I have never believed in the 'extending play till 7.30' philosophy in England, simply because.. well.. it never happens! Commentators on all 3 major channels (Sky, TMS, Cricinfo) always hark on that any time lost during the day for slow over rates (and rain delays too) is irrelevant as it will be 'made up' at the end of the days play, but on 90% of Test days in England, is is lucky if they stay out till the end of scheduled time, never mind the extended time - sunlight in England tends to drop below Test match standard long before 7-30, even in June/July

I certainly care about the over rate. One of the reasons that I never went to watch the West Indies in the past was the way they cheated thr spectators by bowling as few as 12 overs an hour - and the spineless authorities let them get away with it. There should be a minimum number of overs set for a day and the side that does not bowl them in time concedes 15 runs per over not bowled (after adjustments for bad weather).

Slow over rates do matter !If you prepay £60 for a 4 course meal and only get 3 because the service is too slow you wouldn't be happy even if you had enjoyed what you'd eaten. Penalty runs is the only answer, and just as the free hit/two run sanction in certain one day competitions has virtually eliminated oversteeping no-balls so penalty extras would soon ensure we get the 15 overs per our agreed by the ICC but more importantly, paid for by the fans.

Bricky's nailed it on the head - it's very rare that cricket in England can last all the hours to make up for a slow rate, and when margins are as tight as they were on Monday, that one extra over squeezed out of an hour can determine the result of a series. Of course, as has been noted it's conditional on people not exploiting it - I can't remember which match it was when England were facing about eight overs per hour and continuing to bat in pitch blackness to steal a test, but that's what it's there to stop, not nitpicking over whether it should be 89 or 90 overs in a day.

I was living in England in the mid 1970s and early 1980s . West Indies had a battery of fast bowlers, and excellent batsmen. It was a treat to watch them play. Test matches against England rarely lasted for five days . The english teams barely lasted for two sessions of play. At this time the commentators instead of praising West In ndies performance started talking about the slow over rate of west indies bowlers. The debate was irreleveant even at that time . The public was more interested in watching the good cricket. As it happens the West Indies team had an excellent group of fast bowlers.Poor over rates were a result of long run ups of the bowlers. The cricket commentators created a needless controversey which later led to over rate regulations in Test cricket. I had a distinct feeling at that time that these rules were designed to slow down the pace of the West indies bowlers because the batsmen form othger countries especially english batsmen had miserably failed against the West indies pace attack

I think there are two situations when the over rate can make a difference.

1. In a situation where you want to try and bowl an opposition out, and you are running out of time/sunshine. This is especially crucial when you are bowling to tailenders. It doesn't matter so much if you have a Wasim Akram or Muralitharan to clean up the tail in a trice, but if like England, you have a set of decent bowlers who can apply pressure and induce a crazy shot from a tailender (ala RP Singh) you will wish that you had one or two overs more to get the last one-two wickets. Precisely the situation in the first Test. It could cost England the series, given the Match situation in the Second Test.

Secondly, when a team is chasing a gettable, but not too small total in the fourth innings, a slow over rate is a dirty tactic. This is on the same level as the abominable "negative line" or "bounce over head length" tactic English captains (read Nasser Hussain) have used to stave off sure defeat. A slow over rate could be deliberately used to give the opposing batsmen less time to get to the score... and well.. it just doesn't seem cricket (for lack of a worse cliche).

In today's fast paced world, it gets really irritating to watch another 20 or 30 minutes to get to the close of the days play just because a team is taking too long to bowl its overs. Here is a suggestion to make the game faster-if a team falls short by 8 minutes (2 overs), it loses a wicket (of the last man) when it gets to bat. From then on, every 2 overs lost will result in a loss of a wicket. So, if a team takes 24 minutes extra to finish its 90 overs, then 3 batsmen in their side dont get to bat. This may be a bit harsh, but it certainly is better than docking a team of its match fees for slow over rates.
Just imagine this scenario... atleast a million people in India are wasting 30 minutes because a captain is incapable of setting his field quickly... 30 million person hours wasted and the ICC cuts 5% of match fees!!

I care. But then, unlike messrs Atherton, Hussain and Steen, I pay to watch cricket. When I've paid good money I generally prefer to see as much cricket as I'm supposed to see. Thank goodness for the likes of CMJ and Boycott - members of the media who are a bit less self-satisfied than some of their colleagues and who can see things from the viewpoint of the paying customer.

But that deliberately slowing the over-rate were merely a sin. It is a crime! In fact, it is the crime of cheating.

Perhaps the article tells us more about gamesmanship than it does sportsmanship.

