nightprowler10
Global Moderator
I don't see how people are not getting that.
I was all for it in 2005 when Shehryar Khan suggested it and I fully support the change even now.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Should there be a mandatory sixth day in tests?
- Thread starter silentstriker
- Start date
I was all for it in 2005 when Shehryar Khan suggested it and I fully support the change even now.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, was meaning there was no maximum within 5 uninterrupted days.
If it takes 8 days to get through 450 overs, though, so be it (and it'd be a once-in-a-decade case or so, too) - I'm far happier with that than with games which should have a result being denied it by the weather.
But yeah, obviously you wouldn't have a 6-day game where 540 overs were bowled - no, no, that'd be wrong. If there is any loss of overs on the first 5 days, the game stops after 450 overs on the reserve days.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I've nothing against draws where that is the right and proper outcome (wouldn't say I'm a fan as such, a high-scoring draw is pretty boring, but then again so is a game where one team scores 650\5dec and the other team collapses twice and loses by an innings and 200) but I absolutely hate it when both of:
A team has dominated a game, or at least held the upper hand, for most of the match, and is denied by loss of overs
and
A match has been to-and-fro and is potentially reaching a thrilling and close climax, but time runs-out due to loss of overs
And a statutory minumum overs would stop both of these outcomes.
A team has dominated a game, or at least held the upper hand, for most of the match, and is denied by loss of overs
and
A match has been to-and-fro and is potentially reaching a thrilling and close climax, but time runs-out due to loss of overs
And a statutory minumum overs would stop both of these outcomes.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
A draw is fine if you have bowled all the overs and the teams have stuck it out. Not a fan of draws where like 100 overs have been lost due to rain...that's not a draw..thats the weather winning.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I just don't get it - why not do everything possible to remove as much unfairness from the game as possible?
Sure, you can always say the team who was denied by the elements could have done more - but why should they have had to? It's exactly the same as Umpiring decisions - one Umpiring decision can totally change a match, but people will invariably call blaming an Umpiring decision (even 3 or 4) for a loss "making excuses".
It'd be perfectly possible to make almost every Umpiring decision correct (not absolutely every one, of course) and it'd be perfectly possible to stop the loss of overs ruining games of cricket. I don't see any good reason not to do either. And I think if it was done, in both cases, before long people would think "how on Earth did we cope in those old days?
That was crazy and so unfair"
Sure, you can always say the team who was denied by the elements could have done more - but why should they have had to? It's exactly the same as Umpiring decisions - one Umpiring decision can totally change a match, but people will invariably call blaming an Umpiring decision (even 3 or 4) for a loss "making excuses".
It'd be perfectly possible to make almost every Umpiring decision correct (not absolutely every one, of course) and it'd be perfectly possible to stop the loss of overs ruining games of cricket. I don't see any good reason not to do either. And I think if it was done, in both cases, before long people would think "how on Earth did we cope in those old days?
That was crazy and so unfair"
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
No way, i LOVE test cricket, but even i would find 6 day tests a bit much. I definitely think we should allow for floodlights to be used if there's bad light though. Or at least a change to the bad light rules so we play until its really dark. Safely is not really a question with todays gear, and teams are more than happy to play in bad light when it suits them, so why not always?
If its safe to play when you'te in with a chance of winning (England in Pakistan comes to mind) then its good enough no matter the match situation.
If its safe to play when you'te in with a chance of winning (England in Pakistan comes to mind) then its good enough no matter the match situation.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's OOTQ with back-to-back Tests, obviously. But I hate them ITFP - should never happen more than OIABM IMO.
It's not a case of 6 days, it's a case of playing until 450 overs are bowled. For that to take more than 6 (or 7 at absolute most) days is going to be an exceptionally rare occurrance and one that can be dealt with by whatever means neccessary.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Bad light's a different question entirely, really, and it's something that frustrates everyone, for any number of reasons. Floodlights should, obviously, always be used if available (and should be available far more often than they are) but with a red-ball they're often not good enough. The safety question is (rightly IMO) not the only important one, and what constitutes "really dark"?
Me, I'd just play with an orange ball when it got all that dark, switch the lights on, and then you'd never again have to worry about bad light stopping play. Because even with provision for no overs to be lost, no-one wants to see it. Rain, fair enough, you can't play in it. But bad light is much, much worse to see play being prevented.