over rates

[swede]

why is the modern game played so incredibly slowly and why has it been allowed to happen?
Other sports are generally played much faster, whereas cricket has slowed considerably.

I think many people would be shocked if they could see games of football and cricket of a hundred years ago. The football would look like a joke with people strolling slowly about compared to the non-stop running of modern football, whereas the cricketers of that time would appear to be on drugs to modern eyes they way they must have hurried back to their mark in order to continue the game.

Over rates of 20 were common even 25 were often achieved. More than a few games would have seen long passages of play with more runs scored per hour than you get in an hour of T20 today. No wonder they didnt need that crap back then.

 

[stumpski]

Faffing about with the field has to be the main reason doesn't it? I suspect that when Hedley Verity was bowling for Yorkshire in the 1930s Brian Sellars wasn't changing the field three times an over. Spinners in those days were quite capable of bowling an over in under 90 seconds.

Captains who field at mid-off and mid-on are a menace, stopping the bowler in his walk-back for a chat about tactics. And of course they go a lot longer between overs, long enough for Sky to show a commercial. Again, the bowler apparently can't go on without an arm round the shoulder and a pep talk from the skipper.

When the Australians made their 721 in a day didn't Essex bowl something like 120 overs? And think how much time was spent retrieving the ball from behind the rope or looking for it in the stands.

 

[swede]

Faffing about with the field has to be the main reason doesn't it? I suspect that when Hedley Verity was bowling for Yorkshire in the 1930s Brian Sellars wasn't changing the field three times an over. Spinners in those days were quite capable of bowling an over in under 90 seconds.

Captains who field at mid-off and mid-on are a menace, stopping the bowler in his walk-back for a chat about tactics. And of course they go a lot longer between overs, long enough for Sky to show a commercial. Again, the bowler apparently can't go on without an arm round the shoulder and a pep talk from the skipper.

When the Australians made their 721 in a day didn't Essex bowl something like 120 overs? And think how much time was spent retrieving the ball from behind the rope or looking for it in the stands.

I looked it up.. the southend slaughter, 129 overs. an over-rate of 21.5 and a run-rate of 5.6.
more runs per hour than most T20´s I think, but of course a very unusual game.

But over rates were often even higher, especially in Australia with their 8-ball overs. In Sydney on a saturday in 1932 there were 36,000 watching Australia bowl well over 25 six-ball overs (converted) per hour to England.

I think its sad that today, its a choice between two inferior versions of the game and real cricket played at a snails pace. You are probably right about the reason for it, but I just dont understand why it has been allowed to happen.

 

[Furball]

#trottsfault

 

[stumpski]

By the way Swede, you appear to have brought this up before ...

Of course everything gets discussed more than once on here, but I doubt if the reasons have changed much over the years (apart from Trott of course).

 

[swede]

By the way Swede, you appear to have brought this up before ...

Of course everything gets discussed more than once on here, but I doubt if the reasons have changed much over the years (apart from Trott of course).

ha ha great

or perhaps rather sad, since nothings really changed.

well the number of overs in a day has been lowered still further since then in county cricket from 104 to 96, so there is some change. Onwards and downwards it continues. Its just baffling to me, that the powers that be dont seem to belive in their own product. The higher the over-rate can get the more it benefits real cricket.