I'm noticing a trend here. Take a point made at a recent Cowdrey lecture and declare it irrelevant. I especially like the bit where your companion titters half way through the lecture. Reminds me of school.

Cricket seems to require a combination of important simple rules (e.g. being out bowled), important complex rules (e.g. front foot no ball, lbw), unimportant rules (e.g. taking tea on a rain affected test match - my Dad's favorite), and conventions that become enforced (e.g. not appealing excessively, not rubbing ones arm if there is an appeal for a caught behind). You are right to note that the trend to turn convention-like rules into actual rules is not ncessarily a forward step. An old teacher opined that the best games are the ones with the simplest rules. There is some truth in that.

Trying to slow down the over rate to influence the result of a game is bad practice. However, test cricket is currently played quite positively, thanks partly to the Australian influence so I don't think so much of a problem. The weather is a much bigger problem at the moment for positive results in test matches. Excessive rule making has no place in cricket or sport in general.

There is far too much fussing over the trivial matter of over rates. Alok does bring up a fair point when he says that it can be used in a negative,unsportsmanlike manner. In response to his argument;I've seen a lot of umpires tell the bowler or the captain to, "get on with it" if they suspect the fielding side maliciously slowing things down.

Moreover,I saw no one complaining during that blissful summer of 2005 when Michael Vaughan was doing the exact same thing and winning the Ashes.Why didn't these slow-over-rate-cost-us-the -first-test theorists (ala David LLoyd) open their pie-holes then?

I went to the first and fifth days' play at Lords and whilst day 5 was simply thrilling (much due to Dhoni's hyperactive style of batting), day one was excruciatingly boring; as the ordinary cricket observer watched the fielders stumble about after each painstaking over(and maybe share a joke or two).

We West Indians always wondered about that call for better over rates in the 80's. At least some of the Tests went into 4th and 5th. days with the slowish over rates of the four quick bowlers. I remember one call for the West Indies to bowl at at rate of 17.5 overs per hour....guess at that rate, most matches would have been over in two days.

to: Brian Kunz . the west indies(in the 70's and 80's) did not have a slow over because they purposely wasted time. they had four fast bowlers off long run-ups who got results.
over rate is an issue in purposeful time wasting (the umpire's call), but otherwise it is not an issue.
go to a football game and demand 20 shots within 90 minutes...

As long as the overall entertainment for the day is not "dragged out" to ridiculous proportions I see no problem with over rates extending the day.

The implication during the West Indies reign of the Eighties was that they deliberately used slow over rates so that on the rare occasion that their quicks didn't blow you away, you didn't have enough time to force beat them. Seeing that there are batteries of quicks on accasion these days bowling at a far quicker rate than those West Indians (despite more aggressive batsmanship, which slows down over rates), I doubt that it was merely due to them having four quicks, though it may have been that they just didn't care. So, apart from diliberately timewasting to influence the result, does it really matter whether 15 or 14 oph are bowled. Apart from viewers missing the end of days play because coverage ends before play does, think of it this way - one over per hour during a 5 day test equates to about 30 overs, or a whole session. That could be the difference between an exciting finish and a bore-draw.
Sides used to average 21 overs per hour, now you don't even get that with 2 spinners operating. Why?

While I can understand that slow over rates may not be much of an issue in England's green and pleasant land in July, unfortunately Rob, a lot of the test matches in the world are played much closer to the equator. Try going to a test match in Madras in September or Brisbane in November and you'll understand why the members of the ICC aren't so keen for a day's play to be extended much beyond the 7 hour mark. I attended 3 consecutive days of last years Ashes test at the Gabba and by lunch time on the 3rd day I'd had enough. This sure wasn't because of the state of the game. After 2005 I was more than happy to watch the Aussies do their stuff. I was just exhausted. 3 days of sitting in the sun(and it wasn't even a particularly hot period)and during breaks having to stand in a line for everything from a buying pie to doing a wee was my limit. I can't even begin to imagine the toll that the heat takes on the players. The other issue is that even on the longest day of the year in December it's completely dark here in Brisbane by about 6.30 pm. No extended twilight like in London or Melbourne. Unfortunately the same rules of cricket have got to be able to be fairly applied wherever test matches are played. The other issue that you haven't considered Rob is that the average cricket spectator is no longer a bespectacled gentleman from one of the counties who is more than happy to sip tea and view cricket at a stately and steady pace. Today's cricket lover has been born and raised on a diet of 1 day and now 1/2 day games (20-20). Despite the phenomenon of modern "attacking" test cricket (really just a welcome revival of dying artform) there are still plenty of empty seats at many test matches, especially on the subcontinent. The fans however will flock to the one-day game at the same venue a few days later. It matters not how much we pine for the "good old days" Test cricket is simply dead in the water without fans and those fans have a right to expect more than 12 or 13 overs an hour. While there will always be plenty of situations in which a captain is going to, for tactical reasons, push the limits by allowing his bowlers to trundle away at a leisurely pace I also think that 90 overs in a day (within not much more than 7 hours) is an entitlement that the paying public have a right to expect.

