Over Rates: Is there an answer ?

[Richard]

Indeed, but as we saw today, captains don't rectify the problem by minimising the breaks between balls and overs - they carry on as they like for hours and then rush through a stack of overs via spin to even it up.

This phenomena is, for mine, a much bigger problem than the slow over-rates themselves.

Exactly, and we're seeing the fallout which can happen when you do that.

Hopefully, this, combined with strict penalties for slow over-rates, combined with the fact it's the team rather than an individual who gets the hit (so no selfishness accusations can be hid behind), would ensure people do more to address slow over-rates by the best means, rather than poor means like bowling net-bowlers for an hour to get through 25 overs in it.

Also, my suggested penalty means that there's no room for "making-up" slow over-rates. Every hour is a new one and you have to do the job 6 times in the day - it doesn't matter if you've bowled 22 overs in the second hour, if in the third hour you only get through 13, you still get the penalty. So you'd not have the problem of a whole session of joke-bowling being used.

 

[Richard]

Ridiculous. This 5 overs in to the morning session as well

Why are you posting a link to Cribb's post saying it's CricInfo's article?

 

[NUFAN]

Exactly, and we're seeing the fallout which can happen when you do that.

Hopefully, this, combined with strict penalties for slow over-rates, combined with the fact it's the team rather than an individual who gets the hit (so no selfishness accusations can be hid behind), would ensure people do more to address slow over-rates by the best means, rather than poor means like bowling net-bowlers for an hour to get through 25 overs in it.

Also, my suggested penalty means that there's no room for "making-up" slow over-rates. Every hour is a new one and you have to do the job 6 times in the day - it doesn't matter if you've bowled 22 overs in the second hour, if in the third hour you only get through 13, you still get the penalty. So you'd not have the problem of a whole session of joke-bowling being used.

I'm not a fan of the fine for each hour that you don't reach the quota..

When there are heaps of wickets it's just natural to get through less overs. Someone should look at the Ganguly dismissal and then look at how much longer after Sachin faced the next ball. If it was less then 4 or 5 minutes I would be very surprised..

 

[irfan]

Why are you posting a link to Cribb's post saying it's CricInfo's article?

My bad - from Cricinfo - no link to Cribb

 

[Richard]

I'm not a fan of the fine for each hour that you don't reach the quota..

When there are heaps of wickets it's just natural to get through less overs. Someone should look at the Ganguly dismissal and then look at how much longer after Sachin faced the next ball. If it was less then 4 or 5 minutes I would be very surprised..

It's not a blanket case. There are obviously allowances for things like wickets falling and other stoppages. Usage of a stopwatch is not a complicated thing and Umpires or Referees can quite easily do it.

 

[Richard]

My bad - from Cricinfo - no link to Cribb

But there is. The quote in your post has the

button, and when you press that button it links to Cribb's post above yours.

Look, it's no major issue, it's just strange to put a link to a CW post when you're copying-and-pasting from an article from elsewhere.

 

[Precambrian]

I'm not a fan of the fine for each hour that you don't reach the quota..

When there are heaps of wickets it's just natural to get through less overs. Someone should look at the Ganguly dismissal and then look at how much longer after Sachin faced the next ball. If it was less then 4 or 5 minutes I would be very surprised..

Nothing of that sort. Umpires would rule Timed out if the new player didnt take guard after 2 minutes.

 

[NUFAN]

Nothing of that sort. Umpires would rule Timed out if the new player didnt take guard after 2 minutes.

Time it..

 

[Precambrian]

Timed it..

 

[NUFAN]

Timed it..

How long was it?

 

[irfan]

Does anyone think putting a cap on the number of field changes will work? Seems to be a lot of messing about with the field in between overs from both sides in this series.

 

[alternative]

Does anyone think putting a cap on the number of field changes will work? Seems to be a lot of messing about with the field in between overs from both sides in this series.

Haha that sound something like Ravi Shastri's idea, with all the cap on the amount of overs you can bowl and garbage.

 

[Precambrian]

How long was it?

Less than what is deemed inappropriate.

 

[NUFAN]

Less than what is deemed inappropriate.

Haha Obviously, because he wasn't given out timed..

I would really like to know the exact time if anyone has actually timed it or can time it..

 

[Precambrian]

Haha Obviously, because he wasn't given out timed..

I would really like to know the exact time if anyone has actually timed it or can time it..

Get over it man, if you think the time between batsmen take guard post a wicket contributed to Ponting being 10 overs behind, then seriously have a look at yourself.

 

[NUFAN]

Get over it man, if you think the time between batsmen take guard post a wicket contributed to Ponting being 10 overs behind, then seriously have a look at yourself.

**Gets out the mirror**

- Problems with the ball.

- The fact that between overs the bowlers are at the top of the mark and the batsmen are not ready on occasions.

- Third umpire referrals and checks if the ball has gone for 4 or not.

I'm not going to say that there was no fault with the bowlers, but I just don't think it was fair that the fielding team was 10 overs behind and it was all there fault. 5 or 6 overs behind is a more accurate reflection and this may have seen White and Clarke and Hussey not bowl as much.

 

[Richard]

Does anyone think putting a cap on the number of field changes will work? Seems to be a lot of messing about with the field in between overs from both sides in this series.

Don't like that. But I do think far more urgency (and pre-planning) should be shown with field-changes. That's the #1 ridiculous reason for over-rates being as slow as they have been in recent years.

 

[silentstriker]

The answer is to make Australia bowl Hussey instead of their frontline bowlers.

 

[GIMH]

I didn't like what I saw when I caught a bit of the Test this morning, I would rather see overs bowled by bowlers than 90 overs

 

[Burgey]

Nothing of that sort. Umpires would rule Timed out if the new player didnt take guard after 2 minutes.

It's 3 minutes now I think. Not to be on the ground but to actually be ready to face your first ball.

Talk about a well-timed thread BTW. What do you do if you're a captain? There's 10 other blokes out there who are obviously dragging their arses around all over the place to get you behind the rate required.

We all agree it's a scourge on the game, but when a captain resorts,at a critical time, to bowling part timers to catch up and make an effort to meet the required rate, we call for his sacking.

I don't think I'd like to be in that position one way or t'other.