Easy way to solve the problem. At the end of each session and the scheduled close of play the Match Referee and 4th umpire allocate responsibility for how far behind the required number of overs (30 per session without weather interruption) play is. If the bowling side is responsible for a three over shortfall, the first three overs of the next session are 'free' overs to the batting side, with same rules to the free hit in place for one day internationals. If the side responsible for the shortfall is the batting side, they are essentially 'free' overs to the bowling and fielding side ie the batting side cannot score any runs for the same number of overs. This would be on top of any scale of match fees and suspension the Match Referee has it in his power to impose.

It sounds ridiculously artificial and contrived but a side would not bowl 25 overs in a session if they knew it meant the first 5 overs of the next session would be free runs for the opposition!

When I first started watching Test cricket in the 1950s (yes, that makes me 60+) I expected to see 20 overs an hour and 120 in the day. When spinners bowled maidens in tandem you could get 25 or more in an hour. An obituary of the great Alf Valentine said that he bowled a Test maiden in less than 90 seconds. Of course those sorts of over rates would be bad for commercial breaks on TV, and it is TV that drives the modern game.

David Morrison's Free overs suggestion is very interesting, and certainly worth a try. But what if the team falls behind in bowling the free overs? (This is very likely because captains will take even more time during the free overs, especially if aggressive batsmen like Sehwag or Flintoff are batting)

Another reason why captions and teams go with lighter fines are extra minutes added for wickets and drinks breaks in calculating over-rates. I have heard on commentary, that 2 minutes are added for every wicket and 4 minutes for drinks break. That essentailly means, in a day with 10 wickets, they would get about 32 minutes extra for bowling their overs (20 for wickets, 12 for 3 drinks breaks). This essentially takes the whole of extra half an hour. And we have 6 1/2 hour day. Add time for 3rd umpire referrals, 'unofficial drinks break' and batsmen, fielder changing equipments, fielding sides rarely gets punished.

And hence captians are not punished heavily, as they are let of with monetary fines only, since only 2 offences of 5 overs not bowled leads to ban of caption.

If nothing else, calculation for over-rate can be tighter with stricter definition of law and punishment.

contd ...

Contd...

Another point that I wanted to ask was whether 'heat and humidity' should be a factor in calculating the over-rate. If yes, how can it be reasonably applies. Also, are there any other factors considered while calculating the over-rate.

Yeah I agree with richard.
I think players tend to be wasting 6-8 overs thats hell lot of an air time.

If the fielding team aren't bowling their allotted overs, the batting team should get extra runs for the overs they should've faced (i.e. the "lost" overs), without taking the number of wickets lost into consideration. For example, if a team scores 255 in a day's play with only 85 overs bowled (run rate = 3.00), they should be given an extra 15 runs which, on average, they would've gotten had they faced the 5 overs that should've been bowled to them on the first place. These should count as penalty runs against the bowling side, and should also reward quick run-scoring (which is more exciting Test cricket to many) if the fielding team should fail to meet their over quota.

I think over rates are an overrated problem (sorry about that). The blame for the Mohali test is surely to be placed at the authorities for scheduling it there in spite of knowing that Mohali, as well as other test centers in North India, would be severely affected by fog and short days. Surely other centers, like Bangalore, Hyderabad or Kolkatta could have been employed.

Another point is how people say that the last Mohali test kills test cricket when there is no mention of the Ind/Aus Nagpur test. Ponting's "tactics" to speed up the overrate did more to kill off test cricket by robbing an absorbing contest. I think the spirit of any sport is that all teams would strive to win (or draw if that is not possible) at all times. When a team like Australia does not do it when there was a distinct possibility, it does a lot of harm.

Disclaimer: This comes from an Indian supporter. Even to me it was plain obvious that the tactics resulted in India escaping making the result frivolous.

