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

[Durhamfootman]

after this test, there is only one more test match to be played before the ashes starts.... which is not an encouraging thought

it also seems certain that the disgraced duo will play in that ashes series from ball 1

I can see England lose this 3rd test, but then beat Ireland and think that all is well again

and after spending the entire Bayliss regime sacrificing test cricket in a single minded pursuit for world cup glory, I can see England having a shocker in the semi's and not even making it to the final. I hope I'm wrong, because then England will have wasted 4 years pursuing it, and probably have to waste another 4 years trying to rebuild their test credentials from the low base they will find themselves at

[Arthur Crabtree]

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.

Recurrent England pick at the end of series where it feels like their bowlers have been outgunned?

He got a 50 against NZ last winter and those kind of runs would come in handy.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I can see England lose this 3rd test, but then beat Ireland and think that all is well again

May 3 there's an ODI with Ireland!

Got to be the earliest ever game in the European summer, if not in UK as it's in Dublin.

Maybe the ECB will have it played in the middle of the night to make it even less attractive.

Rained off presumably.

At least the Test is in June.

[Alviro Patterson]

Not the first time Jason Holder has been banned for a slow over rate, happened last winter when West Indies were touring New Zealand.

At the end of the day, the captain is responsible for on-field matters and it's not like Jason Holder is inexperienced in that role. All it needs is fielders to get to their positions 10-15 seconds faster per over bowled to eliminate the slow over rate.

[mikesiva]

It's absolutely ridiculous to have a slow over-rate penalty for a match that finishes with more than two days to spare. Only two overs were lost, and I doubt you could find too many fans inside North Sound who were complaining about that. This law should only be applied to matches that are drawn.

It's good to see some former cricketers share that view....

"The test didn't go 3 days - can you please appeal this @JaseHolder98 ! What a ridiculous decision - where's the common sense here? Ps Congrats on a wonderful series win too. International cricket needs a strong Windies team & hopefully this is just the start @BrianLara," Shane Warne tweeted.

Holder was quick to the reply to the Warne saying, “thank you". Not just Warne, former England captain Michael Vaughan also tweeted his views on this issue.

He tweeted, “246 over Test Match .. that amounts to 2.6 days of Cricket .. A team hammers the opposition & plays great Test cricket yet the Captain gets a ban for Slow over rate .. @Jaseholder98 can find himself very very unlucky on this occasion .. !! The game really doesn’t help itself ...”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/ ... HnBQJ.html

There's a simple solution. Change the law to make it applicable only to matches that are drawn....

To quote Bumble in Oliver Twist (I think!), the law is an ass!

[alfie]

Nobody is exactly rejoicing that Holderr has incurred a ban (well maybe the England batsmen ) . One or two of us have suggested run penalties might be more appropriate . But that is the law as it stands - which everyone knew. If West Indies chose to ignore it in pursuit of victory , why should they get a free pass ? As already pointed out above : not the first time for these chaps.

It is not a matter of " only an issue if the game is drawn" . It is a legislated time constraint built into the regulations. I'd compare it with the fact that a pole vaulter only has a stipulated time to execute a jump once he or she has taken their place at the top of the run up : part of the rules of the sport.

I'll hear arguments for a better way to police time wasting ; but complaints that Holder has been unfairly treated in this case leave me cold.

[Dr Cricket]

But then like Bumble quoted some teams never get touched, IE England or india so the current system isn't totally fair since it never acts on the big teams or players.

[yuppie]

Holder is a repeat offender so i presume he gets banned quicker because he seems unwilling to abide by the rules.

I think Tim Paine will get banned the next time Aus are slow with their over rate. He got it back under control against SL but against India it was pedestrian at best.

For me its part of the the rules and thus part of the tactics. If you choose to go into a test with 4 pacemen, then you have to accept that they might have to bowl their overs a bit quicker. You know the rules when you start the test, you just can't ignore them because it might not suit your team selection. Pacemen taking their time to bowl is as much about their recovery as it is about the actual time it takes to bowl. Quicker movement of fielders between overs, bowlers being a little quicker back to their mark, its not that difficult.

If teams want to have 4 quicks, that is great, but that team selection still needs to accept the rules of cricket. And the rules of cricket have to be universal around the world, and can not change because of situations like games finishing 2 days early. We could look at it the other way. 2 days lost to rain, so today you have to bowl 110 overs instead of 90. Good luck that team with 4 fast men.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There is sympathy for Holder because he's a decent bloke and the WI win is a feelgood result around the cricket world. But there's no logic in the excuses made for Holder. Whether a game ends in a draw is scarcely irrelevant. It's about the game being played at a reasonable tempo that is fair to batter and bowler and paying spectator. Maybe sometimes the game dies when the over rate drags, and maybe sometimes it doesn't but whether on any given day there is a qualitative bonus that offsets a quantative loss can't be taken into account. Does the match ref factor in how entertained he has been? That's just a matter of opinion.

