Over rates

[neville cardus]

Here's a mad idea: Why don't we revive the eight-ball over? With fewer transitions or change-overs, we'd be saving a helluva lot of time in the long run.

 

[Bijed]

My first thought is that it wouldn't be a bad idea in the longer forms of the game. I don't think T20s would be any better for having 33% more balls, since for brand reasons they can't really reduce the number of overs to compensate. ODIs could feasibly become 40 8-ball overs per innings.

More subjectively, 6 ball overs instinctively feel just 'more right' than 8 ball overs, but that's almost certainly because I've never known them be any longer

Edit: Also, I guess there'd be resistance from broadcasters who make their money from adverts shown between overs. Not that that should be a factor in an ideal world, but we do not live in such a thing.

 

[SteveNZ]

Mad or not, ideas and solutions need to be implemented. Of all the things I adore about Test cricket, slow over rates are what absolutely **** me to tears. Hitting captains in the pocket clearly isn't effective or isn't being done often enough.

Unfortunately it's a lot like slow play in golf (which grates me even more). It's an ingrained norm of each sport, and any attempt to speed it up results in howls of unfairness or inconsistency. And both have the real potential to rip their sport apart.

I don't like the eight-ball over idea because I don't think it does wonders for wear and tear on bowlers. But I do like the desire to think and act on a massive issue.

Penalty runs? And when I say penalty runs, I mean serious penalties. Something like 5 for the first indiscretion, 10 for the next etc. The only problem being that it's so hard to rule upon with factors like heat fatigue, the batsman's role in it, spinners v fast bowlers, delays in play for uncontrollables like sightscreens etc.

 

[neville cardus]

My first thought is that it wouldn't be a bad idea in the longer forms of the game. I don't think T20s would be any better for having 33% more balls, since for brand reasons they can't really reduce the number of overs to compensate. ODIs could feasibly become 40 8-ball overs per innings.

Can't abide twenty-over cricket, and only watch it when I'm betting on it, so it wouldn't be right of me to extend my proposals to that format. I'll leave it to those who care.

More subjectively, 6 ball overs instinctively feel just 'more right' than 8 ball overs, but that's almost certainly because I've never known them be any longer

Overs were four balls long at the genesis of Test cricket. Also five for a spell. In other words, they've been revised before and can be revised again.

Edit: Also, I guess there'd be resistance from broadcasters who make their money from adverts shown between overs. Not that that should be a factor in an ideal world, but we do not live in such a thing.

Another chapter for my long-mooted monograph Capitalism is Bad for Cricket.

 

[neville cardus]

I don't like the eight-ball over idea because I don't think it does wonders for wear and tear on bowlers.

I'm not sure I understand this objection. Bowlers wouldn't necessarily be bowling more. There'd just be fewer changeovers.

 

[Bijed]

Overs were four balls long at the genesis of Test cricket. Also five for a spell. In other words, they've been revised before and can be revised again..

Oh, I didn't mean that was an actual argument against it and I know they've been made both longer and shorter in the past. Steve's point about the strain of bowlers is a good one.

Do you happen to know why the number of balls in an over has been changed in the past?

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm not sure I understand this objection. Bowlers wouldn't necessarily be bowling more. There'd just be fewer changeovers.

Longer overs equals more wear and tear in a defined space of time before rest. It may well be that the bowler bowls the same amount of balls ie 8 x 6 ball overs or 6 x 8 ball overs, but they're receiving seven breaks in a spell as opposed to five (longer breaks, understood). I know sport science will offer this as a negative. In fact I think I've heard it before.

Has it been trialled anywhere, recently? If I was to see actual data that suggested it made a significant contribution to over rates, I'd be sold. All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate in the way I know sports science would be against it. And as much as we all (or most) hate their contribution, its influence is significant.

 

[neville cardus]

Oh, I didn't mean that was an actual argument against it and I know they've been made both longer and shorter in the past. Steve's point about the strain of bowlers is a good one.

Do you happen to know why the number of balls in an over has been changed in the past?

I should, shouldn't I? Interesting question. Will look into it.

 

[neville cardus]

Longer overs equals more wear and tear in a defined space of time before rest. It may well be that the bowler bowls the same amount of balls ie 8 x 6 ball overs or 6 x 8 ball overs, but they're receiving seven breaks in a spell as opposed to five (longer breaks, understood). I know sport science will offer this as a negative. In fact I think I've heard it before.

If this is true, it's an argument not just against this way of doing it, but against the whole idea of speeding up over-rates at all. Indeed, if we follow the logic to its natural conclusion, we might soon find ourselves demanding that cricket be made even slower...

 

[neville cardus]

Has it been trialled anywhere, recently?

Not that I know. I only thought of it a few minutes ago.

If I was to see actual data that suggested it made a significant contribution to over rates, I'd be sold.

Surely it stands to reason. Changeovers take time. Fewer changeovers mean less time taken. QED.

 

[Burgey]

Mad or not, ideas and solutions need to be implemented. Of all the things I adore about Test cricket, slow over rates are what absolutely **** me to tears. Hitting captains in the pocket clearly isn't effective or isn't being done often enough.

Unfortunately it's a lot like slow play in golf (which grates me even more). It's an ingrained norm of each sport, and any attempt to speed it up results in howls of unfairness or inconsistency. And both have the real potential to rip their sport apart.

I don't like the eight-ball over idea because I don't think it does wonders for wear and tear on bowlers. But I do like the desire to think and act on a massive issue.

Penalty runs? And when I say penalty runs, I mean serious penalties. Something like 5 for the first indiscretion, 10 for the next etc. The only problem being that it's so hard to rule upon with factors like heat fatigue, the batsman's role in it, spinners v fast bowlers, delays in play for uncontrollables like sightscreens etc.

