Should there be a mandatory sixth day in tests?

silentstriker · 14-06-2006, 07:23 AM

One of the things that irks me the most about cricket, is the loss of play and the inability to get all the scheduled overs in five days. It could be due to rain, bad light, or even (and this is the worst) a side taking unusually long to get ready between balls just to delay.

If we had a sixth day scheduled for all the tests, and only the overs that were left over from the previous days would be bowled...would you all like it? I think that anything that allows 450 overs to be bowled in a test match is a good thing for cricket. If all the scheduled overs were bowled, then there would be no play on the sixth day of the match.

steds · 14-06-2006, 07:23 AM

No.

silentstriker · 14-06-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steds

No.

Why not?

Matt79 · 14-06-2006, 07:52 AM

I'd prefer it if the powers-that-be do everything they can to avoid the problem in the first place - continue to hammer time-wasters, and maybe don't schedule tests in early spring or late autumn.

deeps · 14-06-2006, 08:12 AM

the scheduling is pathetic.

but yes, a 6th day should be an option if the two umpires believe there is a possibility of a result.

however, this would screw up tv broadcasts, grounds, schedules etc. etc. etc.

marc71178 · 14-06-2006, 08:43 AM

You cannot have an optional 6th day, and I don't see why one should be scheduled.

Next it would become, should there be 7 days...

I have no doubt that the only reason this has come up is the current game going on.

steds · 14-06-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Why not?

Overkill.

pasag · 14-06-2006, 08:55 AM

Its not such a bad idea. If it seems like a result could come of it and alot of time was missed, then why not. Nothing is more frustrating then dedicating 5 days of your life for a test match for it to end in a draw.

Sanz · 14-06-2006, 09:02 AM

Why because India can win this test ?

luckyeddie · 14-06-2006, 09:05 AM

I wonder why this is suggested now? (looks at scoreboard)

When weather doesn't intervene, often 4 days is plenty to complete a game.

Why not just encourage players to bowl at a half-decent over-rate? The day before yesterday, Kumble took SIX MINUTES to complete an over, during which a couple of singles were scored - and India are better than most.

When I first went to test matches (albeit 40 years or more ago) you used to get AT LEAST 100-105 overs in a full day, and even then people moaned about the halcyon days of 20 overs an hour.

I thought that people were supposed to be better, stronger, faster nowadays (at least some on here keep telling me so) so surely we should be getting through MORE overs on account of the sheer athleticism of the fielding side and the bowlers racing back to their marks? (Can't blame Monty for that yet).

Instead, bowlers and fielding sides in general seem to get about the field between balls slower than Ronaldo on Dope.

Dasa · 14-06-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc71178

I have no doubt that the only reason this has come up is the current game going on.

Obviously. You say that as if it's a bad thing - if an issue arises in an ongoing match/series, people are going to talk about it.

There was talk of adding a sixth day to some Test matches in the Pakistan v England series as well, because of all the time lost to bad light. I don't think it's a particularly bad idea - the problem comes with scheduling, especially in back-to-back Test matches.

silentstriker · 14-06-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

I wonder why this is suggested now? (looks at scoreboard)

Yes, because suggesting it now will mean ICC will implement it tonight and we are going to have a game tomorrow.

This would have helped England in the Ashes too. And it would have been good for cricket in Pakistan too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

When weather doesn't intervene, often 4 days is plenty to complete a game.

Why not just encourage players to bowl at a half-decent over-rate? The day before yesterday, Kumble took SIX MINUTES to complete an over, during which a couple of singles were scored - and India are better than most.

So why can't we do both? If tests are over in 4 days, then great. You don't HAVE to play the sixth day.

Goughy · 14-06-2006, 09:18 AM

There has to be a finite nimber of days scheduled. Teams must know how long a game will last before they start.

6 days is fine but then as previously mentioned there will be calls for 7 etc. 5 is a decent enough number. No need to change.

If 6 days were scheduled then on some tracks seen in certain countries a team could bat for 3 1/2 days posting silly totals.

Also, if the 6 day was only to make up for lost time, then there would be TV scheduling problems.

What if the game was heading for a bore draw with no team having a chance of winning and it had rained for an hour on day 2. Would everyone have to come back for 1 hr of pointless cricket on day 6.

I think we are fine as we are. Losing time and having that get in the way of a victory is very frustrating. It is how ever part of the game. I still have sleepless nights over West Indies v England, Trinidad, 1990.

silentstriker · 14-06-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goughy

There has to be a finite nimber of days scheduled. Teams must know how long a game will last before they start.

6 days is fine but then as previously mentioned there will be calls for 7 etc. 5 is a decent enough number. No need to change.

If 6 days were scheduled then on some tracks seen in certain countries a team could bat for 3 1/2 days posting silly totals.

Huh? If they bat for 3 1/2 days, then the game would be a draw after five days, unless overs were lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goughy

Also, if the 6 day was only to make up for lost time, then there would be TV scheduling problems.