West Indies were too good for their own good and the white man had to put a stop to it - pure and simple. If you disagree with me ask yourself this question; Would the powers that be (back in the 80's) have changed the rules if the fast and dangerous bowlers were...say English? I rest my case.

I think we need to lower it slightly to make it more realistic, taking into account the time bowlers and their captains need to set fields, injuries, etc.

I think a minimum standard is needed to ensure that no team takes to slowing down a game to serve their purposes. Other that, I couldn't care less.

to over rate fans: the mininmum over rates rule is afairly recent invention and a completely arbitrary invention at that. It was as far as I can tell an anti-fast bowler rule because of the dominance of the West Indies bowlers along with the one bouncer rule etc. Who decided on 15 overs. Why not 20? Deliberate slow over rates is bad, but to watch a team bowl ordinary spinners to make up over rate is worse. Who really gets cheated,seeing rob steens example of 320 runs etc in 80 overs or seeeing 120 runs in 100 overs. I know which crowd I'd rather be in What about you Brian kunz?

In the first Ashes Test in 1934, there were almost 490 overs bowled in four days. Lots of them were by spinners, but even so, it shows that it's not impossible to have over rates much higher than what they are today (and have been for the past few decades). What would I complain about if I saw 320 runs in a day of 80 overs? That I didn't see 360 in 90, or 400 in 100 (though this is unrealistic).

"Did anyone really give a damn, he whispered angrily, about over-rates?"

I can answer, yes many do. i have watched test cricket in eight countries, and in the pavilions and stands with the average paying punter, slow over rates is a constant and consistent source of frustration for all.

A lot of good points from both sides of the argument.

The people who complained about the West Indies' slow over rates in the 70s and 80s were probably the same people who said that the West Indies' over rates were too fast when Ramadhin and Valentine were bowling 21 or 22 overs per hour against England in 1950.

I believe it was Hutton who started the "deliberate" slowing down of the over rate in the Caribbean in 1953/54.

You can't have it both ways. Either it matters or it does not. If 15 overs per hour is good enough on Day 1 then it is good enough for Day 5, the possibility of a result not making one bit of difference.

It's in the one-dayers I get more annoyed. 3.5 hours for 50 overs. Has been for 30-years, and we still get so many teams going over time. Do they ever get docked overs? Almost never - goes to match fees instead. Why? So the public get 50 more overs. But not in a test match ...

I think this is another example of an important issue that is being trivialised and having former captains like Nasser and Gavaskar in the commentator"s box justifying this apalling trend is ridiculous.I think cricketers should also remember that in addition to winning they must also entertain.And being entertaining is not dawdling deliberately or otherwise on the cricket field.The penalties need to be more stringent.Teams like India and I say it because I have watched more of Indian cricket and rarely do they stretch themselves to bowl the overs on time, even though they have a fair complement of spinners unlike the West Indian team of the eighties.

You are kidding! If any side can't get 90 overs in in the 6 and a half hours they are now allowed, the captain should be suspended. Nothing was more unedifying than both Justin Langer, the batsman, and Kevin Pieterson, the bowler, trying to waste time so that there was not another over in the day(when there should have been about 5 more) in the first Test at the Gabba. how much slower does it have to get before you draw a line? I would have thought 15 overs an hour would have been a good place, and giving an extra half an hour is quite generous.

i agree that in test cricket today whcih is action packed over rates really arent what the viewers are looking at all the time. But what if these slow over rates change the reslut of the game by reducing playing time. like david loydd said yesterday, if england had bowled their overs a bit quicker at lords they may have just had time to bowl india out before the weather played it s role. the best solution would be to punish the captains if they were slowing the down over rate on purpose like in the case of colin cowdry as you mentioned.otherwise as long as around 14 overs are bowled every hour too much should not be made out of it.

i agree that in test cricket today whcih is action packed over rates really arent what the viewers are looking at all the time. But what if these slow over rates change the reslut of the game by reducing playing time. like david loydd said yesterday, if england had bowled their overs a bit quicker at lords they may have just had time to bowl india out before the weather played it s role. the best solution would be to punish the captains if they were slowing the down over rate on purpose like in the case of colin cowdry as you mentioned.otherwise as long as around 14 overs are bowled every hour too much should not be made out of it.

