Like many others, I was taken aback by the conclusion to the first Test between Pakistan and England in Abu Dhabi.
Not by the home side’s barely disguised gamesmanship in slowing their over-rate to a crawl, but by the fact a game which for four days had hinted at nothing other than a run-laden stalemate, suddenly looked like spawning a positive result.
A combination of scoreboard pressure, a couple of appalling shots by experienced players who should really know better and tail-enders exposed to a sharply turning ball enabled Pakistan to almost conjure defeat from the jaws of safety.
Before the game was out there were a few comments being bandied about, by commentators and writers with a wealth of knowledge, regarding the pitch and how it was a poor advert for the five-day game.
Five is the key word here because their assessments weren’t based on the entire picture.
What, exactly, is Test cricket? A game played over a five-day duration or one scheduled for 80 per cent of that?
Yes, it was slow and flat and made for particularly attritional fare but that’s not a crime. Lord’s in the summer just gone was the same and the game finished with a day to spare.
The proof is always in the whole bowl of pudding and if a Test, as in Abu Dhabi, goes to the very end without petering out then, surely, that’s the whole point.
Anyway, enough bitching and back to the first point mentioned – that of the deathly slow over-rate.
Having seen enough of this kind of behaviour to last a lifetime, the only surprise was if you were actually stunned by Misbah-ul-Haq’s decision to slow things down.
In the same situation, every captain with an ounce of common sense would’ve done the same. For all the talk of a lack of spirit and, even more ridiculously, cheating, it was simply pragmatism very well done.
And the reason it exists and has done for a long time is there is no deterrent.
That may sound blindingly obvious and that is because it is.
A fine for the captain or even the threat of a less than punitive suspension is a punishment barely worth the book of regulations they’re printed in as come the crunch, teams happily revert to type.
Even with the threat of a ban, and I don’t know if that’s the case, if Misbah is placed in a similar scenario in the next Test, with England requiring a few runs in a short space of time, you can bet your bottom dollar his bowlers will find their shoelaces coming repeatedly undone or suddenly coming across as quite unsure as to their field placings.
I read Scott Pryde’s article from earlier in the week with interest and was quite curious about the idea of sending players off. I really don’t see how it would be enforceable – it is far from a black and white issue after all – but it’s a decent talking point.
As if the threat of penalty runs which, you would think, should act as a reason not to err on the side of sloth, but how often are these enforced?
I can recall England taking two hours to bowl their overs in a Twenty20 match yet they were allowed to do as they please with every excuse under the sun offered for their slackness.
As with everything, it all boils down to the willingness of the officials to be willing to take a stand. There really is no other answer.
Had Bruce Oxenford and Paul Reiffel been a touch firmer then more than the 11 overs could have been delivered. Not the full 19 mind you, as the light was never going to allow it, but a point could’ve been made.
Back at the turn of the century, Steve Bucknor, officiating in a Test between, ironically enough, Pakistan and England in Karachi, kept play going in filthy light to enable a conclusion to be reached and to prevent a slow over-rate from having any undue influence. It isn’t an unsolvable problem.
Where there’s a will and all that.
Stucco
Guest
The umpire can order the person carrying the drinks, gloves etc off the field but then the batsman argues with the umpire and before you know it there goes 5 minutes. It would be interesting if the umpire could give people out for time wasting - Trott would have been walking a tightrope every match!
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
I think the issue of slow over rates is a general one. Obviously it gets put in the spotlight in situations such as this most recent example, but the issue of bowling teams being slow in the field is far more prevalent than batting teams. Over rates seem to poor from the get go, not just in the last hour of close contests. On that basis, I'll let my comments stand. With respect to delays being brought about by the batting team, there are laws already in place to deal with this, although (a) it is toothless in terms of teams attempting to survive for a draw and (b) is up to umpires to enforce. The second point is difficult to change, although the first could be made much stronger, ultimately resulting in offending batsman being given out. Combine this with outlawing the constant running on of drinks, gear, etc. and we'll go a long way to eradicating the problem.
Paul D
Roar Guru
The solution is to mandate the use of floodlights and not let play finish for the day until the minimum required number of overs have been bowled. A regime of penalty runs or suspending players is too complex, given that both sides can impact on the over rate, not just the bowling side - as people have pointed out.
Stucco
Guest
I don't know if penalty runs are the answer. In this match the team batting is trying to win, the bowling team is trying to save. But imagine if it was the other way around. How many times do you think the batsman would have called for a drink, adjusted his gear, weeding the pitch etc etc to waste time? They don't care about the runs as they can't win the game anyway. What do you do then? Maybe instead of a ban on the captain the punishment could be that the opposition team gets to choose the player who sits. That player then has to play but isn't allowed to bowl or bat (essentially they become a specialist fielder). Then you could remove Williamson rather than McCullum, Johnson rather than Smith, Root rather than Cook etc. I realise this would only work in a series, but maybe that punishment could carry over until the next time the two teams play.
