The cricket thread

sixstringsupplies

A stroke of luck means I’m going to day three of the Edgbaston test. Been a long time since I watched live test cricket I’m so excited. And I’ve always though day 3 or 4 are the best days to go as the test match develops. 

Being  part of the government experiment I have to sign a consent form and have a negative test result 24 hours beforehand.

guitars4you

sixstringsupplies said:

A stroke of luck means I’m going to day three of the Edgbaston test. Been a long time since I watched live test cricket I’m so excited. And I’ve always though day 3 or 4 are the best days to go as the test match develops. 

Being  part of the government experiment I have to sign a consent form and have a negative test result 24 hours beforehand.

Looking forward to grabbing a few hours on TV, along with R5X coverage - Have not got a clue what team they will go with based on any 'rotate' policy, plus no Ollie and Bess and/or Leach or indeed neither - Almost to many options to try and guess the team the management will go with - Enjoy it and at least the weather looks good

guitars4you

Over rate - See England had a 40% match fee fine for slow over rate - I'm sure the management know that with no effective spinner that a slow over rate would be the case before the day starts - Especially if you are not taking wickets - I know DRS has an impact on the overs bowled but that can be taken into account, ditto weather

However it is now time, for an international, response to this slow over rate - Fines are a waste of time - Can't always guarantee good weather to bowl the required overs at 6.30 or 7pm - IMO it has to be a punishment that has an impact on the pitch - So runs to be added for overs not bowled, to be called 'slow over rate extras' - Option 1 is a fixed amount say 4 runs per overs not bowled - Option 2 is probably better in that you take the battings teams scoring rate for that day and then times this by overs not bowled and add this amount as 'slow over rate extras'

Granted if both teams bat during the day - Any shortfall of overs not bowled has to be accounted for to the guilty party and both teams if required - Again you have to look at the full day, as for instance spinners will be used far less on the first 2 sessions on an opening day of the match - ie up to lunch and up to tea might not make 30 overs each session, but a final session with a spinner/or two, might claw back sometime, so this can be taken into account for 'slow over rate extras' to be added at the end of the day - Or do you punish any team for not bowling 30 overs in any one session with 'slow over rate extra's' per session

Either way, forget the fine and put runs on the board as required with 'slow over rate extra's '

Heartfeltdawn

guitars4you said:

Over rate - See England had a 40% match fee fine for slow over rate - I'm sure the management know that with no effective spinner that a slow over rate would be the case before the day starts - Especially if you are not taking wickets - I know DRS has an impact on the overs bowled but that can be taken into account, ditto weather

However it is now time, for an international, response to this slow over rate - Fines are a waste of time - Can't always guarantee good weather to bowl the required overs at 6.30 or 7pm - IMO it has to be a punishment that has an impact on the pitch - So runs to be added for overs not bowled, to be called 'slow over rate extras' - Option 1 is a fixed amount say 4 runs per overs not bowled - Option 2 is probably better in that you take the battings teams scoring rate for that day and then times this by overs not bowled and add this amount as 'slow over rate extras'

Granted if both teams bat during the day - Any shortfall of overs not bowled has to be accounted for to the guilty party and both teams if required - Again you have to look at the full day, as for instance spinners will be used far less on the first 2 sessions on an opening day of the match - ie up to lunch and up to tea might not make 30 overs each session, but a final session with a spinner/or two, might claw back sometime, so this can be taken into account for 'slow over rate extras' to be added at the end of the day - Or do you punish any team for not bowling 30 overs in any one session with 'slow over rate extra's' per session

Either way, forget the fine and put runs on the board as required with 'slow over rate extra's '

Fines do not work. Runs being added to the opposition score has a certain contrivance to it in my opinion because there are some sides who might feel "Fuck it, I'm happy going to a slower rate and giving up 20 runs". Imagine a scenario with bad weather predicted in the fifth day. A side could slow the over rate down in order to secure a draw because of bad weather and the penalty runs really couldn't be applied because the innings wasn't completed. 

I'd target DRS reviews instead.

First innings: Side A bat, side B bowl. Over rate for completed innings is under 14 overs per hour. Match referee decides this is down to bowling Side B time wasting rather than batting side A wasting time. Bowling side lose two reviews when it is their turn to bat and have one review for that innings. 

Second innings: Side B bat. They start with one DRS review as a batting side. Side A bowl and the innings is completed with an over rate of 15 overs per hour. No DRS penalty applies to Side A. 

Third innings: Side A bat. Over rate is 14 overs per hour. This is caused by an injury to a batsman requiring lengthy treatment. Side B are therefore not punished with any DRS reviews. 