I always read your posts with interest mate and respect your viewpoint, but I can't agree on over rates tbh. I would if sides were bowling 80 odd overs a day and sides were going to stumps 3/190 or something, but it doesn't happen that much. I'd rather 6/320 (80) than 3/200 (100) tbh. But I understand it ****s a lot of people to tears.

 

[Zinzan]

More injury, injury, injury is all I can think of. The continuity for a fast bowler steaming in for 8 deliveries on the trot, as opposed to 6 should not be overlooked imo. Especially in crazy hot conditions.

 

[SteveNZ]

I always read your posts with interest mate and respect your viewpoint, but I can't agree on over rates tbh. I would if sides were bowling 80 odd overs a day and sides were going to stumps 3/190 or something, but it doesn't happen that much. I'd rather 6/320 (80) than 3/200 (100) tbh. But I understand it ****s a lot of people to tears.

That's fair enough, over rates is just my hobby horse for some reason. Basically because I've felt cheated too many times. Light is a thing that ****s me to tears too but I think that's been much better policed in recent times. I just feel like 90 overs as a uniform rule would do nothing but aid the Test game. 6/320 off 80 is great, but why not 8/370 off 90? I don't feel like 6/320 or 3/200 are the only options we're getting.

Can we get the 320/6 format in future too. I was okay with this 6/320 stuff when your country was clearly the world's superior being, but not when you're collapsing for under 100 with regularity. Especially when you lose multiple wickets under 10 as well, makes the rest of the world confused as ****. We never know whether you've lost 5 wickets for six runs or six wickets for five runs.

Yeah, completely agree with Zinzan's post too. As a bowler I know I'd be distraught at the thought of 8-ball overs.

 

[neville cardus]

An alternative (but far more awkward) idea: Change ends only once every five overs, while rotating the bowlers as usual.

 

[Bijed]

As a bowler I know I'd be distraught at the thought of 8-ball overs.

Tbh I bowl so much embarrassing rubbish that I'm normally happy to get away with an 8-ball over.

 

[SteveNZ]

Even if the powers that be wouldn't go for it, I'd love to see something like 5 overs at one end. Making your opening bowlers bowl in all conditions, uphill/upwind and down, Pav and Nursery End at Lord's, spinners into the rough and away from it, short boundaries and long etc. Another level of tactical nuance. It's a significant upheaval and you'd have to suggest the issue of over rates would need to get significantly worse before they did something that drastic, but as a hypothetical I love it. Removes the element of being one-dimension as a bowler ie fast bowlers bowling down wind, off-spinners into the sole left-arm paceman's rough etc. Might even go as far as making the subcontinent an easier place to tour if they can't just stick their No.1 spinner at one end for a session or longer.

And a positive of 8-ball overs (going back to that) is it'd be a much harder assignment for batsmen to shield tail-enders, or at least it might lessen this tiresome approach where the field spreads, batsman refuses to take risks, fielding side for some reason believes he is Sir Don reincarnated and can't be dismissed, then we get a single on the 2nd to last or last ball. Or maybe it'd stay exactly the same but be a longer, even more draining process.

 

[CapeTown Guy]

Some bowlers, sure. I can imagine there will be some fast bowlers that would relish getting another shot at a batsman in the same over. Steyn for instance, I'd bet would be totally up for that. He is a rare sort though. Ambrose purposefully bowled noballs against Oz that one time just so he could bounce them again.

Or someone like Warne, for instance, also would have liked it. I'm speculating of course. Imagine someone like Philander having to bowl 8-ball overs...

 

[SteveNZ]

Tbh I bowl so much embarrassing rubbish that I'm normally happy to get away with an 8-ball over.

Haha, good point. I haven't bowled an 8-ball over for 4 years (the time I've been happily retired). And I know how draining they were.

 

[Burgey]

That's fair enough, over rates is just my hobby horse for some reason. Basically because I've felt cheated too many times. Light is a thing that ****s me to tears too but I think that's been much better policed in recent times. I just feel like 90 overs as a uniform rule would do nothing but aid the Test game. 6/320 off 80 is great, but why not 8/370 off 90? I don't feel like 6/320 or 3/200 are the only options we're getting.

Can we get the 320/6 format in future too. I was okay with this 6/320 stuff when your country was clearly the world's superior being, but not when you're collapsing for under 100 with regularity. Especially when you lose multiple wickets under 10 as well, makes the rest of the world confused as ****. We never know whether you've lost 5 wickets for six runs or six wickets for five runs.

Yeah, completely agree with Zinzan's post too. As a bowler I know I'd be distraught at the thought of 8-ball overs.

I recall when I started playing as a kid we had eight ball overs, and that was the mid-1970s. I think it changed here at or around the time of WSC. Max Walker, as an example, in the first innings of this test bowled 42 eight ball overs after Lillee went off injured. 42 six ball overs is a staggering enough thought for a seam bowler.

Just looked it up. According to cricinfo, the six ball over has been standard since 1979-80, which ties in with my recollection of bowling eight ball overs as a kid and the scorers not having enough room for all the balls because of the amount of wides and no balls bowled in under tens.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah, so the change from 8 to 6 was (as most things in sport) purely commercial. As I said previously, can't see it changing back unless the over rate issue becomes much more problematic and topical than it currently is. I can't remember an article on it, to be honest and I read most cricket news sites fairly regularly.

Still an interesting topic, I like it. At some stage cricket is going to make another seismic shift in the way it's played, that happens with every passing generation.