The International Cricket Thread

[PaulWinch again]

India are a good side. The pitches they produce at home of late are shocking. Although in fairness Edgbaston was particularly crap this year.

Eh?  The first test at Edgbaston went to the last session of the last day? 

A pitch doesn’t have to break up on the first day to be bad. Edgbaston was a pudding this year - no pace, no bounce, no carry, and barely any turn.

[Ads]

WTC is gerrymandering to get India into a final where they will inevitability choke again. England and Australia are comfortably the two best sides in the world and produced an absolute worldie of a series.

In India they're producing sub-par pitches, not worthy of test cricket and getting away with 2 run an over tedious dross and they'll go to Australia and be whitewashed in the winter of 24. Yet probably earn more points for chucking rank half volleys down at a decent rate.

I've no sympathy for either side. Both teams overrates were pathetic during the course of the series. The cricket that was played was brilliant to watch, but that is not a get out of jail card when it comes to bowling at 11-12 overs per hour. The ICC needs to get far more of a handle on it in general. Fines and docking WTC points ultimately don't change anything. In game penalties need to be brought in

What do you expect when one side has to dig a spinner out of retirement who subsequently injures his finger and groin, while the other loses one of their best players?

I fail to see how the integrity of the game is being upheld because we have to watch Head or Brook bowl absolute filth to get the over count in, just because.

[taylorsworkrate]

WTC is gerrymandering to get India into a final where they will inevitability choke again. England and Australia are comfortably the two best sides in the world and produced an absolute worldie of a series.

In India they're producing sub-par pitches, not worthy of test cricket and getting away with 2 run an over tedious dross and they'll go to Australia and be whitewashed in the winter of 24. Yet probably earn more points for chucking rank half volleys down at a decent rate.

I've no sympathy for either side. Both teams overrates were pathetic during the course of the series. The cricket that was played was brilliant to watch, but that is not a get out of jail card when it comes to bowling at 11-12 overs per hour. The ICC needs to get far more of a handle on it in general. Fines and docking WTC points ultimately don't change anything. In game penalties need to be brought in

What do you expect when one side has to dig a spinner out of retirement who subsequently injures his finger and groin, while the other loses one of their best players?

I fail to see how the integrity of the game is being upheld because we have to watch Head or Brook bowl absolute filth to get the over count in, just because.

The 15 overs an hour guideline has been factored in with the thinking that attacks will be predominantly pace bowlers. To me there is really no excuse not to be able to bowl 15 overs in an hour even when spinners aren't bowling. I watched a documentary on the bodyline series and they used to bowl just shy of 30 (8 ball) overs an hour. Now I accept that's unattainable now with the way the games changed, but to suggest that 4 seamers can't bowl 15 (6 ball) overs between them in an hour is untrue

Be quicker getting round between overs, don't have a chat after every ball, don't arse around getting back on the field after Lunch and Tea etc. I will say that batsmen have their part to blame in slow overrates too. They should be ready to face a lot quicker and them wondering off to square leg after every ball needs to stop.

Umpires in general need to be a lot stronger on this.

[Drummond]

They don't need a test championship at all. Just play test match series as they've done.

[paul_e]

The problem for me (with over rates) is that there are some things it just doesn't take into account. If you're facing a left/right batter combo who are looking to score singles regularly then the time moving fielders around and setting up is clearly going to much longer than if you're facing 2 with the same hand who are happy to leave 4-5 balls per over.

There are some things that umpires need to stamp out but points deductions for slow over rates don't make any sense when games are being completed with plenty of time left in the match.

I'm with Ads, I don't want to watch part timers rushing through 4-5 overs of filth just to make arbitrary quotas, that is far worse for the game than accepting that maintaining a steady over rate is affected by lots of other things that are difficult for the team to control.

[Ads]

How do you bowl 4 minute overs when you're Mitch Starc or Wood, bowling at 90mph plus, to left/right handers, swapping fields and having to play fetch from the boundary a couple times an over? 15 overs an hour is more likely with spin or when some dullard is blocking, not when England are swotting you to all parts or you're Smith hooking and pulling with ease.

That's not even taking into consideration that levels of fitness required to be doing it in the later sessions on the 4th and 5th days of tests, between the two best sides in the world.

Silly rule that will benefit crap pitches and lots of spin.

[taylorsworkrate]

You both make good points Ads and Paul, but even when Lyon was playing at Edgbaston and bowling plenty of overs, the Aussies still languished around 12 overs an hour. England were equally poor and that was with Ali and Root bowling plenty. On the 3rd day at the Oval they bowled a total of 80 overs and that was with Murphy bowling a reasonable amount. That day was accentuated by the laughable scenes where they deliberately wasted time after they took the 9th wicket to ensure they didn't have to bat that night, and the umpires just allowed them to do it.

