Cricket XXV - The long runup to the World Cup

[Xray the Enforcer]

As someone who has never played, I'm curious as to what tactics Smith (or any captain) could employ to speed up the over rate?

[The Winged Shadow]

Usually you bowl more spinners. Short run-ups so it tends to go by quicker. That's why you will see teams will employ part-time spinners to get the over rate ticking. An example would be Murali Vijay bowling on the first test. I don't think he normally bowls, but could be wrong.

Normally, you get into trouble if you mostly use fast bowlers (long run-ups), as opposed some medium pacers (like Shane Watson) who have shorter run-ups. Other ways could be sticking with your field setting and not changing things around constantly (takes time for fielders to run around and get into place etc).

But yeah, overall, it is just easier to bowl medium pacers and spinners.

[Consigliere]

That is an option but I don't think it is a solution to the problem. If a side goes into a game with an all pace attack, does this mean that they have no chance of meeting the 90 overs per day requirement and will have to resort to bowling part time medium pacers or spinners?

Improving the over rate starts with eliminating the dawdling between overs (this includes batsmen, fielders and umpires who all seem to enjoy a chat between overs), cutting down on the inordinate amount of time it takes to decide on field placements and random incursions by the 12th man. Having play start 30 minutes earlier each day would also help.

[arya_underfoot]

Improving the over rate starts with eliminating the dawdling between overs (this includes batsmen, fielders and umpires who all seem to enjoy a chat between overs), cutting down on the inordinate amount of time it takes to decide on field placements and random incursions by the 12th man.

I think these are all important ways to improve over rates. There is way too much dawdling between balls, let alone overs. The batsmen need to be penalised for their role in slowing the over rate as well. But I think the biggest contributor by far are the endless discussions between fielding captain and bowlers- sometimes these start within the first over of a day's play- seriously??

In high school cricket, we used to have 2 hours to complete a match. You bowled for an hour, and got the same number of overs bowled to you to chase. Obviously, it's not international cricket, but we'd often get through 17-18 overs each.

[Consigliere]

I think these are all important ways to improve over rates. There is way too much dawdling between balls, let alone overs. The batsmen need to be penalised for their role in slowing the over rate as well. But I think the biggest contributor by far are the endless discussions between fielding captain and bowlers- sometimes these start within the first over of a day's play- seriously??

In high school cricket, we used to have 2 hours to complete a match. You bowled for an hour, and got the same number of overs bowled to you to chase. Obviously, it's not international cricket, but we'd often get through 17-18 overs each.

Another issue is that the sanctions for slow over rates are really not a deterrent. I think that 15 overs/hour is a realistic target even with an all seam attack. It is just that captains don't seem all that concerned about not meeting the target. I think that the penalties imposed should be immediate and have an impact on the match.

For example, if a side fails to meet the requirement in the 1st session then one of their front line bowlers should be prohibited from bowling in the 2nd session until the target over rate is reached. The match referee can decide which bowler sits out. I think this would provide the necessary incentive for fielding sides to ensure that the minimum over rate is achieved.

[Stubby]

Speaking as a former captain (admittedly in 3rd grade) the easiest way to get through the overs, regardless of whether you have all pace or a mixed attack, is to not buggerise around between overs.

Also, going into the day with a plan for your field is an advantage. You move the bloke from square leg to mid off between overs and vice versa. The slips and the keeper are encouraged to jog between ends. The bowler always goes to fine leg - regardless of who he is. Thinking ahead about fields to set when a new bowler comes on so it can be sorted out while he marks out his run. Fine blokes (at my level the fine was $1.00) for walking when they should be running.

It's part and parcel of being captain. I was never short in my over-rates - and we were playing without fences so there was more chasing of leather across roads etc to factor in.

As a further point about test match rates, I note that the crowd buys a ticket expecting to see 90 overs. Weather permitting, I think it is disrespectful of the players to not endeavour to meet that target.

[Jeor]

Some stuff being written about Brad Haddin's form slump with the bat. It does make for some ghastly reading, his scores in the last 7 Tests have been: 0, 9, 1, 13, 3*, 22, 0, 10, 13, 0, 14*, 6, 1. It reads like a tailender's scores.

With Johnson and the tail looking like they're in good batting form it probably doesn't matter in the immediate future, but if he doesn't score this series then that will throw a spanner into the works for Ashes selection.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Thanks for the answers, all. I appreciate you taking the time to describe this stuff to me.