Simple way to get over rates up. At the end of the days play for every over the bowling team are behind the over rate fine them 10 penalty runs per over. These penalty runs to be added to the batting sides score, That would increase over rates dramatically.

This is regular problem now with all teams, so it has to do with the lot many things. Batting has improved and ball reaches boundry far tom many times. There are awful less maidens in test these days compared to when it was invented or say in 50s, 60s.. 90 over a day is asking bit more. I this its time it goes down a bit in number of overs, but then I agree with the fine systemm monetory fine are useless. Ban captains from matches is best way...Overall Good writup MIke..

Perhaps 90 overs is too many? Reducing it to something more manageable like say 84 overs would be a good idea.

It seems you all would have captains in an untenable position these days! It's clear that there are fewer dot balls and more boundaries in modern play, requiring longer overs. However, if a captain (fearing a fine or suspension) plays spinners in a holding role he is accused of unsportsmanly behaviour or not playing within the spirit of the game. We must all accept that it longer in the modern game to play through 90 overs, with drinks breaks, intervals, fewer maidens and field changes than it has done in previous years. The solution? Instead of sacrificing the spirit of the game with penalty runs or suspension of the captain, perhaps it is time to accept that 6 hours a day is not enough time to play a test, and play needs to start earlier.

There was a time when 20 overs per hour was the norm and I am told that when the Don scored over 300 runs in a day at Leeds, England were bowling at an average of 23 per hour.
While the number of overs has progressively decreased, the money we pay to watch has increased, overall therefore, the cricket watching public are paying more to watch less! And then we moan that less people are watching Test Cricket.

Don't tell me that the pre-war cricketers were fitter than the current genertion.

The solution, raise the penalty for low over rates. It should be 5 percent for every over below the quota. Hit them where it hurts - just like the free hit has reduced the number of no-balls in ODIs

This business of slow over-rates is just bunk. It is a solution waiting for a problem. This whole idea about overs per hour was just developed at a time when West Indies with their four fast bowlers dominate the world. This was just a ploy to blunt them because the powers that be (Australia and England) could not compete with them. What is all the fuss about? How many test matches these days are ending in predictable draws like when was a boy In the 1970's? Not many. So if we were getting the establishe 90 overs per day most Test matches would end in three days. People would still miss two days of cricket and the various boards would cry foul. Let the game remain,let the captains, captain by whatever he wants to do on the field. This is one of the charms of the beautiful game. Too much reliance on computers, team meetings and off field stuff. Let the game be played on the field. Too much tampering with the game. It seems some people get their kicks from messing with the game. Just coo

Firstly, for John S and Andrew, see law 42 parts 9 and 10. Essentially, if their is time wasting by either side then 5 penalty runs are awarded to the opposition. What is the point in having this law if it's never used?

Personally I would take a less match changing approach. How about allotting time for each delivery, accounting for drinks breaks and likely wickets, and put a count down on the big screen that's present at most matches. During the allotted time it counts down in green but as the time runs out it turns red. You may even be able to get the fans to get a slow hand clap going. By putting the responsibility on individual balls you'll see exactly where the problem lies, be it Ricky spending five minutes moving fine leg slightly squarer or Nasser stepping away from the crease because a fly flew across the sight screen.

Have to agree with Atul, there's a lot said about the slower over rates, but comparing to the times when spinners would bowl maidens in tandem isn't helpful, as that simply doesn't happen any more. The average run rate for test teams has gone up by more than 1 run per over in the last 30 years, which in 90 overs 90 or more runs. Boundaries add a lot to the time it takes to bowl an over, and even normal runs add a lot more than a dot ball. If each additional run adds 10 seconds, then 90 runs is 900 seconds. 15 minutes. Add to this the drinks breaks that didn't used to happen, and you easily make up for the shortfall in modern test cricket. I regularly go to test matches, and would much rather see both teams playing as well as possible rather than a few extra overs at the expense of performance.