Duncan Gering
Guest
Spruce, I should have added the penalties to be added for each day for penalty runs - I thought it was implied. I don't think you can add overs on the 6th day for missing overs on the first, and besides i think there are already provisions for making these up at the moment. The problem here is that the decisive penalty arrives at the end (just as it did in the Aus-Sco rugby match) which leaves everyone with a bad taste in their mouths. But really it's a culmination of all the decisions made during the game (by all parties) which leads to that point. Your point about spot penalty runs is probably feasible. If you get more than x number of overs per hour behind then the spot fine applies and you still have to make the missing overs up (or even more extras are awarded).
matth
Guest
That's a reasonable idea
spruce moose
Guest
Your solutions are cool but are rules that would need to be applied each day, and not just the 5th day, and therefore would make it unfeasible. Day 5 of that test match, England bowled too. You would have to check whether they bowled at the overrate required? Furthermore, on day 2, both teams bowled. Did they bowl at the expected rate? You would have to be awarding penalty runs at the each of each day, not just day 5. Too confusing. too controversial.
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
You won't find a more strident supporter of improving over rates than me, but placing the blame on the umpires is misplaced. The modern umpire's role has been diminished to one of administrator. Just look at what happens to umpires who do anything other than the most basic functions. Their ability to actually "control" the match has been increasingly eroded through match referees, 3rd umpires, DRS and associated technologies, not to mention the abominable state of play with respect to bent arm no balls and ball tampering. The solution is quite simple. The bowling team is responsible for the over rate during their time bowling. Their over rate may be able to move up and down over the course of a bowling innings, but at the cessation of that innings they must have got through the number of overs expected to be bowled given the duration of the innings ... based on 90 overs in a day, that's an over required every four minutes over the totality of the innings. In other words, if the innings lasts 400 minutes, they must have got through 100 overs. If they are unable to do this, a run penalty applies, perhaps 6 runs per over short. It's been said many times ... place a direct penalty on poor over rates and they will improve overnight. It is up to the ICC to amend the laws accordingly.
spruce moose
Guest
Penalty runs is the obvious solution. If a team is clearly trying to slow the play down (at any stage of the match) then the umpire makes a decision on the spot and awards 5 runs.
Duncan Gering
Guest
What about a provision in the rules to allow teams to come back on the 6th day in the event that the mandated 90 overs have been bowled? I realise it's a slippery slope because where would you set the limit. How would you determine what constitutes a legitimate reason to come back for that extra day? And then there’s the setting of a limit to the number of overs allowed. On the other hand you could change the rules to add 10 runs per over not bowled in a day’s play to the batting team’s total. I can foresee a situation where the teams could come off the ground not knowing the result, and having to sit with the match ref to decide the outcome. I can’t point to a specific case, but I feel like captains of the great WI teams of the 70’s-80’s used to have their bowlers lengthen their run-ups whenever a loss was on the cards. It’s been going on a long time.
madmonk
Guest
I agree Alec. For me lunch and tea breaks should be compressed if rates are slow and 90 overs in the day should be bowled. If bad light is a risk at the venue start play earlier. UAE gets about 12 hours of sunlight this time of year. Why start play 4 to 5 hours after sunrise? On the Eng Pak test, you could also query Cook's tactics in the morning. Letting 10 and 11 have a net basically showed he had no inclination that a win was on.
Matth
Guest
Everyone does it. Clarke did it in England 2 series ago. England did it in Cardiff 2009 as the batting side! So there is no team that can complain. I don't have an answer. A captain truly confident in his teams ability might consider moving the game along for the first four days to provide more time on day 5. I don't mean scoring rates, I mean moving faster in the field. Sometimes that can build its own kind of pressure o the opposition batsmen. But as long as the game is defined by time and not the number of overs then manipulation will occur and I honestly can't see a penalty that would be enough of a deterrent against losing a test match or a series. A solution in the current match would have been to recognize that the light fails each afternoon and start the game 1/2 hour earlier each day
Scott Pryde
Expert
Interesting article Alec, I will start with your thoughts on my article from earlier this week. You're right about the problem of enforceability, however I reckon it might bubble down to what your article talks about. Which is that, the umpires have to do something. The problem for umpires at the moment is there is nothing that is really written into the rules really that allows them to enforce over rates at a respectable level and one that keeps the game moving. That's why I thought the send-off rule could be implemented - to give umpires something to use in their efforts to keep the game moving at a respectable pace. I wonder also, if the bad light question should go back to the umpires asking the batsmen if the fielding side are purposely slowing it down. Again that would be umpire jurisdiction to decide. All a big issue in test cricket and one that needs to be fixed by something in the rules.
craig
Guest
How about a clock on balls and overs. Like the shot clock in basketball, or the play clock in NFL. If the fielding team does not deliver on time the batsmen get a free hit.