I feel compelled to point out that I met another pair of cricket fans at a party this Friday. Aussie couple, one is a science journalist and the other an urban planner. We all collectively lost our shit as we realized the kinship. So now Mr. X and I have a date to drink beer with those fine people. :lol:

[Stubby]

Thanks for the answers, all. I appreciate you taking the time to describe this stuff to me.

I feel compelled to point out that I met another pair of cricket fans at a party this Friday. Aussie couple, one is a science journalist and the other an urban planner. We all collectively lost our shit as we realized the kinship. So now Mr. X and I have a date to drink beer with those fine people. :lol:

I guess that's your Boxing Day sorted then ;)

[Xray the Enforcer]

:cheers:

We're actually going to be with Mercenary Chef and Kair that day. Hopefully I will survive it.

[The Winged Shadow]

Improving the over rate starts with eliminating the dawdling between overs (this includes batsmen, fielders and umpires who all seem to enjoy a chat between overs), cutting down on the inordinate amount of time it takes to decide on field placements and random incursions by the 12th man. Having play start 30 minutes earlier each day would also help.

Ha! I'll believe it when I see it. That is definitely the main culprit for slow over rates. But when you are already behind for those reasons, only thing in your control is getting in some quick overs. Usually its not a problem because most teams play spinners who go through overs pretty quick. But when you play a spinner and still behind over rate, you know there is some problems. I am all for less dwadling!

That is an option but I don't think it is a solution to the problem. If a side goes into a game with an all pace attack, does this mean that they have no chance of meeting the 90 overs per day requirement and will have to resort to bowling part time medium pacers or spinners?

Another issue is that the sanctions for slow over rates are really not a deterrent. I think that 15 overs/hour is a realistic target even with an all seam attack. It is just that captains don't seem all that concerned about not meeting the target. I think that the penalties imposed should be immediate and have an impact on the match.

I disagree with you on this though. 15 overs per hour is most definitely unrealistic with four fast bowlers. 90 deliveries in 60 minute. You are expecting one and a half delivery per minute with fast bowlers! Not going to happen. Some medium pacers and spinners are a must if you are to meet the over rate.

[DJDonegal]

Obviously, it's not international cricket, but we'd often get through 17-18 overs each.

Exactly. In international cricket they don't even have to chase the boundary balls and they still go slower!

[arya_underfoot]

Another issue is that the sanctions for slow over rates are really not a deterrent. I think that 15 overs/hour is a realistic target even with an all seam attack. It is just that captains don't seem all that concerned about not meeting the target. I think that the penalties imposed should be immediate and have an impact on the match.

For example, if a side fails to meet the requirement in the 1st session then one of their front line bowlers should be prohibited from bowling in the 2nd session until the target over rate is reached. The match referee can decide which bowler sits out. I think this would provide the necessary incentive for fielding sides to ensure that the minimum over rate is achieved.

I agree that having four fast bowlers shouldn't be accepted as an excuse for a slow over-rate. But as for penalties, I think mandatorily suspending captains for any over-rate offence will be the most effective deterrant in the long run. There's simply too much subjectivity involved in randomly selecting a "front line" bowler.

[DJDonegal]

There's simply too much subjectivity involved in randomly selecting a "front line" bowler.

What about a ban for the bowler who bowled the best figures in the previous match? Nothing subjective in that.

[Jeor]

In all honesty, I think anything that affects game play during the course of a Test match is going to be a non-starter. There may well be bowling and fielding restrictions etc in ODIs but for better or worse, Test cricket is considered sacrosanct, and any alteration to a game in progress would be viewed as arbitrary at best. If India can't accept the DRS (which could only vaguely be considered to 'alter' gameplay) then anything else is going to be very difficult to pass through the requisite rules committees.

I think strictly enforcing captain bans are the way to go, because the captain on the field is really the one person who has some control over the whole process (in terms of who bowls) and presumably some influence with teammates.

Of course, this could lead to hilarious situations where teammates deliberately bowl slowly to get the captain banned - I'm sure it would have happened back in the Geoff Boycott days if it were possible!

[Consigliere]

I disagree with you on this though. 15 overs per hour is most definitely unrealistic with four fast bowlers. 90 deliveries in 60 minute. You are expecting one and a half delivery per minute with fast bowlers! Not going to happen. Some medium pacers and spinners are a must if you are to meet the over rate.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Usually teams do go into a Test with a spinner but there are occasions where conditions are not conducive to spin bowling. I just think it is unfair for a side to have to pick a spinner in unfavourable conditions just to ensure that they can keep up with the over rate. Not all teams have a top class spinner to call upon. The 90 overs/day is a minimum requirement and thus should be achievable no mattter the makeup of the bowling attack. If it is deemed that an all seam attack cannot possibly achieve the over rate then a simple solution would be to increase the amount of playing time eg. starting play 30 minutes earlier each day.

