3rd Test – West Indies vs England, St. Lucia, Feb 9 - 13

[Slipstream]

I think most of the time you do get 90 overs but usually have an extra half hour at the end of the day. We are really getting six and a half hours cricket instead of six.

[mikesiva]

Piers Morgan

@piersmorgan

"What a pathetic decision.
They should reinstate Holder & suspend the entire England team for slow-witted batting."

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/ ... 9397722112

"Keemo Paul, the 20-year-old Guyanese allrounder, will come into the squad in Holder's absence. He has played two Tests to date, most recently on the tour of India last October. Oshane Thomas, the reserve fast bowler, is also in line for a call-up, although his selection would weaken West Indies' batting."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... lucia-test

A brief, potted history....

When Lloyd ruled the roost in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Wisden and a number of English journalists complained that the West Indies four-prong pace attack was "boring", "was killing cricket", and was destroying the "beauty of spin", and that "something had to be done about it". Well, they did do something about it when Lloyd retired. They implemented the 90-overs-a-day rule, knowing full well that the attack of four genuine fast bowlers employed by Richards would not be able to get the overs in. Richards said he didn't care, and he still used his pace attack, and the WICB happily paid the fines levied on Richards by the ICC. As far as I can remember, none of the WI fans that watched the teams of Lloyd and Richards complained about not seeing 90 overs in a day's play. I was at Sabina Park in 1983 where on the first day, India only managed 219-7 at stumps. The next day, they were bowled out for 251 off 87.4 overs. Did I feel cheated? Of course not! So, if the law isn't there for WI fans, who is it there for?

So, the fines weren't forcing Richards to abandon the four fast bowlers. What did they do? Change the punishment to suspension of the captain. By that time, Richards had retired, the West Indies were in decline, and we no longer had four world-class fast bowlers - just Walsh and Ambrose. But now that two teams in particular, South Africa and West Indies, are returning to the four prong fast bowling attack, this ridiculous deterrent is still there to try and dissuade them from going down the route of the good old days.

I hope the WICB are not deterred...to quote Bumble from "Oliver Twist", the law is an ass. It's the law that needs to be changed.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Thank God it's a dead rubber, because this is such a ridiculous ICC rule!
:angry

Don't agree at all. It's for the good of the game as a spectacle and a fair contest that teams bowl their overs on time. And teams show little enthusiasm for doing so. WI should have bowled their overs.

I do wonder though how equally the ICC enforce the punishment.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think slow over rates are as bad for test cricket as playing county cricket in the spring and autumn

The ICC have no choice but to act. I just wish they were more strict and acted more

Over rates in test cricket are pathetic and represent poor value for the poor sod who has to pay through the nose to watch a day's test cricket. What's more, captains couldn't care less and when they allow this to happen, then they treat the spectators with disdain at best and contempt at worse

I've lost track of how many years I've been banging on about this and nothing ever improves

Bravo.

Or 'this' as people say.

[bigfluffylemon]

I think slow over rates are as bad for test cricket as playing county cricket in the spring and autumn

The ICC have no choice but to act. I just wish they were more strict and acted more

Over rates in test cricket are pathetic and represent poor value for the poor sod who has to pay through the nose to watch a day's test cricket. What's more, captains couldn't care less and when they allow this to happen, then they treat the spectators with disdain at best and contempt at worse

I've lost track of how many years I've been banging on about this and nothing ever improves

Bravo.

Or 'this' as people say.

Agreed.

Once you factor in the additional half-hour, to get through the allocation is 14 overs an hour, or one over every four minutes and 17 seconds. That shouldn't be that hard, even for a fast bowler - one delivery every forty three seconds. An actual delivery, from start of run up to the ball reaching the batsman, takes about 3-8 seconds. Sure, if there's a wicket or a boundary there's additional time, but when you consider that over 60% of balls in test cricket are dots (i.e. straight through to the keeper, or fielded inside the circle), there's no excuse to take more than another 10-15 seconds to walk back to your mark and change the field. It's the inordinate amount of faffing around between deliveries, between overs, unnecessary drinks breaks, etc. etc. (and how often is a ball delivered two minutes after a wicket, as the timed out law dictates? Practically never).

It should be perfectly possible for a side to bowl 14 overs an hour, even if they have mostly or entirely quicks. Look at old scorecards, teams used to bowl 17-18 overs an hour. Not even making the effort to keep up indicates a lack of respect for the rules and the spectators, and deserves to be punished. I don't know how evenly punishment is handed out, but for a ban it either has to be an egregious offence or a second offence, so the captain's had a warning. I see people complaining about England's slow over rate on these boards all the time. I know I have. And it's not just an England thing, the Aussies, South Africans, Kiwis, West Indians, Pakistanis all go slow at times. Heck, I even remember Dhoni getting fined for a slow over rate, which with spinners is completely ridiculous.

Bottom line: everyone knows the rules. Break them, and you should be punished. Personally, I'd award 10 penalty runs against a team for every over they are short of their allocation, every session (barring some act beyond control like an injury delay). That would soon change behaviour.

[sussexpob]

Look at old scorecards, teams used to bowl 17-18 overs an hour. Not even making the effort to keep up indicates a lack of respect for the rules and the spectators, and deserves to be punished

This is a bit like saying people used to run the 100 yard dash quicker than top sprinters can manage 100 meters now.

Just think about the rule changes in the last 20 years; DRS, Mandatory 5 minute drinks breaks 3 times a game. Umpires that refer run outs, stumpings, catches, and no balls to a TV umpire. Increased boundary hitting, more runs per innings, an unbelievably higher amount of sixes. No balls have increased in scope, leg side wide margins have narrowed, this means far more extra balls per over..... you can go on.

Just judging on DRS (not including umpire calls to review, such as run outs, stumpings, catches, no balls).... on the last year available in data in 2016, there was over 20 reviews on average per completed 5 days of test cricket...... that is a lot of time lost.

Cant be compared.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Suggestion that Woakes' knee is a problem and may mean he is less likely to be called up for the third Test.

[Slipstream]

Suggestion that Woakes' knee is a problem and may mean he is less likely to be called up for the third Test.

Looks like it will be Wood replacing Curran.

[sussexpob]

I asked on the other thread whether in all the years against those world class attacks from the Windies, England had ever batted worse than this for average scored.

Turns out that the rabbit hole is deeper than that. The series average score for England is the worst it's been in 131 years Vs any team.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Hard to believe it's worse than UAE under Strauss!

[Arthur Crabtree]

The worst series average since the nineteenth century was BD in the WI last year. So there's something happening with the pitches out there, or WI have an all time great attack... or coincidentally, BD and England are both terrible.

[Arthur Crabtree]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... iew=series

SA in Asia recently are pretty hapless. Obviously, but bad enough to be two of the worst since Victoria.

[Arthur Crabtree]

This is with just England isolated.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... iew=series

It doesn't feel as hopeless as UAE or the Mitchwash. But it's quite a bit worse.

[bigfluffylemon]

Good stats AC.

Interesting to note that six of the worst ten have been from 1997-2000, while two have been from the last three years...

Maybe not quite the worst batting since those dire days of the late 90s, but it's not far off.

Even more astonishing, the fourth worst (average of 22) was the Wisden trophy in England in 2000 - England won three tests, despite that average, with Walsh and Ambrose's England swansong. That must have been one hell of a low scoring series.

[sussexpob]

This is with just England isolated.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... iew=series

It doesn't feel as hopeless as UAE or the Mitchwash. But it's quite a bit worse.

Took the stat from a BBC article. Says England haven't had a worse series in 131 years.