The appropriate title for an article on this subject would be, "The most under-rated sin", as no-one with power in the game seems to give a damn about giving the paying customer what he has paid for. Slow over-rates are one of the two main reasons why I no longer attend test cricket, and they are a cause of the other reason - yobbish chanting crowds and their booing of those of us who will not join the Mexican wave.

Cricket has gone down the wrong road. It allows tests to be intolerably slow and drawn out, with the slow over-rates, combined with the run for the pavilion whenever a cloud passes by, showing conclusively that the players and the establishment don't give a damn about providing good entertainment for the true cricket follower - ie. lots of deliveries delivered in a pleasant atmosphere. Instead they are treating that audience with scorn and turning themselves into yet another sport for yahoos. I an 34 and cricket has been by far my favourite sport for most of my life, but increasingly I prefer to watch golf.

if the over-rate is not cared about then what's the point of stipulating the number of overs to be bowled in a day. right from players to the officials nobody seem to care much about the over-rate. extending a day's play by 30 mins incase the required overs are not bowled is a good idea though. officials have to make sure players don't waste time unneccessarily. apart from this i think test cricket is fine.

I have a copy of the Daily Mirror from the 1950s, with a report on the first day of an England/ India test. India bowled 146 overs ! and people now have to be satisfied with 90 (when they get it). Slow over rates DO matter !

15 overs per hour should remain as a target but perhaps someone should document the likely reasons for not achieving this? For example, the West Indies of old only ever had 'Fast' Bowlers and India of old only tended to have 'Spin' Bowlers. I would imagine that a team containing mainly Spinners would naturally achieve a higher bowling rate than a team predominantly containing Seam and Swing Bowlers.
Also, what adjustment is 'allowed' when a wicket falls? Surely the batting team could cause more than the expected delay if their Batsman hung around 'disputing' the decision or the incoming Batsman took their time arriving at the crease?
There must surely be many other instances of the Batting team 'slowing' the over rate too?

I see lot of people commenting about WI slow over-rate and number of days test lasted. Well, if a fast bowler can afford to bowl with slow over-rate isn't that giving him unfair advantage over the batsman. It is less taxing on the bowler physically to complete an over and for a batsman it is that much longer to concentrate. May be that is also a contributing factor for the success of WI bowlers in 1980s.

So, it is a good idea to always have some standard on overrate to keep it balanced between bat and ball.

It is with regret that I read your point of view Rob, as the "go-slow" is a terrible blight on a beautiful game. The ICC has ruled that defensive bowling (ie Ashley Giles-style leg side bowling) is not to be tolerated - as wides are now called if the umpires believe it is a ploy - but has done NOTHING to really change the over-rate facet of the game. Perhaps the the breaks will not be taken until the 30 overs per session are taken? Fielders would get to their positions quick-smart and Bowlers would not "fluff around". Additionally batsmen would not incessantly call for the dressing room for bats/gloves/water etc...a la Sachin in the 1st innings.
Where you state, "If you went to a day’s play in a Test that featured 320 runs, eight wickets and a couple of dazzling catches, would it bother you that “only” 80 overs were served up for your delectation?" Yes -whole heartedly. I'd like to have known what the other 10 overs would have brought me, since I paid for 90 overs worth of play!

Usman malik misses the point in his reference to the great West Indies fast bowlers. It was the slow over rate that allowed them to play four fast bowlers. It enabled the bowlers to recover between spells, something more problematic if trying to bowl 14 or 15 overs per hour. The extension of time to enable the overs to be bowled often becomes farcical as the light prevents play continuing. Not good public relations with the paying customer. As is sadly the case in most cricket issues weak administration has allowed the problke to fester over decades. Rather than penalties that could affect the game and be subjectively applied my suggestion is to apply a minimum number of overs per session. Ninety overs per day is stipulated for test cricket so make thirty per session a condition of play with the session extending if required and a reduction in the time of the scheduled break. I am sure that players would be compliant rather give up part of the lunch or tea break and the spectator would get better value

Whilst we shouldn't make a mountain out of a molehill, I think there is a case for prescribing 30 overs per session. Breaks would only be taken once those overs were bowled, making allowance for legitimate interruptions.

There should also be some common sense in the use of drinks breaks. A hot cup of tea would have been more appropriate during some matches in England this year. Umpires should also crack down on players coming and going during play without their permission. All this would save time.

I don't think that introducing penalty runs for overs not completed would work, it would just skew the game. Better instead to keep the players on the field, whilst their lunch break dwindles. The lure of steak and kidney pie can do wonders to focus the mind...