In all honesty, I think anything that affects game play during the course of a Test match is going to be a non-starter. There may well be bowling and fielding restrictions etc in ODIs but for better or worse, Test cricket is considered sacrosanct, and any alteration to a game in progress would be viewed as arbitrary at best. If India can't accept the DRS (which could only vaguely be considered to 'alter' gameplay) then anything else is going to be very difficult to pass through the requisite rules committees.

I think strictly enforcing captain bans are the way to go, because the captain on the field is really the one person who has some control over the whole process (in terms of who bowls) and presumably some influence with teammates.

Of course, this could lead to hilarious situations where teammates deliberately bowl slowly to get the captain banned - I'm sure it would have happened back in the Geoff Boycott days if it were possible!

That is a good point. However I still happen to believe that if sanctions impacting the match are introduced then we will quickly see over rates improving but, as you say, the chances of that happening are nil. If banning offending captains is the only viable option then the sanctions need to be alot more severe than they are currently. I think the on-field umpires need to play a role as well. The over rate is displayed on the scoreboard so they would be aware if the fielding team is behind. Just go and have a word with the captain and put some pressure on him or give him a kick up the backside if necessary.

[The Winged Shadow]

The Aussie commentators make me embarrassed to be an Aussie supporter. They've gone of for like 20min about how bad the Indian team is. Apparently, Dhoni is an average keeper at best? The fuck, since when?

It's fine to criticize teams and players, but some of these commentators do go over the limit so often. Absolutely zero class....

[arya_underfoot]

The Aussie commentators make me embarrassed to be an Aussie supporter. They've gone of for like 20min about how bad the Indian team is. Apparently, Dhoni is an average keeper at best? The fuck, since when?

It's fine to criticize teams and players, but some of these commentators do go over the limit so often. Absolutely zero class....

You refer, of course, to the bogan-in-chief Warney, his trusted little boganites, Heals, Slats, JB and Tubs, and their exotic foreign cheerleader Mark Nicholas. To think that only a few short years ago, we had Benaud, Lawry, Greig and Chappell (I know he's still commentating). The drop in class, not to mention analytic ability, has been precipitious.

If you want to listen Australian commentary, I'd suggest Jim Maxwell and the ABC Grandstand team. Unfortunately, they've also suffered from the death of Peter Roebuck, but they're still light years ahead of the buffoons at Nine when it comes to quality. I've been impressed by their search for able commentators- for example, when not occupied by cricketing duties, Trent Copeland has been commentating on Grandstand. I'm not sure if any of you have been listening, but he's been brilliant- a far cry from the recent additions to Nine.

[The Winged Shadow]

Can't stand Tubs. He is the absolute worst. Warne can atleast be funny at times, albeit a little childish. But hot damn, Mark Taylor just gives me the shits. Horrible, horrible commentator.

[Jeor]

I think Ian Healy is the worst as far as bias is concerned; he makes no bones about the fact that he wants Australia to win and thinks they're amazing compared to what every other team can put up. Mark Nicholas for some unusual reason is a massive Aussie cheerleader and Ian Chappell always comes across as an arrogant know-it-all critic who thinks all the captains currently on the field don't know anything. Warne is still new but can go on about some silly tangential things quite a bit.

By that measure I personally think Taylor and Slater are the least bad, in the sense that they make an attempt not to be biased (Taylor's analysis is better than Slater, who doesn't offer very much insight). It's good to hear Bill Lawry as well.

In truth I think the commentary is suffering from a lack of overseas talent. When you have all the former Aussie players commentating (Chappell, Healy, Taylor, Slater, Warne) it does give you a rather one-sided look at things. People like Mark Nicholas and James Brayshaw are meant to balance it as outsiders but they don't really have the gravitas to pull it off.

What Channel Nine need is to sign a big-time overseas personality who is a good commentator in their own right. Off the top of my head I like Michael Holding and Mike Atherton, but even if you couldn't get them, there are other international commentators available like Bob Willis, Bumble, Nasser Hussain etc who would (while not being perfect themselves) balance it out a bit more.