Slow over rate?
England's over rate in the series has been abysmal. At Nagpur, England took 587 minutes to bowl 137 overs and 361 minutes for 78 overs. Given that the expected rate is 15 overs per hour, they were behind the over rate by huge margins. To bowl 137 overs, you really ought to take only just over 9 hours (137/15). 587 minutes is nearly ten hours! So England were nearly 40 minutes slow in the first innings. 78 overs should have taken just over 5 hours (78/15). They took six hours, nearly 50 minutes longer.
At Mohali, they took 460 minutes to bowl 96 overs, when you really should be bowling 96 overs in around 6 and a half hours. 460 minutes is more than seven and a half hours!
For what it is worth, all stoppages of play, including drinks breaks, bad light, rain etc. etc. are factored in while calculating the minutes of play. I can't see any reason why Flintoff and the rest of the England team should not be held accountable for slow bowling. Being a greenhorn captain is surely no excuse! Unless of course, if Madugalle has misplaced his calculator.
India have been guilty in the past on quite a few occasions of not bowling their overs on time. This series though has been a revelation. They took 430 minutes to bowl 104 overs at England in the first innings at Mohali, ten minutes behind schedule. Today, they bowled 25 overs in 1 hour 45 minutes, five minutes late. They were on the dot in the first innings at Nagpur and ten minutes behind in the second innings.
Labels: over rates
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
| I'm with the other Geoff (Boycott that is) on this matter: penalty runs are the only ways to adequately punish teams. Five an over, perhaps, or current scoring rate doubled - extra incentive for the opposition to go after the bowlers? England's over-rate is often shambolic, which is probably due to the quicks bowling in short spells, but that's no excused.
True geoff, monetary penalties will never really work. A fine of a few thousand pounds (or dollars) when you're earning so much more from your on-field and off-field activities is hardly worth worrying about. But when the skipper realizes that by bowling four overs less than his team should have, it works out to [say] 20 runs, then he will buck up! But is 20 runs in a test as crucial as it is in a one-day? Perhaps there should be different penalties for one-dayers and tests ...
By 
Jagadish (15 Mar 2006, 11:38:00 am)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment