Cricket Thread

[MillionMilesAway]

Allocate the batting team 36 runs for every over under the allocated rate, they would soon get their arses into gear.

Ha, might be a bit harsh!

 

[domalino]

They should bring in the duckworth and Lewis rules for test match cricket

D/L relies on there being a fixed number of target overs, so you can't adjust it for test cricket.

If it could be done I think it would have been.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I don't know why the over rate is now allowed to drop so far. Allowances are one thing, but there seems to be no will to do anything about it. There will always be some delays with reviews, head hits, etc, but that should be fairly obvious rather than reviewed after the match and without much public notice.

Subs I have some problems with as they have been abused by quite a lot of sides, hence the limitations now. Flintoff used to bowl 5 overs and then go off for a 20 minute massage - an absolutely deliberate abuse of the rules.

I do agree that the players won't be able to keep up longer days - just make it 90 overs again, by 6.30 in England.

Yes I think that's why permanent subs might help as they're managing (mainly fast bowlers) to last 5 days. I'd stipulate that the fielding sub can only play for ten minutes or 12 deliveries (enough time for a dump), then either use a sub or play with a man down. Can play as long as they want with ten men but stick with the rule that they can't bowl for a certain time after they come back on.

 

[waspish]

D/L relies on there being a fixed number of target overs, so you can't adjust it for test cricket.

If it could be done I think it would have been.

There is a supposed fix 90 overs a day if you get each team playing a full innings am sure something could be invented?!

Don’t forget it there was something else before the Duckford and Lewis method was brought in!

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

There is a supposed fix 90 overs a day if you get each team playing a full innings am sure something could be invented?!

Don’t forget it there was something else before the Duckford and Lewis method was brought in!

I still don't rate Duckworth Lewis Stern. I would change all limited overs games to two innings per team of 5 wickets and half the overs (batters don't bat twice if out though). Put the powerplays at the start of the second innings. Whoever is ahead after the first innings wins if the game doesn't complete, if the first innings can't be completed it's a draw, if you're behind after the first innings you can choose to carry on batting. The tactics needed would be fascinating and would iron out the benefits of chasing in certain conditions.

Don't know why things have to be so complicated with DLS.

 

[waspish]

I still don't rate Duckworth Lewis Stern. I would change all limited overs games to two innings per team of 5 wickets and half the overs (batters don't bat twice if out though). Put the powerplays at the start of the second innings. Whoever is ahead after the first innings wins if the game doesn't complete, if the first innings can't be completed it's a draw, if you're behind after the first innings you can choose to carry on batting. The tactics needed would be fascinating and would iron out the benefits of chasing in certain conditions.

Don't know why things have to be so complicated with DLS.

A new method would have to be thought up because you have to take into consideration the new ball the pitch if you win the toss if it’s sunny or cloudy these are all advances and disadvantages of test match cricket! Test match cricket need to start thinking out the box now that one day game has changed unrecognisable in the last 10/20 years! Test match cricket has hardly changed since it became a sport!

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

A new method would have to be thought up because you have to take into consideration the new ball the pitch if you win the toss if it’s sunny or cloudy these are all advances and disadvantages of test match cricket! Test match cricket need to start thinking out the box now that one day game has changed unrecognisable in the last 10/20 years! Test match cricket has hardly changed since it became a sport!

I don't think test cricket has to change too much. The batsmen have got more powerful but the bowlers need a hand in levelling up. Perhaps bring the new ball in at 60 overs AND allow them to use the old ball for spinners? That would give the batters something to think about.

 

[Craig]

I agree - an end to the heroic survival would be bad for the game. I'm thinking of that match at Cardiff late in the evening sun - Anderson and Panesar.
The England captain (Strauss, Wisden tells me) tried wasting time by sending some gloves out and the England batsmen told the carrier to clear off, they were fine as they were.

Yeah, i agree about that but wouldn’t be against a reserve day when a day or 2 has been wiped out due to rain. Can’t see that happening though but not getting the overs in on good days definitely needs sorting. Fans are paying a lot of money and never seeing 90 overs.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yeah, i agree about that but wouldn’t be against a reserve day when a day or 2 has been wiped out due to rain. Can’t see that happening though but not getting the overs in on good days definitely needs sorting. Fans are paying a lot of money and never seeing 90 overs.

each circumstance would be different - it was just an example of a draw.
I assume it did rain for some of it though as under 400 overs were played (according to cricinfo.

A counterargument would be the need to get contracts for staff and security for another day.

 

[melrose40yarder]

They have to do something about the over rate as fining them a percentage of the match fee is not working.I like 20 penalty runs an over.

 

[supercity88]

There is a supposed fix 90 overs a day if you get each team playing a full innings am sure something could be invented?!

Don’t forget it there was something else before the Duckford and Lewis method was brought in!

But the innings only ends when you are all out or declare. It's not based on the number of overs like ODI or T20, so you couldn't calculate a score. You can't say "well they scored 300 in 90 overs so the target is X" because that's not how test matches work.

What they could do is start earlier and play later when the weather allows. They're not bowling the overs that are scheduled for the day, but could do if they started at 10.30 and played until 7pm. With rain delays they could get out a lot quicker too. An inspection is announced about 30mins after it's stopped raining and then the re-start another 30mins after that. Yes the ground staff have to soak up the water, but just get the fuck out there and start playing!

 

[supercity88]

I still don't rate Duckworth Lewis Stern. I would change all limited overs games to two innings per team of 5 wickets and half the overs (batters don't bat twice if out though). Put the powerplays at the start of the second innings. Whoever is ahead after the first innings wins if the game doesn't complete, if the first innings can't be completed it's a draw, if you're behind after the first innings you can choose to carry on batting. The tactics needed would be fascinating and would iron out the benefits of chasing in certain conditions.

