On the over rate thing the only way to fix it is with run penalties. I would do it session by session so none of this trying to catch up in the evening session.
End of each session penalty runs given for the number of overs not completed.
On the over rate thing the only way to fix it is with run penalties. I would do it session by session so none of this trying to catch up in the evening session.
End of each session penalty runs given for the number of overs not completed.
On the over rate thing the only way to fix it is with run penalties. I would do it session by session so none of this trying to catch up in the evening session.
End of each session penalty runs given for the number of overs not completed.
I'm as big fan of Taylor and he does watch a lot of county cricket.
Still a huge shame the way he had to retire just as he was starting to come into his own at international level. No doubt in my mind he would be our number 3 in tests for the blast couple of years.
It's weird to think back now, was only 3 years ago that for a couple of Tests it looked like we may have the top 5 sorted for a while in Hameed, Cook, Jennings, Root and Taylor.
Now two have retired, one is due to be released by his county, another has had two bites at the cherry and failed, and even Root is in poor form.
I've thought for a long time that the best way to deal with over rates is to make the breaks flexible in time. Penalising with runs would be likely to result in less scrupulous players gaming the system. If you reach the point at which you are far enough ahead in a match you're aiming to draw, you could just stop bowling and take a (say) five-run per over penalty, instead of risking conceding the (say) six runs an over the batting teams needs to win.
Instead of issuing penalties, the umpires could move the start time for each of the breaks, until the overs are bowled. Example: currently a day's play starts at 11:00am and, no matter how many overs have been bowled, the fielding team gets a rest for forty minutes at 1:00pm.
A better system would be that the lunch interval starts when the bowling side has bowled at least thirty overs. They may decide to hurry through them to get off the field at 1:00pm, or they could risk shortening their break by - say - half an hour, by taking 150 minutes to bowl the day's first 30 overs. And, if they need forty additional minutes to get through them, lunch is, in effect, waived and the bowlers have to struggle on. If they taken even longer than that, then the second session merely starts with the 31st over and time is added on at the end of the day.
It won't take long before knackered fast bowlers are nagging their captains to ensure spin bowlers are given several to rattle through, to catch up.
I think it's the best way to ensure 90 overs are bowled. It's not perfect, because it will compromise players' ability to bowl at their maximum if they're having to field for extra-long sessions; and it may still not mean the full overs are brought in. But, in the worst case scenario, the bowling side in effect gets an hour and a half additional time to complete their overs in a (long, knackering) day.
I've thought for a long time that the best way to deal with over rates is to make the breaks flexible in time. Penalising with runs would be likely to result in less scrupulous players gaming the system. If you reach the point at which you are far enough ahead in a match you're aiming to draw, you could just stop bowling and take a (say) five-run per over penalty, instead of risking conceding the (say) six runs an over the batting teams needs to win.
Instead of issuing penalties, the umpires could move the start time for each of the breaks, until the overs are bowled. Example: currently a day's play starts at 11:00am and, no matter how many overs have been bowled, the fielding team gets a rest for forty minutes at 1:00pm.
A better system would be that the lunch interval starts when the bowling side has bowled at least thirty overs. They may decide to hurry through them to get off the field at 1:00pm, or they could risk shortening their break by - say - half an hour, by taking 150 minutes to bowl the day's first 30 overs. And, if they need forty additional minutes to get through them, lunch is, in effect, waived and the bowlers have to struggle on. If they taken even longer than that, then the second session merely starts with the 31st over and time is added on at the end of the day.
It won't take long before knackered fast bowlers are nagging their captains to ensure spin bowlers are given several to rattle through, to catch up.
I think it's the best way to ensure 90 overs are bowled. It's not perfect, because it will compromise players' ability to bowl at their maximum if they're having to field for extra-long sessions; and it may still not mean the full overs are brought in. But, in the worst case scenario, the bowling side in effect gets an hour and a half additional time to complete their overs in a (long, knackering) day.
Then make the run "penalty" much stricter. 10 runs per over not bowled in a session might give the fielding side a bit of a gallop on.
Today we were 8 overs short......and that was with playing to 6.30pm. Do you think the over rate would have been that slow if we had 80 runs added to our score overnight....??
I've thought for a long time that the best way to deal with over rates is to make the breaks flexible in time. Penalising with runs would be likely to result in less scrupulous players gaming the system. If you reach the point at which you are far enough ahead in a match you're aiming to draw, you could just stop bowling and take a (say) five-run per over penalty, instead of risking conceding the (say) six runs an over the batting teams needs to win.
Instead of issuing penalties, the umpires could move the start time for each of the breaks, until the overs are bowled. Example: currently a day's play starts at 11:00am and, no matter how many overs have been bowled, the fielding team gets a rest for forty minutes at 1:00pm.
A better system would be that the lunch interval starts when the bowling side has bowled at least thirty overs. They may decide to hurry through them to get off the field at 1:00pm, or they could risk shortening their break by - say - half an hour, by taking 150 minutes to bowl the day's first 30 overs. And, if they need forty additional minutes to get through them, lunch is, in effect, waived and the bowlers have to struggle on. If they taken even longer than that, then the second session merely starts with the 31st over and time is added on at the end of the day.