Fourth innings: Side B bat and start with three reviews. 

Now innings four needs slight tweak of the rules. If a bowling side is contriving to slow down the over rate in order to stop the batting side winning (hello the West Indies in 1990 against England) and they do not meet the required rate, then you need some system of punishment that carries over to the next Test. It's at this point where penalty runs could apply. Alternatively, you could have a DRS punishment that carries over to the next Test. 

Why focus on the reviews? Because it's carrot and stick time. No side would want to, say, bat in India when they've only got 1 review for their innings and the other side has a full bank of three to use. 

scrumhalf

Slow over rates are not great but if there is a dramatic battle going on between pace bowlers and batsmen do we really want the drama spoiled by the fielding side having to bring on a dibbly-dobbly merchant to maintain over rates? 

Heartfeltdawn

scrumhalf said:

Slow over rates are not great but if there is a dramatic battle going on between pace bowlers and batsmen do we really want the drama spoiled by the fielding side having to bring on a dibbly-dobbly merchant to maintain over rates? 

Nope. You simply shouldn't get to that point in the first place. Our shitty over rate isn't just because we use seamers. We saw it in the winter in India with the ridiculous T20 that took five hours to complete and that ODI game where we were bowling at 11 overs an hour. We weren't using all seam attacks then and we weren't having to stop for regular DRS checks. 

Heartfeltdawn

No fucking spinner again. Can anyone point to a batsman who has been treated this shit after a winter of success? Once again, we're batting long because our batsmen are shit and so a bowler suffers. Bah. 


Quite obvious that NZ are using this series as a warm up for the Test Championship. Ajaz Patel is far from a first pick but he's getting a game to see how he goes if he is needed. 

Stuckfast

You never see Dom Sibley in the same room as Tim Nice-but-Dim...

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

guitars4you said:

Over rate - See England had a 40% match fee fine for slow over rate - I'm sure the management know that with no effective spinner that a slow over rate would be the case before the day starts - Especially if you are not taking wickets - I know DRS has an impact on the overs bowled but that can be taken into account, ditto weather

However it is now time, for an international, response to this slow over rate - Fines are a waste of time - Can't always guarantee good weather to bowl the required overs at 6.30 or 7pm - IMO it has to be a punishment that has an impact on the pitch - So runs to be added for overs not bowled, to be called 'slow over rate extras' - Option 1 is a fixed amount say 4 runs per overs not bowled - Option 2 is probably better in that you take the battings teams scoring rate for that day and then times this by overs not bowled and add this amount as 'slow over rate extras'

Granted if both teams bat during the day - Any shortfall of overs not bowled has to be accounted for to the guilty party and both teams if required - Again you have to look at the full day, as for instance spinners will be used far less on the first 2 sessions on an opening day of the match - ie up to lunch and up to tea might not make 30 overs each session, but a final session with a spinner/or two, might claw back sometime, so this can be taken into account for 'slow over rate extras' to be added at the end of the day - Or do you punish any team for not bowling 30 overs in any one session with 'slow over rate extra's' per session

Either way, forget the fine and put runs on the board as required with 'slow over rate extra's '

Fines do not work. Runs being added to the opposition score has a certain contrivance to it in my opinion because there are some sides who might feel "Fuck it, I'm happy going to a slower rate and giving up 20 runs". Imagine a scenario with bad weather predicted in the fifth day. A side could slow the over rate down in order to secure a draw because of bad weather and the penalty runs really couldn't be applied because the innings wasn't completed. 

I'd target DRS reviews instead.

First innings: Side A bat, side B bowl. Over rate for completed innings is under 14 overs per hour. Match referee decides this is down to bowling Side B time wasting rather than batting side A wasting time. Bowling side lose two reviews when it is their turn to bat and have one review for that innings. 

Second innings: Side B bat. They start with one DRS review as a batting side. Side A bowl and the innings is completed with an over rate of 15 overs per hour. No DRS penalty applies to Side A. 

Third innings: Side A bat. Over rate is 14 overs per hour. This is caused by an injury to a batsman requiring lengthy treatment. Side B are therefore not punished with any DRS reviews. 

Fourth innings: Side B bat and start with three reviews. 

Now innings four needs slight tweak of the rules. If a bowling side is contriving to slow down the over rate in order to stop the batting side winning (hello the West Indies in 1990 against England) and they do not meet the required rate, then you need some system of punishment that carries over to the next Test. It's at this point where penalty runs could apply. Alternatively, you could have a DRS punishment that carries over to the next Test. 

Why focus on the reviews? Because it's carrot and stick time. No side would want to, say, bat in India when they've only got 1 review for their innings and the other side has a full bank of three to use. 

Jeremy Coney suggested removing a fielder from the fielding side until they had caught up with the over rate the other day.   If you got too far behind, remove a second fielder.

Teetonetal

crunchman said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

guitars4you said:

Over rate - See England had a 40% match fee fine for slow over rate - I'm sure the management know that with no effective spinner that a slow over rate would be the case before the day starts - Especially if you are not taking wickets - I know DRS has an impact on the overs bowled but that can be taken into account, ditto weather

However it is now time, for an international, response to this slow over rate - Fines are a waste of time - Can't always guarantee good weather to bowl the required overs at 6.30 or 7pm - IMO it has to be a punishment that has an impact on the pitch - So runs to be added for overs not bowled, to be called 'slow over rate extras' - Option 1 is a fixed amount say 4 runs per overs not bowled - Option 2 is probably better in that you take the battings teams scoring rate for that day and then times this by overs not bowled and add this amount as 'slow over rate extras'

Granted if both teams bat during the day - Any shortfall of overs not bowled has to be accounted for to the guilty party and both teams if required - Again you have to look at the full day, as for instance spinners will be used far less on the first 2 sessions on an opening day of the match - ie up to lunch and up to tea might not make 30 overs each session, but a final session with a spinner/or two, might claw back sometime, so this can be taken into account for 'slow over rate extras' to be added at the end of the day - Or do you punish any team for not bowling 30 overs in any one session with 'slow over rate extra's' per session

Either way, forget the fine and put runs on the board as required with 'slow over rate extra's '

Fines do not work. Runs being added to the opposition score has a certain contrivance to it in my opinion because there are some sides who might feel "Fuck it, I'm happy going to a slower rate and giving up 20 runs". Imagine a scenario with bad weather predicted in the fifth day. A side could slow the over rate down in order to secure a draw because of bad weather and the penalty runs really couldn't be applied because the innings wasn't completed. 

I'd target DRS reviews instead.

First innings: Side A bat, side B bowl. Over rate for completed innings is under 14 overs per hour. Match referee decides this is down to bowling Side B time wasting rather than batting side A wasting time. Bowling side lose two reviews when it is their turn to bat and have one review for that innings. 

Second innings: Side B bat. They start with one DRS review as a batting side. Side A bowl and the innings is completed with an over rate of 15 overs per hour. No DRS penalty applies to Side A. 

Third innings: Side A bat. Over rate is 14 overs per hour. This is caused by an injury to a batsman requiring lengthy treatment. Side B are therefore not punished with any DRS reviews. 

Fourth innings: Side B bat and start with three reviews. 

Now innings four needs slight tweak of the rules. If a bowling side is contriving to slow down the over rate in order to stop the batting side winning (hello the West Indies in 1990 against England) and they do not meet the required rate, then you need some system of punishment that carries over to the next Test. It's at this point where penalty runs could apply. Alternatively, you could have a DRS punishment that carries over to the next Test. 

Why focus on the reviews? Because it's carrot and stick time. No side would want to, say, bat in India when they've only got 1 review for their innings and the other side has a full bank of three to use. 

Jeremy Coney suggested removing a fielder from the fielding side until they had caught up with the over rate the other day.   If you got too far behind, remove a second fielder.

A much better idea.

scrumhalf

No matter how you arrange it we seem to be determined not to pass 100 without losing at least three wickets. 

guitars4you

Teetonetal said:

crunchman said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

guitars4you said:

Over rate - See England had a 40% match fee fine for slow over rate - I'm sure the management know that with no effective spinner that a slow over rate would be the case before the day starts - Especially if you are not taking wickets - I know DRS has an impact on the overs bowled but that can be taken into account, ditto weather

However it is now time, for an international, response to this slow over rate - Fines are a waste of time - Can't always guarantee good weather to bowl the required overs at 6.30 or 7pm - IMO it has to be a punishment that has an impact on the pitch - So runs to be added for overs not bowled, to be called 'slow over rate extras' - Option 1 is a fixed amount say 4 runs per overs not bowled - Option 2 is probably better in that you take the battings teams scoring rate for that day and then times this by overs not bowled and add this amount as 'slow over rate extras'

Granted if both teams bat during the day - Any shortfall of overs not bowled has to be accounted for to the guilty party and both teams if required - Again you have to look at the full day, as for instance spinners will be used far less on the first 2 sessions on an opening day of the match - ie up to lunch and up to tea might not make 30 overs each session, but a final session with a spinner/or two, might claw back sometime, so this can be taken into account for 'slow over rate extras' to be added at the end of the day - Or do you punish any team for not bowling 30 overs in any one session with 'slow over rate extra's' per session

Either way, forget the fine and put runs on the board as required with 'slow over rate extra's '

Fines do not work. Runs being added to the opposition score has a certain contrivance to it in my opinion because there are some sides who might feel "Fuck it, I'm happy going to a slower rate and giving up 20 runs". Imagine a scenario with bad weather predicted in the fifth day. A side could slow the over rate down in order to secure a draw because of bad weather and the penalty runs really couldn't be applied because the innings wasn't completed. 