Its simple - the solution is as follows:

The team with the lowest run rate below the agreed limit (say 15 overs/hour) forfeits its right to appeal against the light; have a runner; have a substitute fielder etc. That way the team with an unacceptably low over rate immediately puts itself at a disadvantage.

Imran Khan reaches his bowling mark, starts running in , Don Bradman on strike needing just 4 runs to average 100 in his last test.

The ball pitches , HE'S OUT. BRADMAN OUT!!!!

Well, what a turn up. Only 5 balls remaining in this tight 5 day clash.

Though much exitement is in the air many spectators are unhappy. A measly 80 over's have been bowled so far on a perfect day when 90 over's could have been bowled.

Many spectators saying "i'd rather go see Zimbabwe play Bangladesh or even Kenya vs Holland ."

5 ball's left , 4 runs to win, 1 wicket left".

Umm yeah, it's all about over's per dollar spent.

The more overs per day the better.

It's like the job market in Australia. We in Australia have 1,000's of Sevice Industy jobs going to India every year because the Indian's do a similiar job for less cash.

What i say above does relate to cricket.

Why not just give the trophy to the country that bowls the most overs in a day?

More overs per day=best value for money, I think not.

Cheers.

I have to agree with the latter comments about over rates. 'Modern' cricketers are supposedly top-class athletes and as such are in far better shape to deliver the minimum required overs than their predecessors. They should be forced to stay out until the 90 overs are delivered for each session. Pretending that slow rates only hypothetically affect a match is only encouraging the slowing of the rate as each ball which is not bowled cannot take a wicket or score runs so MUST affect the match position. If a team goes into the last day knowing that the opposition is only likely to deliver 70 overs and they need 280 to win then if they cannot get the rate over 4 an over they would go into match saving mode. If it was guaranteed that they would get their 90 overs then the RRR comes down to a little over 3 per over which is much more achievable without needing to take risks. How many teams would be able to achieve the 90 overs per day if they were 400 runs ahead going into the last day?

Response to porshatom:

Imran will be next to bowl, Bradman on strike, needing 4 runs to average 100 in his final test, but no, the umpires have called time!

That's it, game over. Why? We have only had 89 overs today. But the umpires have declared that the overs are no longer an issue. The paying public have forced the ICC to change the rules to ensure that over rates don't factor in anymore, and we have reached the end of the allotted time.

So that's it, we can only speculate about what kind of history we've been denied here, but the game has petered out to an anti-climax.

More overs per day does not always equal value for money, true, but if the best value is painted in a last over scenario, always remember that this last over could be denied to us if a team is able to bowl a slower over-rate beforehand.

Well, would you rather see a good film , or a long film ? A 4-3 thriller in 90 minutes or a 0-0 draw after extra time ? A fine half bottle of Chateau Lafite or a magnum of plonk ? I could go on..
The bizarre changes in climate in England seems to produce fine and clear weather later in the day than earlier in the day , as noticed by Warney recently , and as mentioned have you ever tried to get on the Jubilee Line at St Johns Wood at 6.00pm on a weekday !
So long as the mechanism exists to extend play to take up the slack then supporters ought to embrace the 4 run an over culture as encouraged by Steve Waugh and cast their mind back to the days of 90 overs of watching Boycott and Brearley limp to 220 in a days play where you would be begging for bad light to bring an early end to the days play !

I can only assume, Mr Steen, that you do not have to pay to get in to a test match!

Having paid a small fortune in order to get into the ground, I want to see as much cricket as possible. Players should not take lunch until 30 overs have been bowled; tea after 60. I wonder whether they would manage 15 overs an hour then?

Teams would be able to achieve the 30 overs per session (especially on day one) if batsmen were prevented from asking for water. Glove/bat replacements may be necessary, but unofficial drink breaks should be stopped. These affect the fielding team's over rate. They get regular drinks breaks after each hour anyway...

I think many people miss the point. The point being: there is no point. Its all speculation. Basically we have two schools of thought: 1- That it doesnt matter if we have 30 overs in a day, as long as they were exciting. 2- That the more overs we have the more action we get. In the end people, we will never know. And remember that this sport, like any others, is about winning. There is only one problem in test cricket(and I love test cricket) and that is that you can draw a test. As long as you can draw a test, and the more expectation that mounts on cricketers, the more dirty tactics we'll get. Imagine if test cricket only had two results, win and lose. Team A would do everything possible to win, Team B would do anything to win. More overs to take wickets, more overs to make runs. But in the end it's all a viscious cycle, it happens in every sport. So people, get off your high horses. This is more than a game, its a lively hood, a religion, a life. Take away slow over rates, and the players will find another method of playing dirty. Maybe im just pessimistic.