That happens all the time in the US during playoffs. In a seven game series, if one team goes 4-0, the three games are not played and the TV finds something else to play. Its not a big deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goughy

What if the game was heading for a bore draw with no team having a chance of winning and it had rained for an hour on day 2. Would everyone have to come back for 1 hr of pointless cricket on day 6.

Only if the officials think there is a chance of a result in that hour.

luckyeddie · 14-06-2006, 10:06 AM

Look up 'timeless test' on Cricinfo. We have one every world war or so - more often and the game of cricket dies.

14-06-2006, 07:23 AM	#1 (permalink)
silentstriker The Wheel is Forever Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 36,550	Should there be a mandatory sixth day in tests? One of the things that irks me the most about cricket, is the loss of play and the inability to get all the scheduled overs in five days. It could be due to rain, bad light, or even (and this is the worst) a side taking unusually long to get ready between balls just to delay. If we had a sixth day scheduled for all the tests, and only the overs that were left over from the previous days would be bowled...would you all like it? I think that anything that allows 450 overs to be bowled in a test match is a good thing for cricket. If all the scheduled overs were bowled, then there would be no play on the sixth day of the match.

14-06-2006, 08:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
marc71178 Eyes not spreadsheets Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: England Posts: 56,346	You cannot have an optional 6th day, and I don't see why one should be scheduled. Next it would become, should there be 7 days... I have no doubt that the only reason this has come up is the current game going on. __________________ 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.

14-06-2006, 09:05 AM	#10 (permalink)
luckyeddie Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Derby, England Posts: 17,633	I wonder why this is suggested now? (looks at scoreboard) When weather doesn't intervene, often 4 days is plenty to complete a game. Why not just encourage players to bowl at a half-decent over-rate? The day before yesterday, Kumble took SIX MINUTES to complete an over, during which a couple of singles were scored - and India are better than most. When I first went to test matches (albeit 40 years or more ago) you used to get AT LEAST 100-105 overs in a full day, and even then people moaned about the halcyon days of 20 overs an hour. I thought that people were supposed to be better, stronger, faster nowadays (at least some on here keep telling me so) so surely we should be getting through MORE overs on account of the sheer athleticism of the fielding side and the bowlers racing back to their marks? (Can't blame Monty for that yet). Instead, bowlers and fielding sides in general seem to get about the field between balls slower than Ronaldo on Dope. __________________ Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

14-06-2006, 09:18 AM	#13 (permalink)
Goughy International Coach Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: All Over Posts: 14,658	There has to be a finite nimber of days scheduled. Teams must know how long a game will last before they start. 6 days is fine but then as previously mentioned there will be calls for 7 etc. 5 is a decent enough number. No need to change. If 6 days were scheduled then on some tracks seen in certain countries a team could bat for 3 1/2 days posting silly totals. Also, if the 6 day was only to make up for lost time, then there would be TV scheduling problems. What if the game was heading for a bore draw with no team having a chance of winning and it had rained for an hour on day 2. Would everyone have to come back for 1 hr of pointless cricket on day 6. I think we are fine as we are. Losing time and having that get in the way of a victory is very frustrating. It is how ever part of the game. I still have sleepless nights over West Indies v England, Trinidad, 1990. __________________ If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads) Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-06-2006, 07:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
steds Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Riding public transport back and forth Posts: 16,914	No.

14-06-2006, 08:12 AM	#5 (permalink)
deeps International 12th Man Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: perth, australia Posts: 1,661	the scheduling is pathetic. but yes, a 6th day should be an option if the two umpires believe there is a possibility of a result. however, this would screw up tv broadcasts, grounds, schedules etc. etc. etc.

14-06-2006, 08:55 AM	#8 (permalink)
pasag RTDAS Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Looking for milksteak Posts: 31,679	Its not such a bad idea. If it seems like a result could come of it and alot of time was missed, then why not. Nothing is more frustrating then dedicating 5 days of your life for a test match for it to end in a draw.

14-06-2006, 09:02 AM	#9 (permalink)
Sanz Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: USA Posts: 16,228	Why because India can win this test ?

14-06-2006, 10:06 AM	#15 (permalink)
luckyeddie Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Derby, England Posts: 17,633	Look up 'timeless test' on Cricinfo. We have one every world war or so - more often and the game of cricket dies.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Greatest Ever Test XI	roseboy64	Cricket Chat	313	15-04-2007 07:30 AM
Greatest Ever One Day XI	roseboy64	Cricket Chat	131	07-04-2007 12:57 PM
Bangladesh: A quest for glory. [Mediocre ICC 2005 tale]	NZTailender	General	158	02-11-2006 01:46 AM
Jayasuriya Axed For Tests Against India	neutralguy	Cricket Chat	57	15-11-2005 04:39 AM
Cricketweb World Cup 2005	Jamee999	General	12	24-06-2005 01:08 AM