Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: why declining over rates?

  1. #1
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    scandinavia
    Posts
    191

    why declining over rates?

    I have zero interest in the limited versions of the game and I doubt they would be much needed if over rates had not dropped so much.

    They were once always above 20 and sometimes even 25.
    Other sports have tried to speed up their games while cricket have slowed down, why?
    If cricket had been normal they would have tried to increase the rate.

    There used to be only 5 hours of play per day or even less but more overs played. It seems you could arrive after lunch and watch 80-90 overs in 4 hours something which today is a full days slow play.
    One season, 1919, England even made the county championship a 2-day game, of 7 hours with sometimes more than 170 overs in a days play.
    It was considered too tough and I like the 4-5 hour-days better.

    why cant it come back? If modern strike rates could be coupled with historic over rates what a great game it would be.
    90 overs could be played in 4 hours, basically removing the morning session and lunch interval making it an exciting fast 4 hour afternoon game instead of a slow all-day affair.

    100 years ago in England cricket was as big as football since then what has happened.
    Football is today played much much faster, they basically walked around in those days, cricket has slowed down tremendously, with 50% more balls bowled in an hour back then compared to a modern game.

    Its pathetic
    Last edited by swede; 25-02-2005 at 10:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,769
    Tactics, basically.

    Slows the opposition's momentum or allows your own bowlers' more time to recuperate.

  3. #3
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I don't think 20 overs per hour is realistic any more.
    But to fail to even bowl 15, which most sides have done in the last 4 or 5 years whenever I've been watching - sometimes even when spinners have been bowling almost all the overs - is purely pathetic.
    And it's even more pathetic that punishments aren't more regular.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  4. #4
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    scandinavia
    Posts
    191
    Social, yes tactics but why has it been allowed to happen.

    Richard, you are probably right that it will never be 20 again. but why?

    Modern cricket basically allows 2 hours of time wasting in a days play for no apparent reason and they wonder why crowds arent as good as they used to be.

    Even stranger is the fact that its rarely discussed. crickey writers spend a lot of time with endless reform suggestions for the game, but even those who must be old enough to remember the days of 22 overs an hour (and crowds of up to 30,000 for a big day in the county championship) never seem to touch the subject.

    What would happen if the ICC insisted on 20? would the players come out and say "sorry we cant do that. It may have been possible for the superior athletes of the 1950s but in the modern game we cant be asked to do that"


  5. #5
    School Boy/Girl Captain Black Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    166
    It would be good to see over rated speeded back up towards 20 a day.

    It really came to a head in the 80's with the Windies. Great team and all but with four quicks who ran in from 15 metres and above, they were bowling 12 or 13 overs i an hour regularly!

    I think they should trial some sort of rule where any team failing to bowl 30 overs in a session should have 5 penalty runs per over given to the opposition team...... obviousbly has to take into account stoppages and such, therefore an official timekeeper (maybe the umps can time break's that have been taken by the batting team or injuries and other unforeseen events) would need to be used. Basically if the amount of time spent actually playing cricket divided by 4 is larger than the amount of overs you've bowled then you should be punished.

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Thunder
    It would be good to see over rated speeded back up towards 20 a day.

    It really came to a head in the 80's with the Windies. Great team and all but with four quicks who ran in from 15 metres and above, they were bowling 12 or 13 overs i an hour regularly!

    I think they should trial some sort of rule where any team failing to bowl 30 overs in a session should have 5 penalty runs per over given to the opposition team...... obviousbly has to take into account stoppages and such, therefore an official timekeeper (maybe the umps can time break's that have been taken by the batting team or injuries and other unforeseen events) would need to be used. Basically if the amount of time spent actually playing cricket divided by 4 is larger than the amount of overs you've bowled then you should be punished.
    Fair idea, but one problem I could see it causing would be the use of part-timers to run through the necessary overs prior to each break, like in one day cricket. Australia might well like to pick McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz together in ODIs these days, but they won't ever do it because the over rate restrictions would hurt them, even if the fifth bowler was a spinner who raced through their overs. I've never been a fan of inferior quality bowlers being used in ODIs just because they can get through their overs quickly as I feel it reduces the quality of the cricket, and I would hate to see it happen much in tests.

  7. #7
    School Boy/Girl Captain Black Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    Fair idea, but one problem I could see it causing would be the use of part-timers to run through the necessary overs prior to each break, like in one day cricket. Australia might well like to pick McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz together in ODIs these days, but they won't ever do it because the over rate restrictions would hurt them, even if the fifth bowler was a spinner who raced through their overs. I've never been a fan of inferior quality bowlers being used in ODIs just because they can get through their overs quickly as I feel it reduces the quality of the cricket, and I would hate to see it happen much in tests.
    yeah very good point that one and one i totally missed. That would be the last thing you'd want to see with such a rule introduced.