I'd target DRS reviews instead.

First innings: Side A bat, side B bowl. Over rate for completed innings is under 14 overs per hour. Match referee decides this is down to bowling Side B time wasting rather than batting side A wasting time. Bowling side lose two reviews when it is their turn to bat and have one review for that innings. 

Second innings: Side B bat. They start with one DRS review as a batting side. Side A bowl and the innings is completed with an over rate of 15 overs per hour. No DRS penalty applies to Side A. 

Third innings: Side A bat. Over rate is 14 overs per hour. This is caused by an injury to a batsman requiring lengthy treatment. Side B are therefore not punished with any DRS reviews. 

Fourth innings: Side B bat and start with three reviews. 

Now innings four needs slight tweak of the rules. If a bowling side is contriving to slow down the over rate in order to stop the batting side winning (hello the West Indies in 1990 against England) and they do not meet the required rate, then you need some system of punishment that carries over to the next Test. It's at this point where penalty runs could apply. Alternatively, you could have a DRS punishment that carries over to the next Test. 

Why focus on the reviews? Because it's carrot and stick time. No side would want to, say, bat in India when they've only got 1 review for their innings and the other side has a full bank of three to use. 

Jeremy Coney suggested removing a fielder from the fielding side until they had caught up with the over rate the other day.   If you got too far behind, remove a second fielder.

A much better idea.

Yes an option to consider - but a captain, will order his bowlers to bowl wide of off, or even down the leg side, so as not to concede runs whilst down to 10 players, so they don't concede runs - Not seen as a wide option in test match cricket 

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Jeremy Coney suggested removing a fielder from the fielding side until they had caught up with the over rate the other day.   If you got too far behind, remove a second fielder.

Teetonetal said:

A much better idea.

I thought it was a shit idea when he voiced it and it's a shit idea still.

-Remove a fielder = more gaps. If batters start working it into those, then you might end up with longer overs because of that reduced fielder and thus actually getting back to the required rate becomes a bit harder. 

-If the over rate is proscribed as 15 per hour and you bowl 14 in the first hour... are you then punished for the next hour and rush through things until the end of the next hour where you've hit 15 overs per hour? Let's say you're an over down in the first session of play. You lose a fielder for the next hour after lunch. Tough luck on your spinner who didn't bowl before lunch and then comes on with reduced options. 

-If batsmen start fucking about timewasting and the bowling side go under the rate, then someone needs to adjudicate who was responsible for the failure to bowl overs on time. It's the sort of decision that sides would demand the right to appeal, which then takes time to get in and you'd end up with something similar to endurance racing where team appeals can go on for lap after lap. We'd be moving into the territory of sides refusing to play because they view the adjudication as shit.

-If over rate isn't met because of batsmen timewasting, then presumably you'd dock the a fielder when they bowled for an hour.

With a DRS review or two going because of a slow over rate, sides only need one or two decisions to go against them that they can't then review to understand that they need to get a move on. 

Heartfeltdawn

guitars4you said:

Yes an option to consider - but a captain, will order his bowlers to bowl wide of off, or even down the leg side, so as not to concede runs whilst down to 10 players, so they don't concede runs - Not seen as a wide option in test match cricket 

It would lead to some grossly contrived cricket. If that was the result because one side was 1 over behind the rate in the first hour, it would turn the game into a farce. 

jpfamps

guitars4you said:

Yes an option to consider - but a captain, will order his bowlers to bowl wide of off, or even down the leg side, so as not to concede runs whilst down to 10 players, so they don't concede runs - Not seen as a wide option in test match cricket 

Actaully I like to see more leg-side deliveries called wides in test cricket.

You never see anybody hitting them, so in my view they qualify as wides under the wording of the laws.

Heartfeltdawn

scrumhalf said:

No matter how you arrange it we seem to be determined not to pass 100 without losing at least three wickets. 

I left home at 0 for 47. I should have put some money down on wickets to fall before I got back. 