England bowled at a rate of just over 11 at the start of Australias 2nd innings (even more ridiculous considering how the weather forecast was against England)

I accept that maybe 15 overs is difficult when you have all out rapid pace attacks, but there is just no way that they should be languishing at those horrible rates, and this has been a problem that I'd getting worse and worse.

Harold Larwood is widely regarded as one of the fastest bowlers of all time and he got through his 8 ball overs in 4-5 minutes. No one can tell me that someone like Mitchell Starc for example doesn't have the physical fitness to be able to match someone who played the game 90 years ago.

As I've said, the cricket being exceptional isn't a get out of jail free card. 80 overs in a day is a pisstake.

[taylorsworkrate]

Maybe it needs a general recalculation. Change it to a generous target of 14 overs an hour for the bowling side, and scrap the arbitrary rule of only adding 30 minutes on to the end of the day and bowl the remaining overs unless conditions aren't fit for play. I'd scrap fines and docking of points all together, and bring in a system of penalty runs to the opposition that becomes more severe the more a team falls behind a rate

All the current system does is encourage a team that is behind in the game to drag their feet. The 3rd day at the Oval being the prime example. They went off in bright sunshine with 10 overs just disappearing. That sort of thing just makes cricket look a bit silly.

[Drummond]

Maybe it needs a general recalculation. Change it to a generous target of 14 overs an hour for the bowling side, and scrap the arbitrary rule of only adding 30 minutes on to the end of the day and bowl the remaining overs unless conditions aren't fit for play. I'd scrap fines and docking of points all together, and bring in a system of penalty runs to the opposition that becomes more severe the more a team falls behind a rate

All the current system does is encourage a team that is behind in the game to drag their feet. The 3rd day at the Oval being the prime example. They went off in bright sunshine with 10 overs just disappearing. That sort of thing just makes cricket look a bit silly.

I said similar re penalty runs, though I'd do the calculation at the end of the session or innings (whichever ends soonest).

Also think that the over rate needs to be looked at, these days you don't often see a batting team playing really cautiously and defending most balls so there is more happening to delay it. I think batters delaying play shouldn't happen and bowlers should just be able to bowl when they're ready.

[paul_e]

I'm ok with the idea of penalty runs but I don't think it should be based on a fixed threshold but rather an umpire led decision that time is being intentionally wasted and it should be a punishment that can be applied to the batting side as well. I'd handle it a bit like the running on the pitch thing as well, start with a warning and then steady increase the severity of the punishment from there.

I just don't like the idea of disrupting a game that is enjoyable, engaging and fiercely competitive to force the bowling team to rush through a few overs, I don't see how that helps ayone.

[Risso]

Yep, it’s nonsense, they need to look at the circumstances of the match. It’d be like yellow carding Emi for time wasting when we’re 1-0 down.

[dcdavecollett]

Point deductions and fines clearly don't work, so make them bowl the missing overs in 'overtime'.

If the weather turns bad, move on to awarding six runs per unbowled over to the batting side.

[Rory]

I'm not necessarily taking one side or the other and certainly not criticising anyone here, but is over rate that much of a concern?

Just thinking that we've had a 5-match series with four played to completion and the other was basically reduced by 40% because of weather.

Granted, I'm a member of the bowlers' union (I cannot bat for shit) but the fielding side being slow isn't the only factor. Even ten years ago, you'd probably see four or more defensive shots or leaves per over, with the ball either going straight to the keeper or picked up quickly, then shined as the bowler walked back to their mark.

Batsmen are more aggressive these days, hitting more boundaries and more sixes in particular. That means time when the ball is in the air, time for the crowd to locate and return it, time for the fielder to throw it back to the middle, time to inspect it for damage, then the time to shine and return it to the bowler. Even if it's only 30 seconds per over, it all adds up.

That batting style lends itself to more wicket chances per over, more wickets per balls bowled and shorter innings (by time) so could it be that the two will naturally balance out?

[tomd2103]

India are a good side. The pitches they produce at home of late are shocking. Although in fairness Edgbaston was particularly crap this year.

Eh?  The first test at Edgbaston went to the last session of the last day? 

A pitch doesn’t have to break up on the first day to be bad. Edgbaston was a pudding this year - no pace, no bounce, no carry, and barely any turn.

A particularly bad test match pitch results in the game being over in a couple of days or 500 plays 500 after the first innings.  As it was, the pitch at Edgbaston produced a game that went to the last session of the last day, so to say it was "particularly crap" is way over the top.

[PaulWinch again]

Not for me. England made that game anything more than a turgid draw, it was a crap pitch. Was Rawalpindi a good pitch last year?