    I think maybe it could be trialled at FC level in a couple of countries and see what happens - if we do see an increase in part time bowlers ued to make up quick overs then it's not what you want. But i guess it could back fire on teams trying to do this - by using a part time bowler they are more likely to get hit around which takes up a bit of time especially when the ball goes for six in an empty stadium and it can sometime take upto a minute or longer just to find the ball.....

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,769
    20 overs an hour is unrealistic, particularly when a team is only required to bowl 90 in a 6 hour day (or 15 per hour).

    Over rates also have to be balanced against the weather (in some conditions, it is manadatory to have 2 drinks breaks per session), quality (discussed above), and entertainment (Shoaib attracts crowds but takes 6 -7 minutes to bowl an over).

    I think 90 in a day is fine and the match referee must implement the penalties he has at his disposal unless it is found that the fielding team did not meet its quota through no fault of its own.

    The problem has been that the referee has been too lenient.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by swede
    Richard, you are probably right that it will never be 20 again. but why?

    Modern cricket basically allows 2 hours of time wasting in a days play for no apparent reason and they wonder why crowds arent as good as they used to be.

    Even stranger is the fact that its rarely discussed. crickey writers spend a lot of time with endless reform suggestions for the game, but even those who must be old enough to remember the days of 22 overs an hour (and crowds of up to 30,000 for a big day in the county championship) never seem to touch the subject.

    What would happen if the ICC insisted on 20? would the players come out and say "sorry we cant do that. It may have been possible for the superior athletes of the 1950s but in the modern game we cant be asked to do that"
    The issue which really needs to be addressed is the hiatus between deliveries and overs. Obviously there is occasionally going to be some tactical discussion, but not enough to render anywhere near the go-slow of the current age.
    Not having watched live cricket in the 1950s I don't know exactly what's different now.

  10. #10
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    scandinavia
    Posts
    191
    according to the book I am reading about the bodyline series, the difference was that there were few bowlers with long run-ups, bowlers turned right after their follow-through to return to their mark, swift changeovers between overs etc.. just such simple things, probably a question of habit.
    Back then the scheduled play was 3 sessions with a total 5 hours play from 12 - 6 but usually with more overs bowled than today in six hours, though there was no over-regulation as it was not needed.

    They may have bowled dangerously but they did not delay procedings to spoil it for the crowds. perhaps thats why there were a saturday crowd of more than 36,000 at the SCG in november 1932 for a simple tour match who got to watch New South Wales bowl 25 overs per hour against England.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I don't know whether the decline in popularity of domestic cricket can be attributed to slowing overrates.
    Maybe it can - but I don't think anyone will ever know for sure.
    Domestic-First-Class cricket has not been a spectator sport anywhere in The World for a long time.

  12. #12
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    scandinavia
    Posts
    191
    You are right, of course, Richard, but it may well be part of the explanation.

    I just think its strange that it doesnt seem to be much of an issue especially at a time where the one-day game is considered to be in a crisis as well as well as the first-class game drawing low crowds in many parts of the world.

    These historic over rates could for instance just about create a one-day "one-innings first-class" game. At least such things could be experimented with.
    It would seem more relevant than turning it into a farce (20/20)

  13. #13
    International Regular Josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,903
    12 & 13 seem to be the average rates per hour, but anything below that the ICC get mad. I think 15 is a better thing to aim for tho, especially with spinners in tandem.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Josh
    12 & 13 seem to be the average rates per hour, but anything below that the ICC get mad. I think 15 is a better thing to aim for tho, especially with spinners in tandem.
    12 & 13 are painfully low. 12 in particular would incite punishment I think - that is just 24 overs in a session, and 78 overs in a day with the extra half-hour the ICC now allows - FAR below par. 13 would be 84/85 in a day with the half-hour which would still possibly incur punishment. 15 seems to be rare these days though, unless spinners are being used a lot. Even in India v Australia recently, with India employing at least two spinners to bowl the bulk of their overs in every match and Australia liberally using Warne, several days didn't reach 90 overs in the alloted time. The same is true of Sri Lanka v Australia earlier in the year.

    If teams aren't managing their 90 overs in three standard sessions plus a bonus half-hour, they deserve to suffer a penalty. As much as I would hate to see part-timers being used to up the over rate, if teams aren't managing the 14 overs per hour necessary to avoid punishment something needs to be done.

  15. #15
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,995
    Even with spinners being used, 15 is rarely attained
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 87
    Last Post: 28-02-2005, 02:53 PM
  2. Scoring rates and their influence on victories
    By thirdslip in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 12-08-2004, 06:46 AM
  3. Aceptable econmy rates in ODIS
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 16-10-2003, 10:09 AM
  4. This is interesting - ODI dot ball rates:
    By marc71178 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 26-02-2003, 06:34 AM
  5. Replies: 107
    Last Post: 10-12-2002, 04:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •