The NRL is due to start playing an abridged season on the 28th of May and along with it, they’ve decided to make a couple of changes.
The biggie is to reduce the number of on-field referees from two to one and it remains to be seen how this change will play out.
Now, before you try and change to the cricket section of this website, this piece really is about cricket.
A part of the reason given for this change was a survey conducted by the NRL last year where they claim a large number of fans had lots of issues with the two-referee system and felt the game could be better managed with one. The new NRL chairman agreed for whatever reasons, hence the change.
What this comes down to is a sporting body listening to complaints about the game and taking action to address them. If Cricket Australia (CA) did the same sort of survey, the top of my list would be the never-ending stream of people running onto the field in Dayglo clothing, slowing down the game.
It seems that at the end of every over, especially in Tests, there’s at least one high-vis warrior wearing a path out to the middle, to carrying a kitbag’s worth of new gloves or bats.
Of course, they have to bring the obligatory water bottle and of course, both batsmen have to have a drink and a yarn. It’s quite common for batsmen to then take their time strolling back to face up, all of which wastes huge amounts of time through the day.
There’s a simple solution to this issue and it’s not trying to police the Dayglo brigade. Why not bring back eight-ball overs?
Well, at least for Tests anyway?
(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Games are not only slowed down by guys coming onto the field almost at will. The change of ends also seems to take forever, but is probably somewhere between 45 seconds to a minute. If you do the maths on changing ends 89 times in a normal 90-over day, more than 4000 seconds – or over an hour of play – is lost by this simple act.
If eight-ball overs were adopted, ends would be changed only around 67 times, resulting in a time saving of 15 to 20 minutes. That means more cricket for the paying public.
There are a few other advantages. The longer the over, the more pressure a bowler can exert on a batsman. Spinners in particular would enjoy having the extra couple of deliveries each over, especially if they’re bowling to a tail-ender.
The new ball would be taken after 60 overs, which psychologically would be a huge advantage for the fast guys.
A huge win for fans at home would be less ads across a day. There would likely be a reduction in revenue, given there would only be 67 spots for another ad for KFC, rather than the usual 89. I’m guessing, though, this reduction in income would be not substantial and would be easily offset by more people watching, because they’ve got more cricket, rather than more ads.
For those fans not enamoured with inane chatter during ad breaks from commentators who have nothing to sensible to say, this also has to be a win.
It would also result in slightly more cricket being played in a normal day. Bowling 90 six-ball overs equates to 540 deliveries, while the closest to this number of complete eight-ball overs is 68, or 544 deliveries.
The final advantage should be less chance of viewers missing out on a wicket because the broadcaster is trying to squeeze in ads and is late to switch back to the game.
Cricket in Australia spent 57 wonderful seasons where eight-ball overs were the norm.
These blokes were used to eight-ball overs. (PA Images via Getty Images)
The advent of the Packer era and the resulting commercialisation of the game likely forced the change to six-ball overs worldwide.
The winners out of this change were the broadcasters and the advertisers. The losers were the fans who have been forced to watch less cricket, more ads and more guys running onto the cricket field more often, who are not part of the game.
Forty seasons later, we have two more cricket options for advertisers to parade their products: ODIs and T20s. These can be kept at six-ball overs or perhaps even changed back to the original four-ball overs, if CA and the ICC really want to chase the advertising buck, but Tests need to be eight-ball overs.
It would be great to see the respective Indian and Australian boards follow the brave example set by the NRL and seek to have the relevant cricket law changed so the upcoming series can be played with eight-ball overs. Clearly it would be a novelty for players and watchers of the game.
It would also provide more entertainment, which I’m sure we are all looking for in the current difficult times.
Brian
Guest
Wouldn't you save more time by juist not changing ends every over? Why not just change every 10 overs
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
It's been lovely debating with you Jeff. It's been respectful with both sides challenged well.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Always happy to agree to disagree Joshua. Robust and genuine discussion between opposing points of view is almost always going to result in positive outcomes overall.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
I'll have to agree to disagree with you Jeff. The game isn't perfect but 8-ball overs are just not needed in my eyes. 6-ball overs have been in place for decades and there have been problems with over rates for many years. I don't think that 8-ball overs would completely eliminate this problem. The number of balls in an over should not be the primary concern of cricket boards.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Well, there in lies the discussion point as to whether it is broke - or heading that way - or not. Some would argue that cricket is becoming less about entertainment, and more about infotainment, hijacked by commercial imperatives which aim to get eyeballs on non-cricket products at the expense of the actual cricket, with the game as the vehicle to facilitate this. International cricket is increasingly becoming bite-sized pieces of a fractionalised game. The amount of cricket played seems to be taking an increasing back seat to how many get drawn into to the marketing/infotainment side of things, when most cricket lovers know that the game itself can/should be able to hold its own. But in a tussle between maintaining the integrity of the game and commercial influence, it isn't the game that is winning the battle. Hence why subtle adjustments to Tests shouldn't be discounted out of hand.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
How about drinks only come on between overs if the batsmen scored, say, 8 runs off the over? A couple of lazy singles in an over should surely preclude the need for re-hydration every 4 minutes? The bowlers are sorted as they can continue to squirt fluids from the boundary rope between balls. At least there would be a semblance of justification for the appearance of the hi-viz on the ground during play! It’s a bit of regulatory over-policing though – but that’s where the umpires need to take back control and not be ICC Elite Panel lackies. Oh for the likes of David Shepherd and D Bird again….Who controls the ebb and flow of the game? The umpires do!
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Which circles us back to the logic of the premise of Paul's article, which is an improvement of the cricket experience by virtue of less breaks in play and therefore more actual cricket. If the rest of the world isn't interested in that premise as a core concept, so be it.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
See, a fundamental aspect in Australia - so how are you going to convince the rest of the world that it's a good idea?
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
It's not confusion for the players, it's confusion for the casual viewer who we are trying to get to watch cricket. The Hundred will cause confusion - that's one of its many negatives. Why I referenced England using 6-ball overs since 1902 is because I feel you are seeing this from an Australian-centric view. So when Jeff talks about going back to the foundations of the game, he's only right if he's talking about Australia, not other countries.
Mezz
Roar Rookie
Just make a rule that only allows these runners on to the field at designated breaks in play, such as drinks and when a wicket is taken. I totally agree that it is ridiculous the amount of times play is held up for no good reason. I don't really care about the 8 ball overs, but it would be interesting to see.
Paul
Roar Guru
I made the mistake of looking at the ICC website for 3 things; their Vision statement, their Goals and their KPIs to achieve those goals. Their vision statement expired on the 31st of December last year and has not been replaced while there are no goals or KPIs. This totally summarises what you're saying. The ICC is simply an excuse for a bunch of guys to pretend to be running an international sport. In theory they're answerable to their members, but in reality, they can't be answerable to anyone because no-one can clearly define what they actually do, let alone judge whether they're doing it well or not. There's only one polite "F" word I can think of that sums this up - farcical.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Too true, not to mention with the BCCI flexing its muscles, like refusing the DRS 'til Tendulkar retired, it's often impossible to get even bilateral support. The ICC is just like the UN, dependent on members for finance and ineffectual in 99% of operations - by design and desire.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
FTA in India.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Actually, it is FTA in India as well as subscription.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
We used 8 ball overs from the 1920s through to 1980, so absolutely it was a fundamental aspect in Australia, so yes, I can "come on here" and say that. Other countries have variously used a combination of 6 ball, 8 ball, even 4 and 5 ball overs. 6 ball overs were mandated globally in 1980 and 90 overs in a day sometime in the 1980s I recall. And how often does that 90 over target get met?
Paul
Roar Guru
We take the game forward by doing nothing? That's called management by inertia. I also fail to see how this suggestion can cause confusion. Before any game or tour, players are briefed on the local rules and this could and should be one of those. I'm also not sure what difference England using 6 ball overs has to do with discussion. It's an interesting fact, but that's about it. When the 100 starts next year, they're going to bowling 10 ball overs. I assume that too will create confusion?
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
True, watered down.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
Well CA disregarded the anti-siphoning laws by giving exclusive one-day rights to Fox Sports, trying to get around it by saying 'there's still tests on Seven'. So not all is good in the hood on that one.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
England has used 6-ball overs since 1902. The West Indies have always used 6-ball overs so have India and Sri Lanka. (This comes from my Wisden Book of Test Cricket 1877-1984). So you can't really come in and say that it's the foundation of the game we love - that's in terms of the global game. I don't like the fact that you've used the example of the number of overs being played in one-dayers because that's irrelevant to the point about the number of balls in the over. If we want to 'take the game forward' then we keep what we've got now. There's nothing wrong with 6-ball overs and like I've said elsewhere any changes have the potential to create confusion. And seeing as England have used 6-ball overs since 1902, it's not really a fundamental aspect is it?