It won't take long before knackered fast bowlers are nagging their captains to ensure spin bowlers are given several to rattle through, to catch up.
I think it's the best way to ensure 90 overs are bowled. It's not perfect, because it will compromise players' ability to bowl at their maximum if they're having to field for extra-long sessions; and it may still not mean the full overs are brought in. But, in the worst case scenario, the bowling side in effect gets an hour and a half additional time to complete their overs in a (long, knackering) day.
Then make the run "penalty" much stricter. 10 runs per over not bowled in a session might give the fielding side a bit of a gallop on.
Today we were 8 overs short......and that was with playing to 6.30pm. Do you think the over rate would have been that slow if we had 80 runs added to our score overnight....??
If England were bowled out at, say, ten past six, then Australia faced two overs of their first innings, but the day was still eight overs short, would England be penalised by 80 runs?
We've become so shit, we're now begging for penalty runs to be our added to our scores.
However i do agree something needs to be done, and yes add them on a session by session basis. Teams shouldn't be allowed to bowl slow all day and then play on an extra hour to fit them in.
On the over rate thing the only way to fix it is with run penalties. I would do it session by session so none of this trying to catch up in the evening session.
End of each session penalty runs given for the number of overs not completed.
I think the umpires would have to take into account, the batting side slowing the over rate down as well, maybe not on purpose but people moving behind the bowlers arm, batsmen not ready when the bowler is about to bowl, calling for a drink outside of the drinks break and a player getting injured, maybe the fourth umpire would have to use a stop watch for that.
On the over rate thing the only way to fix it is with run penalties. I would do it session by session so none of this trying to catch up in the evening session.
End of each session penalty runs given for the number of overs not completed.
I think the umpires would have to take into account, the batting side slowing the over rate down as well, maybe not on purpose but people moving behind the bowlers arm, batsmen not ready when the bowler is about to bowl, calling for a drink outside of the drinks break and a player getting injured, maybe the fourth umpire would have to use a stop watch for that.
Yes, it could get quite tricky to correctly allocate whether a delay was legitimate or one of the teams timewasting/faffing around as the batting team might also be guilty (changing gloves, cleaning glasses etc)
Don't they do this in white ball cricket though, so that the overs have to be bowled by a certain time but this is adjusted if there is a legitimate delay?
Don't particularly understand why we don't open with Woakes. He is a swing bowler and most likely to get something out of the new ball. Archer is the player most likely to make something happen when the ball isn't doing anything.
Don't particularly understand why we don't open with Woakes. He is a swing bowler and most likely to get something out of the new ball. Archer is the player most likely to make something happen when the ball isn't doing anything.
But Archer is more likely to get wickets than Woakes. Personally, I wouldn’t play the latter and I don’t think he would be playing, were Anderson or Wood fit.
Comments
End of each session penalty runs given for the number of overs not completed.
It's weird to think back now, was only 3 years ago that for a couple of Tests it looked like we may have the top 5 sorted for a while in Hameed, Cook, Jennings, Root and Taylor.
Now two have retired, one is due to be released by his county, another has had two bites at the cherry and failed, and even Root is in poor form.
We needed a 2, 3 and 5 then and still do now.
Instead of issuing penalties, the umpires could move the start time for each of the breaks, until the overs are bowled. Example: currently a day's play starts at 11:00am and, no matter how many overs have been bowled, the fielding team gets a rest for forty minutes at 1:00pm.
A better system would be that the lunch interval starts when the bowling side has bowled at least thirty overs. They may decide to hurry through them to get off the field at 1:00pm, or they could risk shortening their break by - say - half an hour, by taking 150 minutes to bowl the day's first 30 overs. And, if they need forty additional minutes to get through them, lunch is, in effect, waived and the bowlers have to struggle on. If they taken even longer than that, then the second session merely starts with the 31st over and time is added on at the end of the day.
It won't take long before knackered fast bowlers are nagging their captains to ensure spin bowlers are given several to rattle through, to catch up.
I think it's the best way to ensure 90 overs are bowled. It's not perfect, because it will compromise players' ability to bowl at their maximum if they're having to field for extra-long sessions; and it may still not mean the full overs are brought in. But, in the worst case scenario, the bowling side in effect gets an hour and a half additional time to complete their overs in a (long, knackering) day.
Today we were 8 overs short......and that was with playing to 6.30pm. Do you think the over rate would have been that slow if we had 80 runs added to our score overnight....??
However i do agree something needs to be done, and yes add them on a session by session basis. Teams shouldn't be allowed to bowl slow all day and then play on an extra hour to fit them in.
I think the umpires would have to take into account, the batting side slowing the over rate down as well, maybe not on purpose but people moving behind the bowlers arm, batsmen not ready when the bowler is about to bowl, calling for a drink outside of the drinks break and a player getting injured, maybe the fourth umpire would have to use a stop watch for that.
Don't they do this in white ball cricket though, so that the overs have to be bowled by a certain time but this is adjusted if there is a legitimate delay?
I cant see it happen, if anything surely the easiest way would be. 10 overs short , good light = play extra half an hour
If the light is not good enough, start an hour earlier the next day.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7c8c5756-d574-11e9-aa6d-16cb9f989e55#
Warner gone again single fingers, imagine if he was English lol
Harris to be out before 15?