you can't land the ball in the right place and with the seam upright (and preferably froma great height) this is unlikely to bring you much advantage.

Sadly, taking advantage of a raised seam is something few bowlers can manage.

The second advantage is perhaps in relation to reverse swing.. and let's face it: questions have to be asked as to whether ANY ball would EVER reverse if the seam wasn't fiddled with by fingernails. Maybe it's something that just happens.... at least on the right pitch under the right conditions... but do we doubt that bowlers are able to get it started earlier by fingering the seam?

Even Atherton once used a bit of dirt in his pocket to work the ball: good for him... bowlers need every advantage they can get!

ps. I do approve of lines being drawn on this issue.. but I'd suggest they be drawn to reflect the way the game has always been played rather than the way the great and the good might wish it to be played: I'd draw the line at using implements brought on to the field for the purpose of gaining an unreasonable advantaage (say a knife, or a bottle top) but legalise the rest.

pps. Contrary to what you suggest.. it's actually the ball that's NOT been tampered with that makes the difference between good bowlers and poor bowlers disappear: even Pollock can be reduced to bowling 1' outside off stump and hoping for the best when there's NO lateral movement to be had.

[Golden Boy James]

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie

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.

Legalize ball tampering! Surely that's not cricket? Any bowler who sees opposition against tampering as a batsman-led conspiracy theory is delusional. It is run making that brings in the crowds not bowlers. Sure we love a contest but ultimately we want to see scoring records broken.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Golden Boy James

Sure we love a contest but ultimately we want to see scoring records broken.

Umm..no!

I agree many people do enjoy a run-fest in ODIs, though even there some of the more interesting games are the low-scoring affairs, as some of the run-fests are too predictable. In Tests, most people want to see good cricket and preferably a result. No one wants to see Team A score 600/5, Team B to respond with 555/9 and the match to be drawn there, regardless of how many batting records get breaken in the process. Tests on wickets prepared solely to suit batsmen and negate bowlers are generally boring affairs.

[Occasional Fan]

Once again, the over rates were generally poor, but with each side being as slow as the other. But the match which we have just seen goes along way to proving the irrelevance of this sort of information: no way could I possibly complain about any aspect of the game insofar as I was able to follow it (I missed about a day and a half).

For the record, both sides averaged 4'36" per over over the two innings, which amounts to 84 overs per day including the 30 minutes' allowed overtime. I still find this pathetic, but, as I say, in the context of this game, I wouldn't be prepared to make a big issue of it with either captain.

[greg]

It is pathetic when you consider how many overs were bowled by Giles and Warne.Both captains should be reprimanded for it but then would just do a Ganguly and appeal saying they are no worse than him and get away with it.

[Occasional Fan]

During Sunday, a number of posters complained about Australia's slow over rate as England were heading to their declaration target. The figures do indeed show that the second England innings produced the slowest over rate of the match - but not by much, and better anyway than the rate which Australia delivered in the second test. Of course, in this match, the result was a draw, and against that background, notwithstanding the excitement which the match generated, I believe that the captains both have a much stronger case to answer regarding slow over rates than they have in the previous games. In total, this game yielded 368 overs, some 82 overs fewer than the 450 standard which we expect from a five day game. Of that shortfall, 52 overs were attributable to the late start on Saturday (adjusted for the allowed extra time on subsequent days), and there were further overs lost in the second rain delay (I am afraid the Cricinfo scorecard, which is all I have access to, does not allow me to identify how many as the rain delay times are not recorded there). Even so, something around 25 overs have been lost due to slow over rates. That, in my view, has robbed the paying public of their cricket, and who knows what effect those overs might have had on the result: a drawn match which was so close could have gone either way if the captains had kept the bowling rates up.

For those who are interested, this is what the arithmetic shows:

England bowling: 1st innings 4'36"; 2nd innings 4'24"; match average 4'30".
Australia bowling: 1st innings 4'26"; 2nd innings 4'40"; match average 4'31".

Series averages after three matches are England 4'36" (which yields 84 overs in a six and a half hour day) and Australia 4'35" (which yields 85 overs per extended day).

I will update this information after the fourth test, but as I shall be away for several days, that information will not appear until shortly before the final test at The Oval.

[Alison]

In the context of this last game that was very bad, and I'm amazed that neither captain has been officially pulled up over it. If both sides had bowled their overs at the proper rate the result might very well not have been a draw, and I would have thought such circumstances would be exactly those in which slow over rates should be taken most seriously.

[Victor Frankenstein]

imo, there are far too many factors in the over rates to have a blanket ruling on a result. ie saying that if they don't bowl X amount of overs per session then they will lose Y runs etc. What happens when someone like flintoff or gilchrist is batting and the ball is going to the boundary all the time or into the stands, fields changing constantly etc. the side that has the most sloggers gets extra runs because the bowling side can't bowl at them fast enough?

lower the time limit on batsmen to get to the crease? can anyone really see tendulkar, ponting or lara being given out before they get to the crease because they walked too slowly?

fines are no good as who cares if you've won/drawn the game because of bowling slowly, the player won't pay the fine..

I don't know what the solution would be, and i do agree there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but i'm not convinced there is any time restriction that could be fair in all situations and no side is ever going to bowl quicker to help the opposition.

[The Phantom Ram]

Didn't Australia partake in some blatent time wasting while batting in the last test - this is not a critisism of Australia as they must do what they can and their actions may have saved the Ashes - this should however have been clamped down on. I am thinking of Shane Warne delaying things, this of course will be reflected in England's over rates.

[Maranello]

VF, I agree that run or wicket penalties would be wrong and would make a mockery of the eventual result. Similarly, fines when applied rigourously in the past, were found to be ineffective. The only solution is to consistently apply what is already on ICC's rule book; ie bans and sanctions on the captain whenever the team has slow over-rates. Vaughan and Ponting have both escaped from this; if either was suspended for a few games, we will soon see a marked improvement in over-rates and a decrease in blatant time-wasting. The problem is not that there is no appropriate sanction; the issue is that it is not applied consistently or often enough.

If, once this sanction is applied consistently, and it is still found to be insufficient (a highly doubtful premise), then bans on other key players could also be considered; is bound to get the coaches' attention!