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

[Arthur Crabtree]

Whether a game ends in a draw is scarcely irrelevant. .

I dialled back on saying this point was irrelevant at the last minute (of course, if a side loses a win because of slow over rates then that is worse than if the result is unaffected). But in qualifying my point I made it meaningless.

I read once that modifying words are supposed to suggest femininity!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Don't agree it is too tough to bowl the overs. I quite often note that the game has come to a standstill (I remember Dhoni in the 2011 series v England at one point just stopping the game for about 15 minutes around a drinks break to give his players a rest and ignoring the umpires' encouragement to restart). Everyone knows that overrates are slowed down when the batters are on top (Anderson and Broad come to mind in particular). It's a matter of playing the game at a particular tempo. The proper rate won't always be possible every hour. But it's not obvious that the bowling team even try to bowl at 15/hr under normal circumstances.

[Arthur Crabtree]

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?

We can start by losing the ones which are employed just because the bowling side has one to use and so it might as well use it.

Twenty DRS calls a match is about one a session.

[Arthur Crabtree]

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?

To me the biggest problem is the game loses interest when the play is slowed down. It creates a lull. A drag. Playing on at the end of the day doesn't help that, and may even make things worse.

I don't like penalty points. I'd quite like to try the players losing time in the intervals, see if that changes the players' priorities. But the tv people wouldn't like it. Top up the overs at lunch, tea and the close. Against that, the batters may not deserve to lose their rest time.

There may be better ways of dealing with this. But at the moment, we have the rules we have.

[Alviro Patterson]

Indeed Arthur. If the fielding side can't keep on top with the over-rate halfway through the afternoon session, then they have next to no chance of recovering it during the evening session when energy levels are dropping. One can argue a fielding side not bowling a full 90 overs gains an unfair advantage the next day by using a slightly newer ball with a refreshed bowling attack.

If County Cricketers can bowl 96 overs in a day and do it by 6.30pm, then test cricketers should be able to manage 90 overs without issue.

[meninblue]

Copying post from the wrong thread:

Totally agree to ban captain from test for over rates. Broadcasters pay a huge amount to televise the cricket matches as well as other sports. A delayed cricket match means they are likely to miss broadcasting the next due sports match (be it tennis or football or baseball or olympics or whatever else is scheduled). The broadcasters may get less revenue as a fine for not broadcasting the scheduled programs. Why should broadcasters suffer becaus eof failure of captain to complete the match on time on every day. Also, as a spectator, the spectators also miss the other sport because of one match not getting completed on time. Why should television viewers suffer. Why should advertisers who select and pay premium price for advertisements suffer for the match delay. Some advertisement charges per second for India matches is too high. Personally i feel the fines/ bans are very much required.

Apart from the impact to broadcasters and television viewers, the other point is that i even see 8 extra overs being bowled in Ranji matches when the fielding team is doing well. When the fiedling team is not picking wickets, we do get to see timepass being done and less overs being bowled. This has to be stopped. Game should not be played on basis of whether fielding team is enjoying it or doing badly on that day. The game should be more professionally played within the rules at international level.

[Durhamfootman]

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?

I would like DRS to be used for the purpose it was created; to give a team the opportunity to challenge and correct an obvious mistake by the umpire, with the emphasis on the obvious. In it's original context there would be no need for a second review, because every review, if applied in the spirit for which it was intended, ought to be upheld and the obvious error corrected.

But that isn't what captains use them for, or what batsmen use them for..... most of the time they are just taking a punt and hoping to get lucky

Perfectly possible to get 100% integrity without shortchanging the paying public..... reduce the days play to 10 overs per session and check every delivery if you think that would help. Let the punters decide if that's the sort of cricket they want to watch

[Durhamfootman]

But, of course, the DRS argument is a red herring, because there aren't enough of them being made, atm. Even if there were 2 reviews per session (and I doubt that there are that many, that would eat up up about 3 mins per hour. County cricket expects 32 overs to be bowled per session and test cricket 30, so the DRS factor is already built in.

One day it will become a problem as the use of DRS is allowed to become ever more ridiculous, but we aren't there yet.... give it another 10 years and it may become a factor in slow over rates

A lack of urgency is the reason for slow over rates. you can think of as many possible excuses as you like, but bowling 12 or 13 overs an hour is just taking the ssip

[Arthur Crabtree]

Woakes, Foakes and Stokes all injury doubts for the third Test!

Full house.

The rhyming threesome have never played together but may all be injured together.

Which gives me:

Jennings/Burns/Denly/Root/Buttler/Bairstow/Curran/Moeen/Leach/Broad/Anderson.

Rashid/Wood.

Unless there are call ups.

I've got Curran keeping a place because of the lack of batting.

[Alviro Patterson]

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?

To me the biggest problem is the game loses interest when the play is slowed down. It creates a lull. A drag. Playing on at the end of the day doesn't help that, and may even make things worse.

I don't like penalty points. I'd quite like to try the players losing time in the intervals, see if that changes the players' priorities. But the tv people wouldn't like it. Top up the overs at lunch, tea and the close. Against that, the batters may not deserve to lose their rest time.

There may be better ways of dealing with this. But at the moment, we have the rules we have.

I have thought of two ideas to speed up the over-rate:

If the over-rate is at minus after the 1st 60 overs of the 1st innings or at any point in the 2nd innings, only spinners and medium pace bowlers can bowl until the over rate is level.

If the over-rate is at minus after at least 4 hours of play (two full sessions) and is not recovered in 2 hours, when all wickets have fallen or a declaration called, the fielding side loses a wicket per minus over when they next bat.

[Slipstream]

Woakes, Foakes and Stokes all injury doubts for the third Test!

Full house.

The rhyming threesome have never played together but may all be injured together.

Which gives me:

Jennings/Burns/Denly/Root/Buttler/Bairstow/Curran/Moeen/Leach/Broad/Anderson.

Rashid/Wood.

Unless there are call ups.

I've got Curran keeping a place because of the lack of batting.

Stokes WILL play, most of the time he is stuck together in various ways. Just some pain killers and strapping. Batting and less bowling.
Burns Denly Root Stokes Bairstow Buttler Curran Ali Wood Broad Anderson.

WI bowling Paul, Roach, Joseph Gabriel

[Arthur Crabtree]

Cricinfo has

1 Kraigg Brathwaite (capt), 2 John Campbell, 3 Shai Hope, 4 Darren Bravo, 5 Roston Chase, 6 Shimron Hetmyer, 7 Shane Dowrich (wk), 8 Keemo Paul/Oshane Thomas, 9 Kemar Roach, 10 Alzarri Joseph, 11 Shannon Gabriel

1 Rory Burns, 2 Joe Denly, 3 Keaton Jennings, 4 Joe Root (capt), 5 Jos Buttler, 6 Ben Stokes/Sam Curran, 7 Jonny Bairstow (wk), 8 Moeen Ali, 9 Mark Wood, 10 Stuart Broad, 11 James Anderson

Says Foakes was dropped as he was available!

Woakes unfit.

[andy]

Harsh on Foakes really is!!!!! Jennings

[Durhamfootman]

shuffling the pack to make it look as though they are doing something

[Durhamfootman]

unlikely to make any difference at all, because this lot have no fight in them..... no heart.... put any tiny little obstacle in front of them and they'll fall over it like Graham Chapman in the upper class twit of the year race

selected and prepared by the biggest pair of twits around