It was interesting attending day 2 of the Boxing Day test in Melbourne. There are delays caused by both the batting and bowling teams. Players seeking new gloves twice in an hour including the over before the drinks break (Michael Clarke), players not keeping their eye on the captain between balls for field changes (Michael Hussey), throwing the ball back to the keeper most balls (most of the Australian team), drinks coming onto the field every time there was a wicket.
At least we didn't have a sightscreen malfunction (for once). Just keep them white all day.
Imagine how few overs would be bowled if the players didn't jog between overs.

Equal division of 90 into 30 over session for regulating overrate would kill cricket with no tactics to employ. Another solution could be
Min 20 at session 1 end, min 50 at session 2 end and 90 (85 is could do lot of good to cricket) at session 3 end. Add runs to batting team for each session 1 and 2 in next session and bans fine if its end of the inning / gmae or whatevver...

Ciricket was a simple game making it complicated will be bad idea I simply think making it 85 over game a day would do a great deal of things.

Mohali was blumder schedule. Add to it decision of not using lights, Lunch break not flexile at all. well when you see that fog is foggoing almost till hour befoire lunch, have anounce ment of 2 session play with no lunch, player coul dhave had lunch before they start.

I wholeheartedly agree that over rates should be monitored closely and enforced. How? I am not sure. Though I see some good suggestions have been made and each should be trialed and refined with practice to come up with something that works. I am sure it will not be perfect but it will be better than nothing (like Duckworth-Lewis ;o).
As an avid west indian supporter it makes me smile to see this problem is a global one many years after WI cricket was heavily criticised for slow over rates at the height of their dominance...check teh over rates and you will see they were still generally over 15 overs per hour! People complained because it was less than 20!

Wow, some really interesting suggestions. Really got me musing on the various options. Thanks everyone for the sensible words and the lateral thinking.
Re the Mohali Test, I'm not denying the fog, bad weather etc. I was just keen to see India win another Test and I was surprised to see them take such a conservative approach. There's no way England could have chased that total against the quality Indian attack.
Back to the over-rates issue though, I still think the cricketers need to take more responsibility themselves. Even the batsmen spend far too much time stretching, squatting, patting down pitch, asking for gloves, drinks etc. The time wasted by all players is at odds with their so-called "super fit" status as elite athletes. Mind boggling to think that when Australia chased 400+ at The Oval (Bradman's era), England bowled 120 overs AFTER batting a bit themselves on the last day. Even allowing for modern interruptions, that says something!

I'm appalled that some people are suggesting that 90 overs is too many. The original article spells out how much time is wasted. When the minimum was introduced it was 96, and the plan was to increase it to 108, but instead it was cut to 90. If it is cut to 84, the number actually bowled will fall even further. The problem is that cricketers have no respect for the people who pay their wages, and cannot be bothered to make an effort to entertain them. It is the same with so-called "bad light", which they use to go off the field at every opportunity. I detest Twenty20, but I'm at the end of my tether with test cricket as well. The authorities never do anything to make it better entertainment. We should get 108 overs a day, and if a team fails to deliver that the captain should be banned for the next match. For a second offence he should be banned from all international cricket for a year.

A few more stats for readers. The most overs in a Test day was 162 at Lord's in 1946 (6.5 hours). If you think that fast scoring makes high over rates impossible, consider that when 588 runs were scored in a day at Manchester 1936, there were still 140 overs in 6.5 hours. When Don Bradman scored 309 in a day, he faced 153 balls in 2 hours in the pre-lunch session alone!
One thing I have noticed is that modern pace bowlers usually run most of the length of the pitch in their follow-through, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate the batsman, and pause to glare before turning to walk back. If this adds just five seconds to each ball, this alone can add up to 45 minutes per day.
One suggestion - eliminate scheduled drinks breaks. Today's supposedly super-athlete players routinely stop for a drink whenever they feel like it, so why do they need an organised break. On second thoughts, the TV broadcasters would hate that: fewer ads.