Don't know why things have to be so complicated with DLS.

That doesn't sound any less complicated, but it does sound fun! DLS is generally okay, it's all based on statistics so fairly accurate. I often think the value of resources is a bit stretched though. You can often lose 2-3 quick wickets when trying to accelerate scoring but it's assumed that you would score more if you knew you had a reduced innings. With all the stats about these days they could probably get a statistical base for it from each ground to make it more accurate.

 

[waspish]

But the innings only ends when you are all out or declare. It's not based on the number of overs like ODI or T20, so you couldn't calculate a score. You can't say "well they scored 300 in 90 overs so the target is X" because that's not how test matches work.

What they could do is start earlier and play later when the weather allows. They're not bowling the overs that are scheduled for the day, but could do if they started at 10.30 and played until 7pm. With rain delays they could get out a lot quicker too. An inspection is announced about 30mins after it's stopped raining and then the re-start another 30mins after that. Yes the ground staff have to soak up the water, but just get the fuck out there and start playing!

It can be done and worked out! Everyone were saying if it wasn’t for the rain England would of won! so why would England would of won? They look at the bowlers the pitch the overs left the wickets left! So that there is a deduction on an outcome!

 

[supercity88]

It can be done and worked out! Everyone were saying if it wasn’t for the rain England would of won! so why would England would of won? They look at the bowlers the pitch the overs left the wickets left! So that there is a deduction on an outcome!

It can't be! You can't take a general feeling or assumption and then apply it as fact. It's a fairly safe assumption that England would have won the test if a day and a half weren't lost to rain. The Aussies were 60 behind with 5 wickets remaining. Chances are they'd have been out with a lead of 50-100 and we'd have chased it down. But anything could have happened. They might have dug in and batted it out. Or built a lead of 200 and bowled us out. Who knows! You can't predict it.

Headingley 2009. England needed 358 to win. We were 245-5 and then 286-9. Everyone was saying Australia were going to win!!! But somehow, through a magical spell of batting by Leach and the odd swing from Stokes we managed it!

 

[Corky]

Jersey 68/9 off 17 v Ireland in the T20 CWC Qualifier. Worst display I have seen from the Beans.

Ireland on the way for a decider v Scotland.

 

[waspish]

It can't be! You can't take a general feeling or assumption and then apply it as fact. It's a fairly safe assumption that England would have won the test if a day and a half weren't lost to rain. The Aussies were 60 behind with 5 wickets remaining. Chances are they'd have been out with a lead of 50-100 and we'd have chased it down. But anything could have happened. They might have dug in and batted it out. Or built a lead of 200 and bowled us out. Who knows! You can't predict it.

Headingley 2009. England needed 358 to win. We were 245-5 and then 286-9. Everyone was saying Australia were going to win!!! But somehow, through a magical spell of batting by Leach and the odd swing from Stokes we managed it!

Yep new that would crop up and I was going to mention this game but that’s rare that a miracle like that happens it might happen again! But a rain off game using a new duckworth and Lewis method would be very occasionally! Test match cricket need to change! England are the first test
Team ever who is trying to change it on the field!

 

[Corky]

Yep new that would crop up and I was going to mention this game but that’s rare that a miracle like that happens it might happen again! But a rain off game using a new duckworth and Lewis method would be very occasionally! Test match cricket need to change! England are the first test
Team ever who is trying to change it on the field!

Australia were seriously upping the runs per over rate 20/25 years ago to force results. They changed the game.

DLS is impossible for tests, but if it wasn't you would have to use it every time there was a draw on not just when it suits.

 

[supercity88]

Yep new that would crop up and I was going to mention this game but that’s rare that a miracle like that happens it might happen again! But a rain off game using a new duckworth and Lewis method would be very occasionally! Test match cricket need to change! England are the first test
Team ever who is trying to change it on the field!

It is rare, but the Ashes tends to bring the most unpredictable moments. Monty and Jimmy surviving 69 balls at Cardiff. 2005 where it looked like Simon Jones had dropped the Ashes only to somehow turn it around. The ebb and flow and back and forth of this series even where Cummins managed to swing Australia to the win when it looked like we had them beaten. it's the nature of test cricket and because you don't have a fixed number of overs you just can't calculate a score. That's not the way to go. In this day and age where weather can be forecast more accurately, even if it is unpredictable, you could certainly attempt to play more cricket on the days where the weather is better.

Most people expected a test to be lost to weather. The pre-series predictions were largely based on 4 results. I think it's a shame that the team that won the ashes previously retains them if it draws. It should be shared unless there is a winner of the series. It feels a bit odd to have lost the ashes again when we were dominating and with a test to play, but ultimately poor fielding has cost us. We should have been rueing the weather spoiling our chance to go 4-0 up!

 

[Charlesfarsbar]

The series shouldn’t have come down to the weather, England made some poor decisions to hand the Aussies a 2-0 lead when they were well placed in both games

The bravado of declaring when we hadn’t even made 400 at Edgebaston, an extra 20 or 30 could have made the difference

Again at Lords , we were 180 odd for 1 and we started to chuck wickets away with stupid pull shots falling for the oldest trick in the book

Bairstow being brainless and the Aussies up to their usual underhand tricks in the second dig at Lords

Multiple missed catches and stumpings in the first two tests


we can’t let them win the last test and take the series , only crumb of comfort is not being beat at home by these cnuts in over 20 years

 

[waspish]

Australia were seriously upping the runs per over rate 20/25 years ago to force results. They changed the game.

DLS is impossible for tests, but if it wasn't you would have to use it every time there was a draw on not just when it suits.

Upped it to 3/3.5 and dlc isn’t impossible there will be a method for test match cricket if someone with more mathematical intellect than me!