Teams can bowl 15-16 overs an hour and they should do so. Captains are given plenty of leeway.

Suggestion- don't make so many spurious DRS calls.

[Durhamfootman]

There is sympathy for Holder because he's a decent bloke and the WI win is a feelgood result around the cricket world. But there's no logic in the excuses made for Holder. Whether a game ends in a draw is scarcely irrelevant. It's about the game being played at a reasonable tempo that is fair to batter and bowler and paying spectator. Maybe sometimes the game dies when the over rate drags, and maybe sometimes it doesn't but whether on any given day there is a qualitative bonus that offsets a quantative loss can't be taken into account. Does the match ref factor in how entertained he has been? That's just a matter of opinion.

Teams can bowl 15-16 overs an hour and they should do so. Captains are given plenty of leeway.

Suggestion- don't make so many spurious DRS calls.

I agree with every bit of that

I'd just add that time lost making spurious DRS calls is another reason why rewarding teams for challenging a marginal decision by giving them the review back is a silly idea. Sportsmen the world over will always take your eyes out in the hope of gaining some marginal advantage to themselves if allowed to do so. Allowing them to do so is just asking for trouble

[sussexpob]

But there's no logic in the excuses made for Holder. Whether a game ends in a draw is scarcely irrelevant. It's about the game being played at a reasonable tempo that is fair to batter and bowler and paying spectator.

But there is also no logic in ruling arbitrarily on the fact a certain amount of bowling hasnt been completed. West Indies were two overs short of the target, which equated to 8 wasted minutes. They bowled England out in the best part of a session. Each batsman has two minutes to enter the ground, which does not include the time he has to take guard and ready himself for a delivery. Seeing as though it takes the average person at a normal walking pace a minute to walk about 70 meters, which is probably a lot less the distance of the dressing room to the middle, I think when you add all of this up, its pretty normal to expect a gap of 2-3 minutes between deliveries at this stage.

Taking 10 wickets in a session would waste approximately 7 overs of playing time. Had West Indies taken 7 wickets in the session, theyd have been above the rate. Its far from normal for a team to be bowled out in such a hurry, so its not normal to lose so much time in changing.

Did Windies play slowly, or did the natural speed of the game slow?

Also worth noting Foakes got wrapped on the hand and taken to hospital after treatment. Another waste of time.

[sussexpob]

Suggestion- don't make so many spurious DRS calls.

I think the Windies overturned two clear massive lbw errors. Bairstow's one straight after lunch on day 1 was smacking the whole stump. I cant remember who the other one was, but the umpire made 2 massive errors. Not sure I remember another review. DRS reviews are part of the game. If someone wants to use them, the parameters are clear. A team shouldnt be punished for enacting their on field right.

[sussexpob]

The main problem with overs lost, to me anyway, is the timing issues in the game. How many times is it blazing sunshine, bright light, a ground with floodlights installed anyway, and the teams are dragged off at 1830 with two overs to play? Never used to be like this, they played long enough to complete the overs, if the light was sufficient. Seem to remember was it Lords or Edgbaston in a test recently, where the teams were off for bad light with the floodlights fully on, but the rules stating they couldnt be used?

Its this that robs the fans, not Holder.

[Durhamfootman]

With so few test matches lasting a full 5 days, perhaps cricket boards the world over will solve this problem of over rates by reducing the daily over requirement to 60 and reducing ticket prices by a third, so that the poor sods who have to pay to watch test will get a happy bonus when play still lasts until 6.30 and cricket captains are given as many reviews and referrals as they could possibly want

After all.... cricket boards are much more interested in the health of the game and the happiness of the paying public, than they are in raking in as much money as they possible can, for as little cricket as they can get away with, no matter what the cost to the game they are charged with protecting................ aren't they?

[sussexpob]

With so few test matches lasting a full 5 days, perhaps cricket boards the world over will solve this problem of over rates by reducing the daily over requirement to 60 and reducing ticket prices by a third, so that the poor sods who have to pay to watch test will get a happy bonus when play still lasts until 6.30 and cricket captains are given as many reviews and referrals as they could possibly want

After all.... cricket boards are much more interested in the health of the game and the happiness of the paying public, than they are in raking in as much money as they possible can, for as little cricket as they can get away with, no matter what the cost to the game they are charged with protecting................ aren't they?

This seems a bit of a spurious analysis. Modern teams are just lazy, ignoring the fact that 20 DRS decisions a game are made now, and that you have 15 drinks breaks added into a game. The fact is, its not possible to bowl 17-18 overs a day anymore with these new rules. Far from being evidence of laziness, its a pretty natural pattern you would expect. I cant see how this can be ignored in the points above.

If you want less DRS, then you create a counter argument; integrity. Do you want 90 overs of a day ruined by a bad decision? Or do you want 88 overs of 100% integrity cricket?

Do away with DRS and we will get back to the endless debates about series being ruined by terrible calls.