Sibley's booked in for the rest of the summer but Crawley has got the footwork of Ann Widdecombe at the minute. Time to find a new number 3. Perhaps they'll give Bracey a shot against India if he gets some runs here as an outright batsman. 





 

Teetonetal

Heartfeltdawn said:

crunchman said:

Jeremy Coney suggested removing a fielder from the fielding side until they had caught up with the over rate the other day.   If you got too far behind, remove a second fielder.

Teetonetal said:

A much better idea.

I thought it was a shit idea when he voiced it and it's a shit idea still.

-Remove a fielder = more gaps. If batters start working it into those, then you might end up with longer overs because of that reduced fielder and thus actually getting back to the required rate becomes a bit harder. 

-If the over rate is proscribed as 15 per hour and you bowl 14 in the first hour... are you then punished for the next hour and rush through things until the end of the next hour where you've hit 15 overs per hour? Let's say you're an over down in the first session of play. You lose a fielder for the next hour after lunch. Tough luck on your spinner who didn't bowl before lunch and then comes on with reduced options. 

-If batsmen start fucking about timewasting and the bowling side go under the rate, then someone needs to adjudicate who was responsible for the failure to bowl overs on time. It's the sort of decision that sides would demand the right to appeal, which then takes time to get in and you'd end up with something similar to endurance racing where team appeals can go on for lap after lap. We'd be moving into the territory of sides refusing to play because they view the adjudication as shit.

-If over rate isn't met because of batsmen timewasting, then presumably you'd dock the a fielder when they bowled for an hour.

With a DRS review or two going because of a slow over rate, sides only need one or two decisions to go against them that they can't then review to understand that they need to get a move on. 

Given how often teams Spaff reviews on dodgy LBW umpires call decisions, I wonder if DRS docking would really be an incentive?

scrumhalf

Why do we get slow over rates? there are enough ICC analysts around to find one to work oout what's going on.

- Batsmen faffing around. Penalise the batting team by penalising them the runs scored in the most heavily-scored overs.

- DRS. Add the time on to the scheduled day's play. Nobody should lose out, especially if it's one of those that require repeated playbacks.

- Captains repeatedly making micro-adjustments to the field. The umpires have the power to stop this, they just don't.

- Bowlers taking too long. Treat it the same as running on the wicket. Informal warning, formal warning, out of the attack.

Heartfeltdawn

Teetonetal said:

Given how often teams Spaff reviews on dodgy LBW umpires call decisions, I wonder if DRS docking would really be an incentive?

If you go into a bowling innings in India knowing you've got three reviews in the first 80 overs, then you can afford to spaff. If you have one, you can't go for the review in hope because you might need it later on for something that is obviously wrong like an umpire thinking the batsman has nicked it into the pads for an LBW and you know he hasn't. 

Remember Australia at Headingley in 2019? Threw away their last review on Leach being LBW to Cummins (miles outside off), didn't have a review in the bag when Lyon didn't get Stokes LBW. Restricting reviews has the possibility to create dilemmas beforehand with future consequences). Same with batting as well. Think of Shane Watson batting. He uses up the review, he's out, rest of the side can't use it. 

Ultimately if a side being docked a DRS review for slow overrates then has a batsman sawn off by a bad decision that they can't review because of their slow overrate, they only have themselves to blame. 

Heartfeltdawn

scrumhalf said:

Why do we get slow over rates? there are enough ICC analysts around to find one to work oout what's going on.

- Batsmen faffing around. Penalise the batting team by penalising them the runs scored in the most heavily-scored overs.

- DRS. Add the time on to the scheduled day's play. Nobody should lose out, especially if it's one of those that require repeated playbacks.

- Captains repeatedly making micro-adjustments to the field. The umpires have the power to stop this, they just don't.

- Bowlers taking too long. Treat it the same as running on the wicket. Informal warning, formal warning, out of the attack.

First we need to find an overrate that is the yardstick. It might well be 14 overs an hour. 

Then it's time to analyse all the other faff. Interesting point for reference. Windies-South Africa match right now, Bonner bounced on the helmet, SA ask for the review so I got the stopwatch out. Two minutes for the decision, 15 seconds to decide, plus Bonner had to undergo a concussion check. Whole thing took over five minutes. As the over also had a wicket in it, the whole over took ten minutes. 

Also: this game started at 10am. Bang on 11am, 13.2 overs bowled. 2 wickets down, 31 runs, one DRS review, one concussion check. So the bits of non cricket (batsmen back and forth from the crease, DRS, etc) took ten minutes of that first hour.